An expert opines on Moore v. Harper: Maybe it will backfire against the GOP?

I have repeatedly warned that the pending Moore v. Harper case pending in the Supreme Court is likely going to be a probably lethal blow to elections and American democracy. One expert has an interesting analysis worth considering. A WaPo analysis and opinion by Sam Wang (Professor of Neuroscience, Princeton University, director of the Electoral Innovation Lab) comments:

On Dec. 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Harper, a case that could upend how states oversee federal elections and open the door to increased congressional gerrymandering. The central issue is a radical theory favored by a faction of legal thinkers on the right. But if they looked at the math, they would see that a win would likely backfire on Republicans.

Petitioner Timothy Moore is speaker of the GOP-controlled General Assembly in North Carolina, where earlier this year the state Supreme Court overturned the legislature’s redistricting plans as “unlawful partisan gerrymanders.” Appealing that ruling, Moore and fellow legislators cite what has become known as the independent state legislature doctrine, or ISL — a theory based on the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says, in part, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” This sentence has long been understood to mean that the legislature passes state election laws, but — like other laws — they must be consistent with state constitutions and can be overturned by court review or a governor’s veto. ISL proponents read it as giving sole authority to the legislature, removing one or more of the usual checks on runaway legislative power.

But if the Republicans win in the U.S. Supreme Court, the result on a national scale would almost certainly benefit Democrats. Why? Because outside North Carolina, only swing states and blue states have curbed partisan gerrymandering. In Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Virginia, this was done through the intervention of governors or voting-rights-minded state courts; in Arizona, California, Michigan and Colorado, citizen initiatives gave redistricting authority to independent commissions.

One way to see the Democrats’ likely advantage: In the 2020 presidential election, the 12 states where districts were drawn by court order or by independent commissions gave 184 electoral votes to Joe Biden and only 15 electoral votes (those from North Carolina) to Donald Trump.

A win for Moore would potentially unleash all those states to redistrict at will. In contrast, in 19 states where Republicans already have legislative control of redistricting, many partisan gains are maxed out, and nothing would change.

The justices could say that courts cannot use state constitutions to intervene, they could invalidate independent commissions, or they could take away the governor’s veto power over election laws. The Supreme Court has already declined to consider a case involving the third interpretation. We gamed out the other two by examining extreme partisan possibilities in each state. In both interpretations the conclusions were similar: Election maps completely controlled by state legislatures would change the overall balance of congressional seats in Democrats’ favor.

The Supreme Court has at least three options for interpreting the independent state legislature theory in a logically consistent manner: The justices could say that courts cannot use state constitutions to intervene, they could invalidate independent commissions, or they could take away the governor’s veto power over election laws. The Supreme Court has already declined to consider a case involving the third interpretation. We gamed out the other two by examining extreme partisan possibilities in each state. In both interpretations the conclusions were similar: Election maps completely controlled by state legislatures would change the overall balance of congressional seats in Democrats’ favor.

The first interpretation could potentially liberate several Democratic states to gerrymander by removing state court authority. For example, in April, a New York state court used anti-gerrymandering provisions in its state constitution to throw out a Democratic-drawn map that, based on our analysis of past voting patterns, could be expected to consistently elect 19 Democrats and seven Republicans to the House. The court-approved replacement map made five of the Democratic seats competitive, and four of these went Republican in the Nov. 8 election. If the Moore litigants win, New York and Maryland, where a second pro-Democratic map was overturned, would surely waste no time in restoring gerrymanders.

Democrats would also gain power if independent citizen commissions were struck down. In 2010, citizens gave an independent commission power over congressional redistricting in deep-blue California, with the support of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Since then, Michigan and Colorado, two states now controlled by Democrats, have also formed independent commissions. Striking down these three commissions would give Democrats the ability to draw themselves up to a dozen additional seats.

Legal scholars both liberal and conservative have come out against the independent state legislature doctrine — some expressing concerns that the doctrine might embroil federal courts in endless lawsuits concerning future elections. Proponents of the theory are hoping to find a receptive audience in a reactionary and increasingly activist Supreme Court. But if the court steps back from taking this aggressive step, it will confound critics — and Republicans should consider themselves lucky.

In view of Dr. Wang’s analysis, I revise my confidence level from ~90-95% to ~65% that the Republican Supreme Court will make the independent state legislature theory or doctrine (ISLD) into binding law. This decision by the six Republicans on the bench will be made on the basis of what best serves the Republican Party’s grip on power. 

If there was little uncertainty in the analysis, my confidence level would drop to ~10-15%. But there is significant uncertainty.  One uncertainty arises from the fact that the Supreme Court does not act in a “logically consistent manner.” Wang’s analysis assumed a logical decision. I do not assume that. The current Republican Supreme Court acts in a blatantly partisan manner, e.g., the irrational Dobbs decision in 2022 that obliterated the constitutional right to an abortion. So despite three logical ways to decide, there are multiple ways to illogically decide, including a decision that is partly logical and partly illogical.

Another uncertainty flows from Republican ideology. GOP dogma is anti-democratic, authoritarian and party-centric, i.e., pro-concentrated power, especially for the Republican Party. The ISLD has great appeal to pro-concentrated power dogma. The ISLD gives state legislatures almost absolute power to subvert elections and turn them into a partisan farce. That is basically what Hungarian president Viktor Orban did to elections and democracy in Hungary after he was elected to power in a free and fair election. As discussed here before, GOP elites and leadership have made it very clear that what want to do to America is the same as what Orban did to Hungary. This 5 minute interview with an expert describes the the situation.

Dr. Wang focuses on gerrymandering, but my understanding of the ISLD is that it has a far broader scope than just gerrymandering. ISLD protects state legislatures from election subversion, voter suppression and vote fraud. ISLD isn't only about gerrymandering. It's about the entire election process. 

Source

Finally, there is some uncertainty in what affected blue states would do if the ISLD becomes the law. Affected blue states may not want to play hardball like what the red states do. My guess is that affected blue states probably would become more like red states. If so, this may not be much of a factor and Wang’s analysis on this point would probably be mostly correct for gerrymandering.

The Republican vengeance plan comes into focus

Enraged Republicans waiting to take control of the House have revealed what is probably a key part of their vengeance plan. Things are going to get nasty once the Republicans gain power again.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy mentioned the GOP strategy in a letter to 1/6 committee Democratic chairman Bennie Thompson. The letter instructed Thompson to “preserve all records collected and transcripts of testimony taken.” The Republicans clearly intend to scrutinize most or all of the materials and evidence the 1/6 committee collected. What are the Republicans going to look for? Probably multiple things, definitely including perjury before congress under 18 US Code § 1001.[1] Republican witch hunts are going to commence on Jan. 3, 2023.

McCarthy’s letter says: 

The American people chose Republicans to lead the 118th Congress. On January 3, 2023, your work as Chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will come to an end. For those reasons, I remind you and your staff on the Committee to preserve all records collected and transcripts of testimony taken during your investigation in accordance with House Rule VII. As the Chairman, regardless of who may be directing the work of the Committee, you are responsible for the work done by its members and staff. 

It is clear based on recent news reports that even your own members and staff of the Committee have no visibility into the totality of the investigation2. Some reports suggest that entire swaths of findings will be left out of the Co1mnittee's final report.3 You have spent a year and a half and millions of taxpayers' dollars conducting this investigation. The official Congressional Records do not belong to you or any member, but to the American people, and they are owed all of the information you gathered - not merely the information that comports with your political agenda. Although your Committee's public hearings did not focus on why the Capitol complex was not secure on January 6, 2021, the Republican majority in the 118th Congress will hold hearings that do so. The American people have a right to know that the allegations you have made are supported by the facts and to be able to view the transcripts with an eye toward encouraged enforcement of 18 USC 1001. (emphasis added)

McCarthy’s threatening tone, intent to extract vengeance and intent to immediately stop the 1/6 investigation of Trump and the coup attempt are clear. The investigation ends on Jan. 3, the day the Republicans take control of the House. As far as the Republicans are concerned, there is nothing to investigate about the coup attempt. An NYT opinion piece describes what the Republicans want to do with 18 USC 1001:

Kevin McCarthy reveals exactly how 

the GOP House will protect Trump

[McCarthy’s] letter made news, even though the committee is already required by law to preserve all records and transcripts. The GOP majority will have access to all those records no matter what the committee publicly releases.

But buried in the letter is a cryptic reference with ugly implications for what’s to come. McCarthy wrote that Republicans want those materials preserved “with an eye toward encouraged enforcement of 18 USC 1001,” with no further comment.

What does that mean? Well, that statute criminalizes lying to Congress. From that, I think, we can glean what might be one of the House GOP’s coming schemes: Dig through transcripts and other material to twist committee findings into “proof” that key elements of the anti-Trump testimony were deceptive, or even perjury.

That could function as a pretext to haul witnesses back for another grilling from Republicans. This would be deliberate spectacle: By publicly flogging witnesses who most damaged Trump, Republicans would provide grist for right-wing media to claim the most damning revelations had been decisively discredited, no matter what the facts show.

NYU law professor Ryan Goodman, who has closely tracked the Jan. 6 investigation, agrees Republicans have tipped their hand. “They appear to be devising a tactic to try to undermine testimony, to the end of satisfying Trump and the far-right parts of the party,” Goodman told me.

As Goodman noted, Republicans don’t even have to grill witnesses again (which could backfire with sympathetic ones such as former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson). They could simply cherry-pick from full transcripts in ways designed to distort their actual testimony.

“There’s no reason to think they will faithfully examine the transcripts,” Goodman said. “They’ll quite likely selectively use quotes just to create the appearance of contradictions or false statements.”

This defense of Trump vendetta is going to get real ugly. There is not one shred of goodwill or good faith in the fascist Republicans here. We are witnessing the start of enraged vengeance and exercise of power (not democratic governance) in extreme cynicism and bad faith. I basically agree with Goodman’s assertions that (i) there is no persuasive reason to think the Republicans will faithfully examine the transcripts, and that (ii) they will probably cherry pick quotes and evidence to create an appearance of contradictions and/or false statements. Even if there are honest mistakes, Republicans and the radical right propaganda Leviathan will trumpet every one of them long and loud, and probably distort most of them in the process. 

Worst case scenario: the fascists cross the line and fabricate evidence to advance their lies and slanders agenda in defense of Trump and the GOP.

Footnote: 

1. 18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

This law applies to all congressional investigations by any House or Senate committee, subcommittee, commission or office.

News bits: A criticism of the MSM & law bits

The MSM criticized: It’s time it woke up

Salon makes a very good point in an opinion piece:

Uh, Politico? Biden didn't make Marjorie Taylor Greene 

“the face of the GOP” — Republicans did

Between blaming Democrats for MAGA Republicans and celebrating Trump's babysitter, media keeps coddling GOP

The widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics." This is famously known as "Murc's Law," named after a commenter at the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money who noticed years ago the habitual assumption among the punditry that Republican misbehavior can only be caused by Democrats. Do Republicans reject climate science? Must be because Democrats failed to persuade them! Did Republicans pass unpopular tax cuts for the rich? Must be that Democrats didn't do enough to guide them to better choices! Do Republicans keep voting for lunatics and fascists? It must be the fault of Democrats for being mean to them! 

“Biden world once ignored Marjorie Taylor Greene. Now it's making her the face of the GOP,” announces a Thursday headline in Politico. Underneath it, Eugene Daniels and Jonathan Lemire write that the Biden White House has tried to turn Greene “into the poster child of the incoming House GOP majority.”

But of course Biden had nothing to do with that, because Republicans had already done it. Republicans in her district enthusiastically voted her into office. Republicans gave Greene a standing ovation in response to her remarks claiming that school shootings like Parkland and Sandy Hook were “false flags.” Republicans made her one of the top fundraisers in the House. Republican leadership is currently indulging Greene's demands to treat the Jan. 6 insurrectionists as “political prisoners.”

Assuming it isn’t too late, one can only hope that this wakes the MSM up about who is doing what in politics.

Republicans intent to subvert elections

The AP writes on another instance of Republicans messing with elections:

A former elections manager who prosecutors say assisted in a security breach of voting equipment in a Colorado county pleaded guilty on Wednesday under a plea agreement that requires her to testify against her former boss.

Sandra Brown is one of two employees accused of helping Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters allow a copy of a hard drive to be made during an update of election equipment last year in search of proof of the false conspiracy theories spun by former President Donald Trump.

Peters gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about voting machines and lost a bid to become the Republican candidate for Colorado’s secretary of state, who oversees elections, earlier this year. She is charged with three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, one count of identity theft, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

The intentions of Republicans in power are clear. The radical right will subvert elections and turn them into a farce if they ever get in power. They are following Hungarian president Viktor Orban’s game plan to replace democracy with a kleptocratic tyranny-theocracy. At present, the main thing holding them back is the courts. Frighteningly, the Republicans are poised to knock that barrier down in the pending Moore v. Harper case in the Supreme Court. 

Trump judge slapped down hard for breaking

the law to defend Trump

The NYT writes:

A federal appeals court on Thursday removed a major obstacle to the criminal investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s hoarding of government documents, ending an outside review of thousands of records the F.B.I. seized from his home and freeing the Justice Department to use them in its inquiry.

The appeals court was sharply critical of the decision in September by Judge Aileen M. Cannon, a Trump appointee who sits in the Southern District of Florida, to intervene in the case. The court said Judge Cannon never had legitimate jurisdiction to order the review or bar investigators from using the files, and that there was no justification for treating Mr. Trump differently from any other target of a search warrant.

“It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation,” the court wrote.

Limits on when courts can interfere with a criminal investigation “apply no matter who the government is investigating,” it added. “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.’”

Separately, one observer commented on the politics of judge ‘Loose’ Cannon’s failed illegal defense of Trump: “Cannon avoided death threats from Trump's minions and managed to stay in Trump’s good graces by bending the law to protect him. I’d say mission accomplished for her...if Trump runs and wins again. Otherwise she lit her entire judicial reputation and future on fire for nothing.”

Court sanctions Kari Lake’s legal team

Law and Crime writes:

An Arizona-based federal judge has ordered sanctions against the legal team assembled by gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) and another plaintiff in a failed lawsuit against winning opponent Katie Hobbs (D) and other defendants from two Arizona county government boards.

The attorneys being sanctioned are not directly named in Thursday’s order, but according to the court docket, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz [a very big gun in the legal profession] is Lake’s lead attorney in the matter. Also on her legal team are co-lead attorneys Andrew D. Parker, Jesse Hersch Kibort, and Joseph Alan Pull of Minneapolis. Further listed as a member of her legal team is attorney Kurt B. Olsen of Washington, D.C.

Parker, Olsen, and Dershowitz signed the original complaint, an amended complaint, and a opposition to a request for sanctions. 

Those attorneys are presumably the ones sanctioned on Thursday for filing a complaint by Lake and Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem (R-11), another plaintiff.

Judge Tuchi ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because her claims were “too speculative to establish an injury in fact.” And, even if the plaintiffs did have standing, the judge ruled that the 11th Amendment barred their claims because the core of the dispute arose under state law, not federal law, and therefore did not belong in federal court.

Once again, Republican elites chafe under the restraints that elections impose. Right now, they are testing all avenues to subvert elections and baselessly undermine confidence in them. The courts keep pushing back. But the day is coming when the courts will be probably be taken out of the picture (~90% likelihood; the pending Moore v. Harper case), leaving elections almost entirely up to state legislatures. Once that happens, Republican state legislatures intend and will be free to turn elections into a farce.

Substantive due process and rights the constitution is silent about

A WaPo article considers rights that the US Constitution says nothing about. Despite that, the Supreme Courts has found some rights to be inherent in the Constitution. One example is the right to abortion, which the current Christian nationalist Republican Supreme recently nullified. Other constitutional rights that have been found over the years include the right to free speech by legal entities like corporations. The right to procreate was also read into the Constitution. More recently, corporations have been found to have the right to express religious beliefs, e.g., by refusal to provide insurance coverage for birth control by companies whose mostly Christian owners oppose. 

The WaPO writes:

In overturning the right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization over the summer, the Supreme Court drew new attention to a phrase many Americans had heard only in passing, if they had heard it at all: “substantive due process.” Those three words described the main source of so-called unenumerated rights in the Constitution — rights that cannot be found in the text of the document but that the Supreme Court has nevertheless declared the law of the land.

Many conservatives celebrated Dobbs as a long overdue recognition that the right to abortion had no constitutional stature. Many liberals mourned the loss of a fundamental right and worried that other unenumerated rights — like the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage — were now also endangered.

Yet often lost in these impassioned debates were foundational questions: Why are unenumerated rights protected at all in the Constitution? Why are they protected under the rubric of substantive due process? How does the high court determine which rights fit under this framework? What does Dobbs suggest about which rights will be protected going forward? And how will those judgments influence the future of the nation?

Some wonder why the courts safeguard unenumerated rights. “When the Supreme Court creates a right that is not even mentioned in the Constitution, the independence and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself is called into question,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing. On its face, this is a serious concern. In a democracy, it’s worrisome enough that five of nine justices on the Supreme Court can brandish a provision of the Constitution to strike down a law enacted by an elected legislature.

And yet, as nettlesome as unenumerated rights may be, they undoubtedly exist in our constitutional order. Somewhat ironically, the Constitution itself establishes the existence of rights not named in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment also captures a deeper insight: It would have taken impossible foresight for the framers to list every conceivable right the people would regard as fundamental. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1819, the nature of a constitution was that it was designed for the ages and therefore could not “partake of the prolixity of a legal code.” Time has richly vindicated that view. The court has recognized the rights to travel, to vote and to marry as fundamental rights that have the same stature as enumerated ones. While unenumerated, all these rights seem indispensable today.

The article goes on to point out that the current radical right Supreme Court has fully adopted a backward-looking legal mindset.[1] Specifically, it relies on the “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history” test that Sam Alito relied on to overturn Roe v Wade and the constitutional right to an abortion. That has two major implications. First, marginalized groups and individuals in those groups will lose constitutional protections that were thought to be settled law. 

Second the Republican Supreme Court has obliterated a way to update the Constitution. The courts can allow discrimination and violation of civil rights that judges deem to not be deeply rooted in this Nation’s history. This could be worse because the Constitution was written by White, property-owning men. It had major status-based exclusions, e.g., non-Whites, women and non-land owners. Today would not be considered a particularly democratic document. As time passes, America becomes more diverse and aware of its diversity. That creates a perception of illegitimacy that will become more glaring and divisive over time.

This is another warning that Christofascist Republicans on the Supreme Court intend to gut American federal government, civil liberties and regulations. The intent is undermine secularism, regulations and civil liberties. Despite a majority that either rejects it or is deceived-ignorant about it, America is moving toward some kind of a kleptocratic, fascist Christian theocracy under Christian Sharia law and a bigoted, vengeful Christian Taliban.

Footnote: 

1.  WaPO describes the origin of the backward-looking mindset like this:

In the 1997 case of Washington v. Glucksberg. Consolidating earlier cases, the court held that unenumerated rights would be protected only if they were “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Applying that standard, the court declined to recognize a right to physician-assisted suicide because it lacked historical roots. The virtue of the Glucksberg analysis was that it provided a limiting principle for which unenumerated rights should be protected. As judges were not bound here by text, they would instead be bound by tradition.

I incorrectly thought that Washington had been overruled by later Supreme Court decisions, but it wasn’t. When Alito overturned Roe in the Dobbs decision, he relied on the “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” test in Washington to obliterate the constitutional right to an abortion. The same reasoning is now being used to obliterate all kinds of laws, including gun control laws. But even if Washington had been overruled, Alito and the Republican radicals would have reinstated it. That test is core radical right authoritarian capitalist and Christian nationalist dogma.

What are the psychological characteristics of people holding far-right beliefs?

• People with far right beliefs are characterized by a simplified mindset and tendency to search for order and structure.
• They have a strong desire for group-based dominance and hierarchy, and often see social groups arranged along a superiority-inferiority dimension.
• They perceive the wider authorities as illegitimate.

(no kidding)

https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-are-the-psychological-characteristics-of-people-holding-far-right-beliefs.html

Snippets:

Individuals who endorse far right ideology often have an increased desire for obedience to authority, order, purity, familiarity, structure, and a rigid worldview mentality. Particularly, they tend to adhere to a worldview that is based on authoritarianism and hierarchy between social groups. This is further reflected in their psychological profile, which is more reflective of the desire for group-based dominance and subjugation (including women’s subordination), traditionalism, and social inequality. The tendency to dominate and subjugate disadvantaged and minority groups is particularly expressed in anti-immigrant and xenophobic stances, strong preference for an ethnically, culturally and/or racially homogeneous population, and prejudice against minorities.

(SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT)

Another key feature of far right individuals is the rigidity of their mindset—a cognitive style reflected in increased closed-mindedness, simplistic style of thinking, and black-and-white perceptions of society.

Moreover, a study using a sample of white Americans with Republican affiliation[ showed that perceived psychological distress predicted stronger willingness to violently persecute political out-groups. Effects on these extremist tendencies were largely mediated by people’s increased closeness with their political leader. In other words, the more psychological distress people experience, the more they identified with their political leader, which in turn made them more willing to use violence against those identified as threats by this leader.

(EXPLAINS TRUMPISM)

In sum, holding far right beliefs increases people’s social identity and personal importance because such beliefs satisfy a need to belong to groups of like-minded people.

(This one I tend to believe is not necessarily an exclusive far right phenomenon, we ALL tend to gravitate towards groups of "like-minded people.") Don't we?

Eradicating malaria: At the intersection of science progress, cognitive biology and society

CONTEXT

In the context of new technology to eliminate malaria, a Science News Explores article discusses the emphasis that scientists put on understanding human cognitive and social factors before even discussing new technology with the people having the highest stake. In my opinion, this is more evidence that, compared to a mere 20 years ago, scientists are much more aware of the human factor in both science progress, and sources of opposition to it.

The human factor includes both the scientists themselves and the people who will be affected by new technology. Key tactics of this enlightened science mindset include (1) doing a risk assessment of new technology that is as thorough as possible, and (2) understanding what people think they know about the areas that new technology will impact. The former tends to be a humbling exercise for the scientists. They are forced to admit that risk assessments are not certain. The latter identifies and then targets misinformation, myths and misconceptions among stakeholders in the public that miscreants now routinely use to attack new technology to serve their own corrupt interests and agendas.[1]

The new anti-malaria technology

Science News Explores writes:

Should we use a genetic weapon against mosquitoes carrying malaria?

The African public may get the final say on running one test of gene-editing tools

The weapon? A self-replicating bit of DNA known as a gene drive. It’s one of the most anticipated tools being developed to stop mosquitoes from spreading diseases like malaria to humans. It’s also one of the most controversial. 

The gene drive interferes with the insects’ ability to reproduce. [females cannot reproduce or bite people, and the species could go completely extinct] In one small lab study, it wiped out captive populations of mosquitoes in just eight to 12 generations. A larger study in outdoor cages in Terni, Italy, worked too. Within as little as five to 10 years, this gene drive could be ready to test in the wild.

Researchers are eyeing Africa for the first test release. There, malaria takes a huge toll. In 2020, it sickened close to 241 million people on the continent. And most of the globe’s 670,000 malaria deaths that year were in Africa. About eight in every 10 were children, the World Health Organization says.

Dealing with scientist bias, and public knowledge and misinformation

Scientist bias: Because gene drive technology in the wild could lead to the extinction of the target mosquito species, scientists did a detailed risk assessment. SNE writes:

As a first step, researchers tried to dream up potential drawbacks. That helped identify what they might need to plan for and test before releasing gene-drive mosquitoes into the wild. They could also weigh risks and benefits. They focused on four areas that African leaders said were most important to protect: biodiversity, human health, animal health and water quality.

Altogether, they came up with at least 46 possible harms that might come from releasing gene drives in mosquitoes. Might animals that eat mosquitoes struggle, for example, if the targeted mosquitoes disappeared? Might people develop allergic reactions to the bite of mosquitoes that had a single copy of the gene drive? Might large numbers of dying mosquito larvae worsen water quality? Might a gene drive even lead to more cases of malaria? For instance, could thinning out less-troublesome mosquitoes allow better disease-spreaders to take over? Malaria Journal published the full list of concerns in March 2021.

Keith Hayes leads a risk-assessment group at the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization’s Data61. It’s in Hobart, Australia. Experiments and simulations are useful to a point, he says. But, he adds, “We can’t know everything. There may be surprises.” So some questions won’t be answered unless and until gene drives get released.

In the end, any decision about a release will need to weigh risks against benefits. The potential benefits for human health and their costs may far outweigh the risks, Ruth Müller* argues. “If you have a high burden of malaria, that costs a lot,” she notes. “Children cannot go to school. People cannot go to work.” 

* Chief ecologist and entomologist at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, Belgium

Public knowledge and misinformation:
SNE writes:

Beyond the science concerns, researchers must also get public support for releasing the technology. Without that, even a gene drive that works perfectly could be a no-go.

Not everyone agrees on when and how to get input. Fredros Okumu* thinks it’s important to have more answers about the science first. “I would rather we know the true benefits, the true risks and gain a consensus around it,” he says. Then, he thinks, scientists could “start engaging the communities.”

* A mosquito biologist and director of science programs at Ifakara Health Institute in Tanzania

Not everyone agrees on when and how to get input. Okumu thinks it’s important to have more answers about the science first. “I would rather we know the true benefits, the true risks and gain a consensus around it,” he says. Then, he thinks, scientists could “start engaging the communities.”

Lea Pare Toe disagrees with that approach. She’s a social scientist at the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé in Bobo-Dioulasso. That’s in the West African nation of Burkina Faso. “We should listen to [the community],” she says, and then “develop the science together.”

Toe works with Target Malaria to engage local people in the research. At Bana, in her country, researchers didn’t start out talking about genes at all, she says. First, the team had to clarify the link between mosquitoes and malaria. They also had to dispel myths, such as that eating fatty foods or sweet fruit can cause the disease. The researchers led an intensive campaign from 2014 through 2019. Afterward, they found that such false statements were far less accepted. The researchers reported this in Malaria Journal in October 2021.

It is an open question as to whether such an approach to developing new technology, assessing it and dealing with public opinion like this is even possible in the US or in large areas of Africa. America is awash in misinformation, propaganda and distrust, e.g., distrust of science and scientists. It took five years of intense effort to reduce public misunderstanding in a single targeted area of Africa. In America, decades of warnings about climate change have not resulted in many meaningful government efforts to deal with the problem. Despite majority public concern about climate, America is paralyzed by corrupt politics, corporate propaganda, climate science denial and social gridlock. 

What SNE describes about malaria in Africa may be an ideal that is exceptional. Or, maybe this research has not yet triggered hoards of African miscreants into a frenzy of dark free speech akin to what has poisoned and paralyzed American politics and policy.

Footnote: 

1. My definition of corrupt here includes intentional use of dark free speech to deceive, divide, distract, misinform, polarize, and/or irrationally emotionally manipulate individuals and groups. Here, I define miscreants to be liars, demagogues, tyrants, cranks, crackpots, blind ideologues, grifters and the like. They almost always spew their poison to gain wealth and/or power-influence, which tend to run together.