Containment Strategy

A quick update for those who wrote me saying my posts were not clear enough: The IICB (Instituto Independiente de Ciencias Biologicas) fired me, because I was leaking info on their pharmaceutically funded, defense industry research and development project concerning the xaiobeetle and the Trypanosoma xaio parasite. Basically, the xaiobeetle's populations are booming for a number of reasons, and the IICB's sloppy handling procedures let it get into the wild. Basically, the IICB has given the until-now hindered parasite a free ride in one of the fastest growing beetle populations in the world.

Which brings me to Containment Strategy. Historically preferring an equatorial climate, the Rhinobeetle, Xaiobeetle, and other Chalcosoma have traditionally been found in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, and Uganda. But rising global temperatures have given the beetle a twofold advantage: First, it's natural habitat, in terms of temperature, is broadening. Second, and this is more important -- it's food sources are less resistant across a much wider swath -- basically, the Xaiobeetle is no longer bounded by climate.

So, what forces do we have available to contain the Rhinobeetle?

* Political Forces
-- any progress made will have to be guaranteed to be lasting -- we cannot have private research corporations, hiding in foreign countries (but still holding US Patents), releasing beetles into the wild. Populations have already sprouted in Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Mississippi. Basically, we have to make sure that no NEW populations are released into the wild. We have to outlaw the release of the Rhinobeetle, specifically the Xaiobeetle species.

* False Mating
-- A transparent, open-book lab should create a, forgive me, horny yet sterile beetle. This process has been proven before in controlling the fruit-fly in California. We can shape the population borders of the Xaiobeetle if we corner it with a sterile front. We should NOT let this process be done by the IICB -- they've already proven that they are irresponsible when it comes to quality control, intentions, etc.

* Insecticides
-- These will be moderately useful, but at an unknown cost of money and environment contamination. We should reserve this for spot containment, not for broad adoption.

* Killing the parasite but not the carrier
-- It may become practical, if a treatment can be synthesized, to kill the parasite while dormant in the xaiobeetle and its waste. This has never been attempted on a global scale, but it has worked in treating water-borne parasites in Africa.

* Food-chain
-- Unfortunately, the Xaiobeetle's diet is diverse and adaptive -- while some species eat only a particular type of fungi, the xaiobeetle can chomp on most any green vegetation. But if we can find patterns in its diet, we may be able to control where it can and cannot dine.

* Travel Control
-- We need to screen for the Xaiobeetle at airports, train stations, and borders. Right now, the Trypanosoma carrying Xaiobeetle exists only in the Western Hemisphere. Exporting it to Southeast Asia, tropical Africa, or Europe would be a disaster.

None of the solutions in and of themselves will halt the tide and the threat of the Trypanosoma parasite. But used together, and with additional resources, we can make sure American populations have infection rates under 5% in the coming year. We can acheive a reduction to 2% by 2011, but only if the US government acts in a coordinated fashion.

-Dr. Anton Spiteri