We know that the current ongoing cost of mosquito-borne disease is hundreds of millions of people being debilitated and hundreds of thousands of torturous deaths every year.
But when I look back to the article, I don't see that, I see:
> with minimal environmental cost.
Stated with absolute certainty. No need for experimentation, no need to proceed with caution just "its fine, get on board or you're part of the problem".
I can't tell what the writer is really thinking, and it's definitely possible I'm projecting behaviours I see elsewhere onto the article.
Either way, I really do think, now we have these kind of capabilities, we need to improve our understanding and caution using them, or else the side effects will risk being significantly worse than the positives.
Well, first, the post alludes that a number of experiments have been done already. Singapore is given as a relatively large example.
https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/researc...
But that's not really the important thing about the post. The important part is that it takes 15 years of systemic confusion for companies to even get to the point of being allowed to do the small trials to try to answer the question of ecological impact.