Introduction - Biological and Environmental Control of Disease Vectors - page 6

being developed in laboratory environments
around the world. Of course, one major issue
with genetic manipulation of disease vectors is
their ethical considerations and the acceptance
of the public. Recently, there have been vocal
protests by anti-GM activists both in the UK
against research on genetically modifi ed wheat
at Rothamsted Research, Hertfordshire (BBC,
2012), and in Miami, Florida, against the
experimental release of Oxitec's RIDL mos-
quitoes (Hui ngton Post, 2012). Thus, whether
the release of more vectors, supposedly disease-
proof or not, will become generally acceptable is
a question that remains to be answered
(Bonhannon, 2002; Lavery et al ., 2008).

control methods for community involvement
should be ef ective, af ordable, simple to apply,
compatible with local customs and beliefs, safe
and use local materials and equipment. In
addition, it is also essential to create fi nancial
incentives for industries to invest in research
and development of new strategies to increase
the wealth in new, alternative and sustainable
disease control strategies. One successful
example is the Innovative Vector Control
Consortium (IVCC), which is a product
development partnership that helps to innovate
new insecticides for public health vector control
(http://www.ivcc.com ).

1.3 Conclusions

1.2.3 Community and industry
engagement

In the fi nal chapter (see Lines, Chapter 11, this
volume), Jo Lines outlines the evidence that is
required for public health practitioners to justify
the adoption and implementation of a new
biological and environmental intervention in
publicly funded disease control programmes.
Two systematic Cochrane Reviews, one on the
use of larvivorous fi sh against malaria (Burkot et
al ., 2009) and the other on the use of larval
source management with Bti and Bs on malaria
incidence (Thwing et al ., 2011), are currently
being fi nalized. However, Cochrane Reviews,
originally designed to summarize the results of
randomized-controlled clinical trials of medical
interventions, have some limitations when it
comes to comparing interventions aimed at
dif erent vector populations in fi eld settings (see
Lines, Chapter 11, this volume). Nevertheless,
the reviews are likely to highlight the lack of good
quality studies that evaluate the ef ectiveness of
alternative or supplementary control strategies,
which supports the views made by many of the
authors in this volume. In conclusion, the need
to investigate the progress in biological and
environmental control methods for malaria and
other vector-borne diseases that have received
less attention has never been timelier.

Overall, however, the success of all potential
vector control methodologies, whether
chemical, environmental, biological or genetic,
depends not only on the technical advances and
ecology of disease vectors, but also on com-
munity, government and industry engagement.
Many potential elements of control strategies,
such as sanitation, housing and agricultural
irrigation systems, lie outside the scope of
disease control programmes. Therefore, inter-
sectorial collaborations need to become more
active to help reduce the burden of disease
(WHO, 2012a). Currently, the health sector
often lacks the capacity to assist community
participation and education, despite the benefi ts
that local organizational structures have shown
(e.g. in South America; Bryan et al ., 1994). If
control programmes generate income for the
community members, for example by improving
rice yield by stocking rice paddies with edible
fi sh that remove mosquito larvae (Wu et al .,
1991; Howard et al ., 2007), then the uptake is
usually much greater, making programmes
more cost-ef ective (van den Berg et al ., 2007).
According to Rozendaal (1997), suitable vector