New Insect Repellant Discovered

[Tom Rankin]

Summary:

"Researchers at Vanderbilt looking for better ways to control the spread of malaria have stumbled across an insect repellent that is thousands of times stronger than DEET. But it doesn’t just work to confuse malaria-carrying mosquitoes. This new compound works against all insects, including flies, ants, and moths."

Full Article

 

[erugs]

Please let it work against deer ticks, too!

 

[DSettahr]

Lets hope that future testing doesn't reveal it to be thousands of times more toxic than deet as well...

Now the obvious question is: what else does VUAA1 do? The Vanderbilt team is working to better characterize the compound and to strip away any parts of it that don’t contribute to its effectiveness. They will then start testing it for toxicity and other attributes that might have negative impacts on people or the environment.

 

[roadtripper]

Sounds promising. Maybe i wont have to make my brother eat tons of bananas and hike behind me for much longer

 

[hikerbrian]

Well, the link to the Popsci article won't work (maybe their server is overloaded?), so I read a couple of other press releases as well as the actual article, which was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. It's a very interesting article, but these press releases really drive me nuts. For example:

No where have I been able to find evidence to support the idea that this new agent is "thousands of times stronger than DEET." In fact, I did not find DEET mentioned anywhere in the PNAS article, as a control compound or otherwise. I call "sensationalizing the data."

Also, "...stumbled across an insect repellant...", as if it just happened by accident? Really? Actually the authors searched through a library of >150,000 compounds, screening their activity with express intent to find a new insect repellant. That can hardly be considered stumbling across.

And underlying the entire article is the idea that somehow this new chemical is so much better than DEET, and, just a couple of tweaks away from being available for purchase at your local CVS. Right. First, tell me what problem (with DEET) we're trying to solve. Tell me how this chemical compound solves that problem. And show me that you haven't now introduced a host of other problems (i.e. toxicity in humans and other animals - not just acute toxicity, but from long term exposure). I'd bet the ranch that it's 10 years or more before there's any commercial viability to anything related to this article. If ever.

Sorry, I get a little worked up about these things sometimes... Good PNAS article, good idea, good science, extremely misleading delivery via the media (not blaming the media - the authors almost certainly had a huge role in drafting most of the press releases that have been written). Nothing like over-hyping your own science.

 

[DougPaul]

Well, the link to the Popsci article won't work (maybe their server is overloaded?), so I read a couple of other press releases as well as the actual article, which was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. It's a very interesting article, but these press releases really drive me nuts.

Such press releases are all too common these days. They are trying to drum up business based upon boundless optimism for something that isn't anywhere near being a product yet. Many (most?) such things that show early promise don't work out.

<good analysis of the flaws in the article snipped>

Some of the big claims were made by Vanderbilt: "New insect repellant may be thousands of times stronger than DEET" http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/05/biologists-discover-new-insect-repellant/. The compound was also named VUAA1--the VU stands for Vanderbilt University...

Sorry, I get a little worked up about these things sometimes... Good PNAS article, good idea, good science, extremely misleading delivery via the media (not blaming the media - the authors almost certainly had a huge role in drafting most of the press releases that have been written). Nothing like over-hyping your own science.

Much of this is likely done by the "marketing" departments of the organizations. Money is tight and they want to attract as much attention (and money) as they can. (Besides, press releases aren't subject to peer review...)

Doug

 

[paul ron]

Never mind the mosquetoes, DEET works just fine on em.

How about a replent for those got dam black flys?

DEET is just ketsup on a hamburger to them, so make it 10,000 times stronger just means more black flys eatting at the table.

.

 

[DougPaul]

Never mind the mosquetoes, DEET works just fine on em.

Sure a stronger repellant would be nice, but until then DEET still works.

How about a replent for those got dam black flys?

If black flies (and deer flies, horse flies, etc) find you by sight then smell-based repellants may never work on them.

Doug

 

[paul ron]

So do you think I need a better disguise?... do I look too much like a hamburger? ummmmmm we'll have to work on that.

 

[sierra]

Sure a stronger repellant would be nice, but until then DEET still works.


If black flies (and deer flies, horse flies, etc) find you by sight then smell-based repellants may never work on them.

Doug

Maybe its me, but I use Ben's and black fly's never bother me when I have it on. Although bugs dont come after me much anytime, seriously some years I rarely use bug dope at all.

 

[paul ron]

I solved the bug problem by only going out Fall, Winter to Spring. Once the bugz come out, I stay out of the woods... no stinking bugz bother me no mo ♫ no mo ♫

 

[Tom Rankin]

I solved the bug problem by only going out Fall, Winter to Spring. Once the bugz come out, I stay out of the woods... no stinking bugz bother me no mo ♫ no mo ♫

Obviously you are not a gridder!

 

[paul ron]

I'm a gridder, I grid my teeth everytime I get bit by those buggers!