Engineered underdominance as a method of insect population replacement and reproductive isolation

Insect vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever (both spread by mosquito vectors), continue to significantly impact health worldwide, despite the efforts put forth to eradicate them. Suppression strategies utilizing genetically modified disease-refractory insects have surfaced as an attractive means of disease control, and progress has been made on engineering disease-resistant insect vectors. However, laboratory-engineered disease refractory genes would probably not spread in the wild, and would most likely need to be linked to a gene drive system in order to proliferate in native insect populations. Underdominant systems like translocations and engineered underdominance have been proposed as potential mechanisms for spreading disease refractory genes. Not only do these threshold-dependent systems have certain advantages over other potential gene drive mechanisms, such as localization of gene drive and removability, extreme engineered underdominance can also be used to bring about reproductive isolation, which may be of interest in controlling the spread of GMO crops. Proof-of-principle establishment of such drive mechanisms in a well-understood and studied insect, such as Drosophila melanogaster, is essential before more applied systems can be developed for the less characterized vector species of interest, such as mosquitoes. This work details the development of several distinct types of engineered underdominance and of translocations in Drosophila, including ones capable of bringing about reproductive isolation and population replacement, as a proof of concept study that can inform efforts to construct such systems in insect disease vectors.

The Voting Rights Act, Shelby County, and Redistricting: Improving Estimates of Racially Polarized Voting in a Multiple-Election Context

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County has severely limited the power of the Voting Rights Act. I argue that Congressional attempts to pass a new coverage formula are unlikely to gain the necessary Republican support. Instead, I propose a new strategy that takes a “carrot and stick” approach. As the stick, I suggest amending Section 3 to eliminate the need to prove that discrimination was intentional. For the carrot, I envision a competitive grant program similar to the highly successful Race to the Top education grants. I argue that this plan could pass the currently divided Congress.

Without Congressional action, Section 2 is more important than ever before. A successful Section 2 suit requires evidence that voting in the jurisdiction is racially polarized. Accurately and objectively assessing the level of polarization has been and continues to be a challenge for experts. Existing ecological inference methods require estimating polarization levels in individual elections. This is a problem because the Courts want to see a history of polarization across elections.

I propose a new 2-step method to estimate racially polarized voting in a multi-election context. The procedure builds upon the Rosen, Jiang, King, and Tanner (2001) multinomial-Dirichlet model. After obtaining election-specific estimates, I suggest regressing those results on election-specific variables, namely candidate quality, incumbency, and ethnicity of the minority candidate of choice. This allows researchers to estimate the baseline level of support for candidates of choice and test whether the ethnicity of the candidates affected how voters cast their ballots.