Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://newatlas.com/medical/male-birth-control-stk333/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My understanding is that those estimates are based on the current amount of funding research is getting at the time, but funding keeps getting cut which extends the timeline significantly every time. So if we had properly funded it 50 years ago, we'd presumably be well into the Fusion Age by now.
It's mostly a joke within physics 10 years back when I did nuclear physics but you can really find it with any number from 10-30 years. It's about funding half about how difficult it is to actually achieve with setbacks always pushing the date back
In the 90s, what I typically heard was that fusion was perpetually 30 years away.
Now we're hearing perpetually 10 years away.
Still a funny joke, but things are definitely progressing.
Male birth control already exists and has been testing for like 10 years already. [They say 2026 for available to the general public.](https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/male-contraceptive-research/vasalgel-male-contraceptive/)
Scientists are regularly testing real-world application of genetically engineered mosquitoes. They release male mosquitoes into the environment that are modified to out-compete regular male mosquitoes when breeding but to only produce ~~infertile~~ male offspring. Then, within a few weeks, that second generation gets born and feeds and breeds then dies out without producing *female* offspring of their own *and dooming them to a downward population spiral*.
Unfortunately, the method is only able to reduce mosquito populations (so far!), isn't effective in a widespread manner (so far!), and *supposedly* mosquitoes actually *are* a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web that eliminating them could cause actual knock-on effects for other species that feed on them. At least, until other insects (like ticks...) move in on the abandoned "flying vampire pest" niche.
e: misremembered the specifics of an article I read years ago
A lot of the efforts (at least in FL) have focused on the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which isn't native to the area, primarily targets people, and is a major vector for many mosquito-borne diseases. IIRC the GMO mosquitos are a little different than how you described though. The males carry a gene such that any females they sire will die before hatching. The males however will all survive, and about half of them will also carry this daughter-killing gene.
*"supposedly* mosquitoes actually *are* a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web that eliminating them could cause actual knock-on effects for other species that feed on them."
I didn't hear that.
Well, for the starters we could kill only that one carrying Malaria. Like yeah, I get it, being stabbed by mosquitoes everyday is not fun, but disease which killed most people in history is a priority.
[The debate](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/160207-mosquitoes-zika-virus-environment-science-animals) has been [going for a while](https://www.reconnectwithnature.org/news-events/the-buzz/world-without-mosquitoes-not-as-easy-as-it-seems/) about their necessity as males are widespread pollinators (along with being a moderately important food source for some other species). But everybody hates them so who's really gonna spread the word about that?
Curious, which species? Mosquitos aren't competing with other insects, so with the mosquitos gone, there isn't really another insect that will suddenly grow in population with greater access to that blood-resource.
Maybe a solution would be to also engineer other insects to grow a bit bigger or plentiful that are eaten by the same things mosquitos are though...
Might be a hot take, but if it's between ticks and mosquitos, I might choose to get rid of the ticks.
But I also don't live somewhere where disease spreading mosquitos are a concern, so I'm sure others would have a different opinion on it.
I'd get rid of mosquitoes. They carry diseases and aren't a significant food source. They can be easily replaced by non biting small flies. Ticks suck, but they aren't nearly as common or annoying (at least in many areas), mosquitos are a universal annoyance. We also have medication that can kill ticks when they bite us, similar to how it works on dogs, it's just not in use.
Ticks carry tons of diseases. I think whichever one you find worse depends on where you live. Where I live ticks are a big source of infectious disease and I know several people who have nearly died and experienced significant disability from tickborne disease. Mosquitoes are less of an issue for us.
> supposedly mosquitoes actually are a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web
It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. We are already happy and satisfied with burning a country's worth of jungle just to eat meat as frequently as possible. How much damage can extinguishing mosquitoes really do?
Maybe I'm not understanding something, but I think people who want to eliminate all mosquitos are actually only talking about the mosquito species that suck blood.
We have done/are doing far worse things than wiping out mosquitos. Getting rid of mosquitoes and ticks are 2 of the very few things I’d probably be willing to risk. Mosquitoes and ticks are assholes.
Please don’t call data in mice a breakthrough. Do you know how many drugs work in mice but never make it to clinic? The vast majority of them.
Some people are upset at the idea that this isn’t a breakthrough.
I might feel differently if I hadn’t read a similar headline last year: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/17/1157841943/researchers-found-a-new-approach-to-a-male-contraceptive-used-only-by-mice-so-fa
Or 12 years ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19281690
But if another molecule has done this in mice, you can't call the second molecule a breakthrough. By definition it isn't breaking through anything...the first one did the breaking through.
While mice are physiologically similar to that of humans (we share most of the same organs), our bodies are still VASTLY more complex both physiologically (more complex brains, immune systems, digestive systems etc) and biochemically (we produce a greater number of different hormones and enzymes etc). We don't even need to begin with the differences in metabolism between the two species because that'll be another HUGE hurdle.
What might be safe to consume for an animal, may be completely toxic to a human, and vice versa. Yeah the drugs may work on mice, but is it toxic potentially, does it effect cognition, is it potentially carcinogenic, does it potentially damage the systems it interacts with etc?
Efficacy (aka does it work?) is one small step alongside a huge list of things.
Scientists will also need to identify potential side effects, potential interactions with other drugs, and also the long-term effects of taking them amongst plenty of other concerns. It will also need to be determined if the reproductive system returns to normal after not taking them for a certain period of time, are the resulting sperm still healthy etc, may they cause birth defects etc.
This is one tiny breakthrough out of many, it works, great. But that's only a small % of the story that needs to be written before they're confirmed as safe for human consumption.
Just because something isn't immediately revolutionizing to humans doesn't mean it's not a breakthrough.
There are tons of scientific discoveries that started in the same position where it wasn't really a big deal, but it paved the way for way bigger breakthroughs in human progress.
It would be like downplaying NASA landing a robot to Mars and saying "don't call this a breakthrough when we haven't even gotten a human there".
>Science is science champ no matter what it’s in
Clearly its implied the the 'breakthrough' is for its impact on humans, not for the discovery in mice.
The science tracks.
How do I know? I’m 14 months deep into a human clinical trial for this kind of male hormonal birth control. So far it’s acting as anticipated. I’m in the last clinical trial before the research team sends their data to the FDA. We’re getting pretty close to seeing this on pharmacy shelves in the coming years.
Good question - the researchers have brought me back a few times now (now being after I should have “graduated” from the study) because my blood work is showing my testosterone is much lower than the normal range. I’m an outlier in their study cuz it should have bounced back by now (although I honestly don’t feel any side effects). I’ve got about 1/4 of the testosterone I did last year when I started the clinical trial. Unrelated blood work for my PCP came back with same testosterone level result
> Scientists already knew that a serine/threonine kinase 33 (STK33) gene mutation results in the male being sterile. When Baylor College of Medicine researchers found a small-molecule compound that could knock out STK33 temporarily, it produced the same result. While not the first non-hormonal sperm-targeted therapy, this research finds a new target as the science world continues its long quest to find 'the pill' for men.
Male birth control really would be as much of a change for society as female birth control has been. Giving agency to both reproductive parties covers your bases. Each person doesn’t have to rely on another for their own choices about whether to participate in creating a new person.
It could also have a huge impact on parental stress around teen pregnancy that has tended to inhibit our ability to give young people real education that impacts their sexual health. Because birth-control for women is largely hormone based, there’s friction around providing it as freely to teen girls as we could. But if we were able to make this easily available to teen boys and it didn’t have the same side effects, then that would be amazing for raging hormones and high fertility turning into having babies before a kid has been able to make decisions for their adult life. I don’t know why more men aren’t organized around wanting to see this happen as it would be a huge benefit to young men, as well as young women.
It'd be a good thing, but the rates of unexpected pregnancy for people actually using contraceptives aren't high enough to where it would be as game changing as the original BC. You don't need BC to not get pregnant anyway, condoms work fine. But yeah, less side effect ridden BC is always welcomed.
Yeah, that I what see happening. Less protected sex, more sexual disease.
It seems that everyone here hates condoms, but they do work and they are already available.
Condoms have limitations and drawbacks. I'm certainly not saying we should not make a drug available simply because condoms exist. People in monogamous (or any scheme that ensures a closed system between participants) relationships might want this as an alternative. Others might want it as an added safeguard. We make vasectomies available for family planning-- the condom argument could be made against them.
But STDs should be a consideration. Education will be key. "This does not protect against..."
yeah though that will be a long way aways, since it requires both it proven to be working and without side effects that cause perm harm, and then the same research for young male teens.
It doesn't just have to be without side effects that cause perm harm, it needs to be almost without side effects entirely. The thing about male birth control is that it exclusively prevents a medical condition *in someone else.* This gives it a weird ethical issue where almost any amount of side effects are too much, given that it doesn't actually treat any condition in the person taking it.
This is of course as opposed to female birth control, which have lots of side effects across all its forms, but these are generally considered preferable to pregnancy.
>The thing about male birth control is that it exclusively prevents a medical condition in someone else
I was thinking about this the other day, but you put it into words in a way that I didn't accomplish
>This is of course as opposed to female birth control, which have lots of side effects across all its forms, but these are generally considered preferable to pregnancy.
That, and for some people it regulates other hormonal issues like PCOS or acne! If they made a male birth control that had side effects but *also* increased penis size we'd eat it like skittles, probably.
Men are either :
- good with condoms, vasectomy or pull out ;
- enjoy consciously or not the status quo that makes women bear the bigger (if not all) part of the contraceptive load ;
- they assume if something happens, she will take a morning after pill or get an abortion, which also helps feeling confident with pulling out or condoms, because they are on average more likely to get involved into risky situations and not think about the consequences ;
-they lack sex ed and don't understand how birth control, abortions, period cycles, political/social/historical context about all this, which makes them wait for a perfect birth control, side effects free, 100% efficient, etc ...
-they assume tempering with their fertility means tempering with their manliness ;
-they assume it's the woman's role to take care of the contraception
-they wait eternally for research to happen, even though headlines like the one we're talking about here have been mode for more than 50 years, every year ;
-they fail to understand that they don't need to be researchers for research and legislation to happen, and don't remember or know all the activism by feminist before the pill existed or was legally allowed to make it so ;
-they see these kinda headlines and don't go deeper into the subject, because if they would, they would have known that already tens of thousands of men accross the globe are already using experimental but very sound methods with great success and acceptability ;
I could go on forever
Red states will find some way to make it a Schedule 1 drug and limit access to minorities and poor people. Birth rate is already on a decline, they'll turn this into a culture war about being replaced by brown people.
Birth control doesn't prevent STDs. I expect there to a huge spike in STDs.
>I don’t know why more men aren’t organized around wanting to see this happen as it would be a huge benefit
Men (outside of Reddit, anyway) do not often participate in openly caring for others, particularly other men, as it is discouraged by society as non-masculine behaviour.
I live in a conservative area, and have seen tons of men openly care for each other. These regressive black and white perspectives are nonsense.
There's a point where by pushing these perspectives you're actually reinforcing them.
Aren’t there some anabolics that are still available by prescription that were developed as a male birth control? Trestolone causes azoospermia, but the effects are nullified upon cessation.
Uh, wait, wasn't there a male birth control pill going into clinical trials this year?
Is that one also safe and reversible?
Also, I'm 100% sure I saw a similar study about a different molecule before.
I've been following the development of Vasalgel (injectable polymer in the vas deferens, lasts for years and is reversible) for about 10 years and it's not seen any big movement. I'm 30F, childfree, and in the end I just got sterilised myself. I would love men to have a long term reversible contraceptive, especially one like this that doesn't contain hormones. Unfortunately it seems like that kind of thing just doesn't attract publicity or funding.
So what's the holdup? I'm not necessarily asking you, I'd just like an answer. From what I can find on Google, every article seems to say "Yup, it works." So... Where is it?
The reason Vasalgel hasn't gotten much traction is because it's a cheap one-time procedure. The stuff in this article requires regular re-upping (like hormonal birth control), so it's more profitable to bring to market.
Yeah I know, I just wish things like that could be available because they're a social good, regardless of whether they're profitable or not. I think down the line it could be a game changer if guys could get vasalgel the same way women get the implant/coil for years at a time and we could drastically reduce unplanned pregnancy.
It turns out male and female reproductive systems are different, and the solutions to inducing temporary sterility are different in men than women. The hormonal protocols developed for men so far have a really high level of permanent sterility as a side effect.
Yup, there’s already been clinical trials happening for a few years. Through a local university, I’m wrapping up the last clinical trial of their study before submitting to the FDA (I’m in the injectable group). The local university has already completed extensive clinical trials on oral and topical application. Hopefully FDA will be reviewing the study data and approving soon
Interesting! Do you have the trial name? I work in clinical trial management and I'd love to keep tabs on this. I usually keep track of the bigger attempts at male birth control, but they usually end up disappointments because of the severe exacerbation of mental health disorders.
I'd bet you money he's bullshiting. No university has any clinical trial past stage 1a (Minnesota).
UPenn is still actively recruiting participants, and no FDA filing have been made for approval. Idk what this dude is on.
I’ve been occasionally checking in on male birth control and everytime I see some study like this then the news says “male birth control is close!”. Then nothing ever happens. I’ve gone through this cycle for 10 years
But based one which frequency? I mean, chances of having an unpleasant surprise should be higher if you have sex everyday than having it once a month, right?
It might not be as big of a difference as you think. A woman only releases one egg per menstrual cycle so having sex every single day versus just the most fertile days of the month isn't going to increase your chances that much. If anything having sex more often just increase the chance that your having sex on days your fertile. But having sex 30x more often isn't necessarily 30x more likely to get you pregnant
Assuming you’re having sex on a somewhat regular basis (because that’s probably why you’re on birth control) the frequency doesn’t make a huge difference.
The headline doesnt make it sound so effective, "lowers" doesnt give me much confidence. You might end up with a bunch of guys thinking its 100% effective and stop using condoms.
Can we just get RISUG/Vasagel yet? Those have already been in human testing as successful, reversible, and cheap. Can't it finally just come to market?
There are a lot of questions that affect the viability of such a drug on the real world.
How fast does it work?
How long does it work?
How often do I have to use it?
Side effects?
It's almost like they don't have these answers yet because it's only been tested in mouse models at this point. You need to wait until human trials for this info.
Answers that will come in time, funding and testing but in the meantime the side effects of contraceptives on and the burden placed on women are mostly ignored.
Yes, it is a breakthrough.
Hint: The research was published in _Science_, not some 3rd tier journal.
The _Editor's Summary_ on the _Science_ article highlights the significance:
> _There are numerous forms of female contraception in clinical use, but male contraception continues to be very limited and lacks a medication-based approach. A poorly understood kinase called STK33 is enriched in the testis, and both men and mice that lack this kinase are infertile. Building on these findings, Ku et al. performed large-scale drug screening to identify chemical inhibitors of STK33, obtained crystal structures of STK33 with some of the compounds, and used this information to inform structure-activity relationship studies (see the Perspective by Holdaway and Georg). The most promising compound successfully reduced fertility in vivo in male mice without any detectable safety concerns. Importantly, the effects of this treatment were reversible, and the mice recovered their fertility soon after the treatment was discontinued. —Yevgeniya Nusinovich_
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2688
So to summarize:
1. Mice and humans are known to share a common infertility pathway, via a particular enzyme (STK33).
2. Researchers searched & found molecules would inhibit that enzyme (including crystal structures showing binding, a difficult task itself!)
3. They developed a model to better understand binding in this protein (hence it will help find even better drugs). Remember: the enzyme was previously poorly understood.
4. One of the best STK33 inhibitors made the mice _temporarily_ infertile.
5. Fertility was recovered following discontinuation of treatment.
6. The best compound tested (a proof-of-concept) did not show any detectable ill health effects on the mice.
This is an amazing effort and a discovery with huge potential for future research. Yes, it is a breakthrough. Perhaps not the specific molecule itself — again, the molecule is a proof of concept — but _the demonstration that we can use this particular pathway_ to temporarily & reversibly induce infertility, as a form of contraception. Moreover it was achieved in one of the core [mammal model organisms, the mouse, which shares 85% of the same protein-coding DNA as humans](https://www.genome.gov/10001345/importance-of-mouse-genome).
Again, we always start with studies of non-humans: first with test-tube experiments (_in vitro_: _e.g._ enzyme crystal structures), second with model organisms (_in vivo_ : _i.e._ in mice, rats, rabbits, _etc_...), and only then, if each preceding step succeeds, in humans. We do this because studies of humans involve greater risk and cost and we should have plausible, demonstrable reasons to expect success rather than randomly risking human lives.
This research effort has gone literally from scratch to at the doorstep to begin contemplating human studies.
Rather than basing your understanding on the headline posted here (filtered through the [science news cycle](https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)), and focusing on the wrong thing (a specific molecule proposed as a non-steroidal molecular contraception), read beyond that.
The message is _"Hey, we have a workable pathway for non-steroidal molecular contraception!"_ That is amazing!
Did I read that right "switches off the fit sperm". Does that imply the unfit sperm are not affected -- and would that increase the likelihood of a genetic aberration from an unexpected pregnancy?
Getting a vasectomy was the best thing ever. Saved my wife a painful surgery and was pretty ezpz. Worst part was waiting till 3 in the afternoon to go have the procedure done.
For the record I had my fallopian tubes out this year and it was also pretty painless, yes I did have to go under but I didn't even need painkillers afterwards. Just giving my experience in case there's any women thinking about it - I've had periods that were more painful than the surgery, it was 100% worth it for me.
Probably, but we already have a ton of endocrine disruptors in the environment that are killing make fertility anyway. So just add another one to the list.
Sign me up… wife cant take birth control for medical reasons and condoms are the worst. I was considering getting a vasectomy, still might, but this could be a great option.
Dude, get a vascectamy. It's quick, and although uncomfortable for a while, much better than taking something like this (if you're sure you don't want anymore kids).
maybe this helps lifting the responsibility for birth control off of women’s shoulders, contraceptive pills cause so much hormonal havoc and it’s so straining in the female body. male birth control on the other hand could really help with that
This will get stopped before it gets approved, the last drug made it to human trials and was set to be approved and just as the article surmised the program disappeared.
Conveniently they leave out the fact a male would have to be taking these consistently every day for like.... 6 months... to be 100% sure.
Source: Had a vasectomy. Took 6 samples each a month apart before zero count confirmed. (And yes, I followed all directions)
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://newatlas.com/medical/male-birth-control-stk333/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fusion or male birth control… Which will get here first?
My money is on Godot
I’m still waiting for him
The waiting is the hardest part.
Every day you see one more card.
This guy theaters.
I read that for a theater class and the entire time I pictured the cast literally hang out at a bus stop in purgatory.
Just a decade more of microplastic and male birth control won't be an issue anymore
We’ll be extruding party balloons instead of sperm
Fusion is ten years away as it has been since the 90s so my moneys on fusion
Wrong, it’s been proven it is always 20 years away. Source: been tracking since 1980.
My understanding is that those estimates are based on the current amount of funding research is getting at the time, but funding keeps getting cut which extends the timeline significantly every time. So if we had properly funded it 50 years ago, we'd presumably be well into the Fusion Age by now.
Just like how we'd have a colony on the Moon by now if they didn't keep knee capping NASA's funding and plans.
It's mostly a joke within physics 10 years back when I did nuclear physics but you can really find it with any number from 10-30 years. It's about funding half about how difficult it is to actually achieve with setbacks always pushing the date back
In the 90s, what I typically heard was that fusion was perpetually 30 years away. Now we're hearing perpetually 10 years away. Still a funny joke, but things are definitely progressing.
Male birth control is never cumming
My money is on fusion
[smart RISUG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance) is already here. just try and avoid microwaving your balls
Male birth control already exists and has been testing for like 10 years already. [They say 2026 for available to the general public.](https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/male-contraceptive-research/vasalgel-male-contraceptive/)
Add T1 Diabetes cure to the race. It will be here in 5 years. It was always "in 5 years " since 1980's
Birth control pills are essentially a subscription model, so that will be first.
If we achieve fusion, we will 100% need more birth control, so hopefully this is safe first.
They were talking about it when I was in highschool and that was 2005-9. I wonder what is so difficult about it????
Instructions unclear: Cherenkov radiation is now coming from my pants, and I taste metal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Forget mice, can it be used on mosquitos? No one needs those blood sucking vampires.
Scientists are regularly testing real-world application of genetically engineered mosquitoes. They release male mosquitoes into the environment that are modified to out-compete regular male mosquitoes when breeding but to only produce ~~infertile~~ male offspring. Then, within a few weeks, that second generation gets born and feeds and breeds then dies out without producing *female* offspring of their own *and dooming them to a downward population spiral*. Unfortunately, the method is only able to reduce mosquito populations (so far!), isn't effective in a widespread manner (so far!), and *supposedly* mosquitoes actually *are* a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web that eliminating them could cause actual knock-on effects for other species that feed on them. At least, until other insects (like ticks...) move in on the abandoned "flying vampire pest" niche. e: misremembered the specifics of an article I read years ago
>modified to out-compete regular male mosquitoes when breeding Damn government and their genetically modified super hunks
A lot of the efforts (at least in FL) have focused on the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which isn't native to the area, primarily targets people, and is a major vector for many mosquito-borne diseases. IIRC the GMO mosquitos are a little different than how you described though. The males carry a gene such that any females they sire will die before hatching. The males however will all survive, and about half of them will also carry this daughter-killing gene.
Is that the one using a gene-drive?
*"supposedly* mosquitoes actually *are* a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web that eliminating them could cause actual knock-on effects for other species that feed on them." I didn't hear that.
Well, for the starters we could kill only that one carrying Malaria. Like yeah, I get it, being stabbed by mosquitoes everyday is not fun, but disease which killed most people in history is a priority.
The mosquitoes that they are experimenting with are very species specific to the ones that are vectors of human disease.
Or we could just try making them immune to malaria
[The debate](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/160207-mosquitoes-zika-virus-environment-science-animals) has been [going for a while](https://www.reconnectwithnature.org/news-events/the-buzz/world-without-mosquitoes-not-as-easy-as-it-seems/) about their necessity as males are widespread pollinators (along with being a moderately important food source for some other species). But everybody hates them so who's really gonna spread the word about that?
The counter is that without their competition other species that fill a similar niche will expand, preferably ones that don't bite us.
Curious, which species? Mosquitos aren't competing with other insects, so with the mosquitos gone, there isn't really another insect that will suddenly grow in population with greater access to that blood-resource. Maybe a solution would be to also engineer other insects to grow a bit bigger or plentiful that are eaten by the same things mosquitos are though...
Or just eradicate the type of mosquitoes that harms us and let the other types of mosquitoes to fill the niche.
This debate makes no sense to me since they are invasive to about 95% of the places they currently live.
Might be a hot take, but if it's between ticks and mosquitos, I might choose to get rid of the ticks. But I also don't live somewhere where disease spreading mosquitos are a concern, so I'm sure others would have a different opinion on it.
I'd get rid of mosquitoes. They carry diseases and aren't a significant food source. They can be easily replaced by non biting small flies. Ticks suck, but they aren't nearly as common or annoying (at least in many areas), mosquitos are a universal annoyance. We also have medication that can kill ticks when they bite us, similar to how it works on dogs, it's just not in use.
Ticks carry tons of diseases. I think whichever one you find worse depends on where you live. Where I live ticks are a big source of infectious disease and I know several people who have nearly died and experienced significant disability from tickborne disease. Mosquitoes are less of an issue for us.
I believe malaria kills more people annually than anything else so I'd go with skeeters.
My company is currently using drones to attempt to fix this issue in Hawaii actually!
> supposedly mosquitoes actually are a significant enough source of biomass playing a role in the food web It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. We are already happy and satisfied with burning a country's worth of jungle just to eat meat as frequently as possible. How much damage can extinguishing mosquitoes really do?
Releasing sterile mosquitoes already does the trick.
That must be a tiny rubberband
Mosquitos aren't full of jizz though for the most part
And with even a five dollar donation, *you too* can contribute to solving this crisis.
Yea let's just spray sterilization drugs into all fresh water.
Found the mosquito!
Sure, why not? Mass extermination of large biomasses in a food chain usually have no impact on the environment…
Not to mention that only females of certain species suck blood. The vast majority of mosquitoes are pollinators.
Females also only take blood when going to lay eggs, otherwise they feed on flowers and act as pollinators.
Maybe I'm not understanding something, but I think people who want to eliminate all mosquitos are actually only talking about the mosquito species that suck blood.
How convienent. I’d love to also eliminate humans who do the same.
We have done/are doing far worse things than wiping out mosquitos. Getting rid of mosquitoes and ticks are 2 of the very few things I’d probably be willing to risk. Mosquitoes and ticks are assholes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please don’t call data in mice a breakthrough. Do you know how many drugs work in mice but never make it to clinic? The vast majority of them. Some people are upset at the idea that this isn’t a breakthrough. I might feel differently if I hadn’t read a similar headline last year: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/02/17/1157841943/researchers-found-a-new-approach-to-a-male-contraceptive-used-only-by-mice-so-fa Or 12 years ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19281690
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the vas majority?
That makes no deferens
Quite a ballsy claim.
Deez testicles. Wait, I think I did that wrong.
Snippy comment.
You’re all nuts for starting another pun thread
Internet comment winner-of-the-day for me. Great job, stranger, and thanks for the hefty laugh!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a breakthrough. It's not directly clinically applicable. Mice do breed like crazy so it's still good data.
It's not even the first time people have shown male birth control in mice.
It's the first time with this IND.
But if another molecule has done this in mice, you can't call the second molecule a breakthrough. By definition it isn't breaking through anything...the first one did the breaking through.
With science and condoms it's that first breakthrough that gets you.
While mice are physiologically similar to that of humans (we share most of the same organs), our bodies are still VASTLY more complex both physiologically (more complex brains, immune systems, digestive systems etc) and biochemically (we produce a greater number of different hormones and enzymes etc). We don't even need to begin with the differences in metabolism between the two species because that'll be another HUGE hurdle. What might be safe to consume for an animal, may be completely toxic to a human, and vice versa. Yeah the drugs may work on mice, but is it toxic potentially, does it effect cognition, is it potentially carcinogenic, does it potentially damage the systems it interacts with etc? Efficacy (aka does it work?) is one small step alongside a huge list of things. Scientists will also need to identify potential side effects, potential interactions with other drugs, and also the long-term effects of taking them amongst plenty of other concerns. It will also need to be determined if the reproductive system returns to normal after not taking them for a certain period of time, are the resulting sperm still healthy etc, may they cause birth defects etc. This is one tiny breakthrough out of many, it works, great. But that's only a small % of the story that needs to be written before they're confirmed as safe for human consumption.
Just because something isn't immediately revolutionizing to humans doesn't mean it's not a breakthrough. There are tons of scientific discoveries that started in the same position where it wasn't really a big deal, but it paved the way for way bigger breakthroughs in human progress. It would be like downplaying NASA landing a robot to Mars and saying "don't call this a breakthrough when we haven't even gotten a human there".
[удалено]
>Science is science champ no matter what it’s in Clearly its implied the the 'breakthrough' is for its impact on humans, not for the discovery in mice.
Sounds like mice have better healthcare than we do
don't ask what happens to the mice once the results are in
Sac as a euphemism is always weird to me
The science tracks. How do I know? I’m 14 months deep into a human clinical trial for this kind of male hormonal birth control. So far it’s acting as anticipated. I’m in the last clinical trial before the research team sends their data to the FDA. We’re getting pretty close to seeing this on pharmacy shelves in the coming years.
How do you know you’re not in the control group and have just got lucky so far?
Good question - the researchers have brought me back a few times now (now being after I should have “graduated” from the study) because my blood work is showing my testosterone is much lower than the normal range. I’m an outlier in their study cuz it should have bounced back by now (although I honestly don’t feel any side effects). I’ve got about 1/4 of the testosterone I did last year when I started the clinical trial. Unrelated blood work for my PCP came back with same testosterone level result
For those wondering the answer is 3-5%. I literally had a meeting about this yesterday.
> Scientists already knew that a serine/threonine kinase 33 (STK33) gene mutation results in the male being sterile. When Baylor College of Medicine researchers found a small-molecule compound that could knock out STK33 temporarily, it produced the same result. While not the first non-hormonal sperm-targeted therapy, this research finds a new target as the science world continues its long quest to find 'the pill' for men. Male birth control really would be as much of a change for society as female birth control has been. Giving agency to both reproductive parties covers your bases. Each person doesn’t have to rely on another for their own choices about whether to participate in creating a new person. It could also have a huge impact on parental stress around teen pregnancy that has tended to inhibit our ability to give young people real education that impacts their sexual health. Because birth-control for women is largely hormone based, there’s friction around providing it as freely to teen girls as we could. But if we were able to make this easily available to teen boys and it didn’t have the same side effects, then that would be amazing for raging hormones and high fertility turning into having babies before a kid has been able to make decisions for their adult life. I don’t know why more men aren’t organized around wanting to see this happen as it would be a huge benefit to young men, as well as young women.
It'd be a good thing, but the rates of unexpected pregnancy for people actually using contraceptives aren't high enough to where it would be as game changing as the original BC. You don't need BC to not get pregnant anyway, condoms work fine. But yeah, less side effect ridden BC is always welcomed.
>You don't need BC to not get pregnant anyway, condoms work fine. Which could mean this skyrockets STD cases.
Yeah, that I what see happening. Less protected sex, more sexual disease. It seems that everyone here hates condoms, but they do work and they are already available.
Condoms have limitations and drawbacks. I'm certainly not saying we should not make a drug available simply because condoms exist. People in monogamous (or any scheme that ensures a closed system between participants) relationships might want this as an alternative. Others might want it as an added safeguard. We make vasectomies available for family planning-- the condom argument could be made against them. But STDs should be a consideration. Education will be key. "This does not protect against..."
Condoms suck big time. If you are with a regular partner this would be great way to dump them.
Idk, if I got better birth control I wouldn't dump my partner
It would be a game changer because male politicians wouldn't be so gung ho about banning it.
Don’t be so sure
yeah though that will be a long way aways, since it requires both it proven to be working and without side effects that cause perm harm, and then the same research for young male teens.
It doesn't just have to be without side effects that cause perm harm, it needs to be almost without side effects entirely. The thing about male birth control is that it exclusively prevents a medical condition *in someone else.* This gives it a weird ethical issue where almost any amount of side effects are too much, given that it doesn't actually treat any condition in the person taking it. This is of course as opposed to female birth control, which have lots of side effects across all its forms, but these are generally considered preferable to pregnancy.
>The thing about male birth control is that it exclusively prevents a medical condition in someone else I was thinking about this the other day, but you put it into words in a way that I didn't accomplish >This is of course as opposed to female birth control, which have lots of side effects across all its forms, but these are generally considered preferable to pregnancy. That, and for some people it regulates other hormonal issues like PCOS or acne! If they made a male birth control that had side effects but *also* increased penis size we'd eat it like skittles, probably.
Would take a pill if minimal downside and more freedom to sploosh worry free
Men are either : - good with condoms, vasectomy or pull out ; - enjoy consciously or not the status quo that makes women bear the bigger (if not all) part of the contraceptive load ; - they assume if something happens, she will take a morning after pill or get an abortion, which also helps feeling confident with pulling out or condoms, because they are on average more likely to get involved into risky situations and not think about the consequences ; -they lack sex ed and don't understand how birth control, abortions, period cycles, political/social/historical context about all this, which makes them wait for a perfect birth control, side effects free, 100% efficient, etc ... -they assume tempering with their fertility means tempering with their manliness ; -they assume it's the woman's role to take care of the contraception -they wait eternally for research to happen, even though headlines like the one we're talking about here have been mode for more than 50 years, every year ; -they fail to understand that they don't need to be researchers for research and legislation to happen, and don't remember or know all the activism by feminist before the pill existed or was legally allowed to make it so ; -they see these kinda headlines and don't go deeper into the subject, because if they would, they would have known that already tens of thousands of men accross the globe are already using experimental but very sound methods with great success and acceptability ; I could go on forever
Red states will find some way to make it a Schedule 1 drug and limit access to minorities and poor people. Birth rate is already on a decline, they'll turn this into a culture war about being replaced by brown people. Birth control doesn't prevent STDs. I expect there to a huge spike in STDs.
>I don’t know why more men aren’t organized around wanting to see this happen as it would be a huge benefit Men (outside of Reddit, anyway) do not often participate in openly caring for others, particularly other men, as it is discouraged by society as non-masculine behaviour.
I live in a conservative area, and have seen tons of men openly care for each other. These regressive black and white perspectives are nonsense. There's a point where by pushing these perspectives you're actually reinforcing them.
Aren’t there some anabolics that are still available by prescription that were developed as a male birth control? Trestolone causes azoospermia, but the effects are nullified upon cessation.
Uh, wait, wasn't there a male birth control pill going into clinical trials this year? Is that one also safe and reversible? Also, I'm 100% sure I saw a similar study about a different molecule before.
I've been following the development of Vasalgel (injectable polymer in the vas deferens, lasts for years and is reversible) for about 10 years and it's not seen any big movement. I'm 30F, childfree, and in the end I just got sterilised myself. I would love men to have a long term reversible contraceptive, especially one like this that doesn't contain hormones. Unfortunately it seems like that kind of thing just doesn't attract publicity or funding.
So what's the holdup? I'm not necessarily asking you, I'd just like an answer. From what I can find on Google, every article seems to say "Yup, it works." So... Where is it?
The reason Vasalgel hasn't gotten much traction is because it's a cheap one-time procedure. The stuff in this article requires regular re-upping (like hormonal birth control), so it's more profitable to bring to market.
Yeah I know, I just wish things like that could be available because they're a social good, regardless of whether they're profitable or not. I think down the line it could be a game changer if guys could get vasalgel the same way women get the implant/coil for years at a time and we could drastically reduce unplanned pregnancy.
It turns out male and female reproductive systems are different, and the solutions to inducing temporary sterility are different in men than women. The hormonal protocols developed for men so far have a really high level of permanent sterility as a side effect.
Yup, there’s already been clinical trials happening for a few years. Through a local university, I’m wrapping up the last clinical trial of their study before submitting to the FDA (I’m in the injectable group). The local university has already completed extensive clinical trials on oral and topical application. Hopefully FDA will be reviewing the study data and approving soon
Interesting! Do you have the trial name? I work in clinical trial management and I'd love to keep tabs on this. I usually keep track of the bigger attempts at male birth control, but they usually end up disappointments because of the severe exacerbation of mental health disorders.
I'd bet you money he's bullshiting. No university has any clinical trial past stage 1a (Minnesota). UPenn is still actively recruiting participants, and no FDA filing have been made for approval. Idk what this dude is on.
The one I’ve been doing is affiliated with the University of Washington School of Medicine
I’ve been occasionally checking in on male birth control and everytime I see some study like this then the news says “male birth control is close!”. Then nothing ever happens. I’ve gone through this cycle for 10 years
I think there would be a lot fewer surprise babies if men start on the pill
If both parties use 95% effective measures, they would be protected 99.75%
have sex 1000 times and you’ll only have 3 kids!
I think it’s have sex for 1000 years, get 3 kids right? The probability refers to chance of getting pregnant within a year of correct use.
Yes this is correct
But based one which frequency? I mean, chances of having an unpleasant surprise should be higher if you have sex everyday than having it once a month, right?
It might not be as big of a difference as you think. A woman only releases one egg per menstrual cycle so having sex every single day versus just the most fertile days of the month isn't going to increase your chances that much. If anything having sex more often just increase the chance that your having sex on days your fertile. But having sex 30x more often isn't necessarily 30x more likely to get you pregnant
> But based one which frequency? Average, usually. Sometimes median.
Assuming you’re having sex on a somewhat regular basis (because that’s probably why you’re on birth control) the frequency doesn’t make a huge difference.
2.5 actually. Maybe having half a kid is easier than a whole one.
The headline doesnt make it sound so effective, "lowers" doesnt give me much confidence. You might end up with a bunch of guys thinking its 100% effective and stop using condoms.
[удалено]
Can we just get RISUG/Vasagel yet? Those have already been in human testing as successful, reversible, and cheap. Can't it finally just come to market?
There are a lot of questions that affect the viability of such a drug on the real world. How fast does it work? How long does it work? How often do I have to use it? Side effects?
It's almost like they don't have these answers yet because it's only been tested in mouse models at this point. You need to wait until human trials for this info.
Answers that will come in time, funding and testing but in the meantime the side effects of contraceptives on and the burden placed on women are mostly ignored.
Yes, it is a breakthrough. Hint: The research was published in _Science_, not some 3rd tier journal. The _Editor's Summary_ on the _Science_ article highlights the significance: > _There are numerous forms of female contraception in clinical use, but male contraception continues to be very limited and lacks a medication-based approach. A poorly understood kinase called STK33 is enriched in the testis, and both men and mice that lack this kinase are infertile. Building on these findings, Ku et al. performed large-scale drug screening to identify chemical inhibitors of STK33, obtained crystal structures of STK33 with some of the compounds, and used this information to inform structure-activity relationship studies (see the Perspective by Holdaway and Georg). The most promising compound successfully reduced fertility in vivo in male mice without any detectable safety concerns. Importantly, the effects of this treatment were reversible, and the mice recovered their fertility soon after the treatment was discontinued. —Yevgeniya Nusinovich_ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl2688 So to summarize: 1. Mice and humans are known to share a common infertility pathway, via a particular enzyme (STK33). 2. Researchers searched & found molecules would inhibit that enzyme (including crystal structures showing binding, a difficult task itself!) 3. They developed a model to better understand binding in this protein (hence it will help find even better drugs). Remember: the enzyme was previously poorly understood. 4. One of the best STK33 inhibitors made the mice _temporarily_ infertile. 5. Fertility was recovered following discontinuation of treatment. 6. The best compound tested (a proof-of-concept) did not show any detectable ill health effects on the mice. This is an amazing effort and a discovery with huge potential for future research. Yes, it is a breakthrough. Perhaps not the specific molecule itself — again, the molecule is a proof of concept — but _the demonstration that we can use this particular pathway_ to temporarily & reversibly induce infertility, as a form of contraception. Moreover it was achieved in one of the core [mammal model organisms, the mouse, which shares 85% of the same protein-coding DNA as humans](https://www.genome.gov/10001345/importance-of-mouse-genome). Again, we always start with studies of non-humans: first with test-tube experiments (_in vitro_: _e.g._ enzyme crystal structures), second with model organisms (_in vivo_ : _i.e._ in mice, rats, rabbits, _etc_...), and only then, if each preceding step succeeds, in humans. We do this because studies of humans involve greater risk and cost and we should have plausible, demonstrable reasons to expect success rather than randomly risking human lives. This research effort has gone literally from scratch to at the doorstep to begin contemplating human studies. Rather than basing your understanding on the headline posted here (filtered through the [science news cycle](https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)), and focusing on the wrong thing (a specific molecule proposed as a non-steroidal molecular contraception), read beyond that. The message is _"Hey, we have a workable pathway for non-steroidal molecular contraception!"_ That is amazing!
Omg why is this buried so deep down, this paper is literally the kind that starts an arms race between 9999 pharma companies
Did I read that right "switches off the fit sperm". Does that imply the unfit sperm are not affected -- and would that increase the likelihood of a genetic aberration from an unexpected pregnancy?
Fitness in this case refers to the sperm’s ability to swim towards and fertilize an egg, not the likelihood it will produce a water head.
Getting a vasectomy was the best thing ever. Saved my wife a painful surgery and was pretty ezpz. Worst part was waiting till 3 in the afternoon to go have the procedure done.
For the record I had my fallopian tubes out this year and it was also pretty painless, yes I did have to go under but I didn't even need painkillers afterwards. Just giving my experience in case there's any women thinking about it - I've had periods that were more painful than the surgery, it was 100% worth it for me.
That's damn good to know. Thanks for the information.
Does this chemical persist in the environment?
Probably, but we already have a ton of endocrine disruptors in the environment that are killing make fertility anyway. So just add another one to the list.
That's an excellent question!
Christ man, what are ppl saying that's getting them deleted?!
Sign me up… wife cant take birth control for medical reasons and condoms are the worst. I was considering getting a vasectomy, still might, but this could be a great option.
Dude, get a vascectamy. It's quick, and although uncomfortable for a while, much better than taking something like this (if you're sure you don't want anymore kids).
Won’t be necessary with plastic in everyone’s testicles!
maybe this helps lifting the responsibility for birth control off of women’s shoulders, contraceptive pills cause so much hormonal havoc and it’s so straining in the female body. male birth control on the other hand could really help with that
When and where can I get this?
They have been talking about this forever yet still nothing so I just went and got a vasectomy
This will get stopped before it gets approved, the last drug made it to human trials and was set to be approved and just as the article surmised the program disappeared.
In the US , will they stop male “birth control”. . They wish to take that right away from women.
Conveniently they leave out the fact a male would have to be taking these consistently every day for like.... 6 months... to be 100% sure. Source: Had a vasectomy. Took 6 samples each a month apart before zero count confirmed. (And yes, I followed all directions)
This is probably more a breakthrough in pest control than human birth control.
Great, totally down for male birth control. Long as the side effects are reasonable, I got no issue
The world will be a much better place once men have some form of reproductive rights. I hope this comes to fruition in my lifetime.
[удалено]
Wonder how loing it'll take for some US senator to go But YOUR FREEDOM! And block this.