Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. The author's conclusion nails it:
But institutional failures like this aren’t just the aggregate failure of a number of irresponsible people, they are a failure of a cultural attitude that doesn’t demand excellence from everyone in order to get the job done.
I'll add though that when crisis happens the entity 'doing something about it' suddenly looks amazing, even if they were the cause. That means that it is a winning political strategy to create a lot of crisis so you can solve a few of them and look like a hero.
Mistaking the initiation of something as the cause of something is a common mistake. A spark starting a fire in a bin of oily rags is technically the 'cause' but that thinking is clearly short sighted. In reality it was the bad practices that created the environment that was the true culprit. This is an example of the same. I suspect there are constant incursions in and near panama but a layered approach of constant study, monitoring, consistent prevention techniques, etc are what stop a surge in 'unchecked northward migration' from something that happens once or twice and is contained and corrected into something that happens constantly and isn't figured out until this has spread and established itself over thousands of miles. So, yes, the spark was 'northward migration' but the 'unchecked' was because we gave up in being good at this job. We de-funded monitoring and study. We put in place political leaders and not technical experts all because 'expert' opinions aren't important. That is what created the 'unchecked' and why we are here now.
Chances of current US gov mounting a coordinated scientific campaign to get on top of this seem vanishingly small to me. They’re busy defunding and dismantling any gov operation that smells like science
I heard there was one keeping this under control. It involved transgenic flies, which sounds close to transgender. DOGE ended it. It was also pitched as "why are we studying the mating habits of flies?"
We already have medicines that treat the problem. We've had it solved for a long time. We didn't need to genetically modify flies to solve it then, and we don't now.
> We already have medicines that treat the problem
We do have treatments of screwworm infestations, but it involves physically removing the larva and usually removing tissue as well as systemic treatments like antiparasitics. It's labor intensive and not cheap.
It also doesn't actually fix the _overall_ problem because screwworms will happily lay eggs in wild mammals too and so you will constantly be treating your livestock.
> We've had it solved for a long time
Yes, we solved it with mass releases of sterile flies over decades.
Yeah we did have it solved for a long time. We had no screwworms at all in the country. That was a great solution that lasted decades. Why would having to do all the work of applying medication, paying for the medication, animals that you catch late dying of infection and paying for those animals, people occasionally getting screwworms, pets dying to screwworms, etc etc etc be better or cheaper?
Also they don't genetically modify flies they still just irradiate the larva.
We didn't need to genetically modify them, we just sterilized them with x rays and the released masses of sterilized flies into the population. We had that tech in the 50s and wiped them out in the 60s. The best treatment we had was eliminating them from the United States and that's no longer reality.
They're building a new breeding facility in the US. They can't pull a Don't Look Up on this one because of the powerful business interests they need to placate.
When I was doing my PhD in bio one of my colleagues developed something called CRISPR gene drive, which had the potential of exterminating species wholesale. There was talk of using it to wipe out mosquito populations.
The riskiness of it was quite high though. Wonder if people will consider reviving it in this case.
Ordinarily, we wouldn't have issues, but seeing as the US is now a full-blown kakistocracy, being run into the ground by know-nothings and mental cases, I don't have much hope of seeing a competent response.
It's right there, linked in TFA. The press release provided by the GP is instead discussing funding for the "UN Food and Agriculture Organization", which is different. Apparently they also do some unspecified amount of work on the issue.
That aid money went, in part, to preventing the spread of screwworms in Central America. As of 2024, the flies were mostly eradicated in Mexico and efforts were on-going in Panama to wipe them out down to the Darien Gap. In less than 2 years we've gone from them being almost entirely eradicated in North America to infections observed in the United States.
Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease.
I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.
A problem happening eventually is expected. The point of a good program is a layered approach that admits no layer is perfect so you have backups that kick in to minimize the impact of problems. So the problem was emerging in 2022, not great but not a tragedy. Cutting monitoring means we reacted slower and our inability to play with our neighbors well means that we can't coordinate a response quickly or as effectively. Destroying our layered, nuanced policies has real consequences and this is one of them.
Pointing out legitimate failure of an administration is not partisan -- denying or deflecting that criticism is partisan. The current regime has slashed so many programs based on the flimsiest reasoning (including "my predecessor supported this so therefore I hate it").
I'm more than happy to acknowledge any failures by Dem leadership because I'm not a party member and even if I were I would not let that blind me to the reality of that failure.
Screw worms existing before Trump doesn't make it a bipartisan issue. Trump cut the funding, did Democrats do too? So then no only one party ignored and actively defunded it, making it exactly a partisan issue. Good job trying to cover for trump, it's extra pathetic here
Farmer here. We have had our access to medications for livestock severely curtailed over recent years. The screw work is already in Texas. This means there will be massive amounts of suffering we cannot help with.
If we had tariffs, this northward movement of herds would not happen. And American farmers who have to follow high minimum wage rules and strict environmental rules could compete.
It wasn't herds of cattle moving through the jungles of Central America that likely helped the screwworm breach the barrier we'd been maintaining for decades. It was mass human migration. Once they managed to move north any animal was a potential host, not just commercial critters.
And even then it probably could've been held at bay and fought back south, except Mexico in particular was extremely sensitive about any suggestion they might not have everything completely under control.
Even so, the US started contingency plans a while ago just in case, and construction of the new facility. The comments here are quick to try to take a jab at the government but short of nuking southern Mexico from sea to glowing sea once the screwworms breached the line, and that breach wasn't US territory, don't know how this was ever going to play out differently unless the locals at every step of the way stepped up.
Humans generally seek treatment when infected with some horrible parasite, which would result in said parasite getting killed before propagating. Even for incredibly poor people - AFAICS screwworm is rather painful. You're not gonna carry that.
northward movement of herds are already banned between mexico and the usa because of screwworms, so tariffs are irrelevant. Also transmission also occurs through wildlife so banning that is also not enough.
Did some further reading, and it seems likely that the shortages were at least partially created by a boom in demand and crackdown on counterfeit ivermectin products. It's hard for me to see this as a partisan issue when everyone involved was just doing the best they could under fog-of-war conditions.
I disagree, but I would also have a similar reaction if it turned out that toilet-paper supply chain issues left over from the pandemic were going to affect our ability to manage screwworms, and that particular overreaction was non-partisan.
Ivermectin is readily given to livestock. Sheep even get immersed in a bath of it, you can buy sheep drench in the same farm supply store you'll find the apple flavored ivermectin paste for horses.
Are you saying this because you only recognize the name from breathless covid propaganda? Or because you know ivermectin is pretty important in livestock management.
Both! I think it would be unfortunate if a valuable deworming drug was difficult to access in an acute worm crisis because it had became unexpectedly politically salient from an crisis that did not involve worms.
Ivermectin is a very potent drug against parasites. That's probably why it worked so well in third world countries to "treat" COVID-- It didn't affect the virus but it did reduce the immune burden on the body by getting rid of other stuff
This article is misleading because it does not mention Trump or Musk or Doge, and they were mostly responsible for the new outbreak in the US. Mexican cattle imports were banned in the US in 2024 because of the screw worm. Then trump allowed mexican cattle imports in February 2025 even though the screw worm situation was not resolved. Then, in March 2025, Musk's DOGE cut funding for COPEG, the organization that suppresses the screw worm in Panama.
Then the screw worm really spread over Mexico and the United states. The administration then stopped mexican cattle imports in the summer of 2025 again, panicked because of the spread of the screw worm, then started them again in the fall of 2025, panicked because of high beef prices.
Panama was the ideal place to control the screw worm because it was a small chokepoint. The flies that birth the screw worm cannot fly far by themselves, the screw worm moves with cattle, and cattle almost always moves by land.
So COPEG acting at the chokepoint was a cheap and effective way to keep the screw worm from entering north america. The article talks about how great COPEG is, it does not mention that Musk's DOGE cut their funding.
But now the screw worm is all over Mexico and the US, the choke point is lost. Now they are spending much more money all over Latin America and the US with much smaller effect.
Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen. The author's conclusion nails it:
But institutional failures like this aren’t just the aggregate failure of a number of irresponsible people, they are a failure of a cultural attitude that doesn’t demand excellence from everyone in order to get the job done.
I'll add though that when crisis happens the entity 'doing something about it' suddenly looks amazing, even if they were the cause. That means that it is a winning political strategy to create a lot of crisis so you can solve a few of them and look like a hero.
> Trust in science is so low in the US that this was bound to happen.
How is "They were almost certainly transported via unchecked northward migration of people and animals." a consequence of loss of trust in science?
Mistaking the initiation of something as the cause of something is a common mistake. A spark starting a fire in a bin of oily rags is technically the 'cause' but that thinking is clearly short sighted. In reality it was the bad practices that created the environment that was the true culprit. This is an example of the same. I suspect there are constant incursions in and near panama but a layered approach of constant study, monitoring, consistent prevention techniques, etc are what stop a surge in 'unchecked northward migration' from something that happens once or twice and is contained and corrected into something that happens constantly and isn't figured out until this has spread and established itself over thousands of miles. So, yes, the spark was 'northward migration' but the 'unchecked' was because we gave up in being good at this job. We de-funded monitoring and study. We put in place political leaders and not technical experts all because 'expert' opinions aren't important. That is what created the 'unchecked' and why we are here now.
A lesson from The Incredibles which we didn’t collectively learn.
Chances of current US gov mounting a coordinated scientific campaign to get on top of this seem vanishingly small to me. They’re busy defunding and dismantling any gov operation that smells like science
I heard there was one keeping this under control. It involved transgenic flies, which sounds close to transgender. DOGE ended it. It was also pitched as "why are we studying the mating habits of flies?"
We already have medicines that treat the problem. We've had it solved for a long time. We didn't need to genetically modify flies to solve it then, and we don't now.
See sibling threads.
> We already have medicines that treat the problem
We do have treatments of screwworm infestations, but it involves physically removing the larva and usually removing tissue as well as systemic treatments like antiparasitics. It's labor intensive and not cheap.
It also doesn't actually fix the _overall_ problem because screwworms will happily lay eggs in wild mammals too and so you will constantly be treating your livestock.
> We've had it solved for a long time
Yes, we solved it with mass releases of sterile flies over decades.
Yeah we did have it solved for a long time. We had no screwworms at all in the country. That was a great solution that lasted decades. Why would having to do all the work of applying medication, paying for the medication, animals that you catch late dying of infection and paying for those animals, people occasionally getting screwworms, pets dying to screwworms, etc etc etc be better or cheaper?
Also they don't genetically modify flies they still just irradiate the larva.
We didn't need to genetically modify them, we just sterilized them with x rays and the released masses of sterilized flies into the population. We had that tech in the 50s and wiped them out in the 60s. The best treatment we had was eliminating them from the United States and that's no longer reality.
Is this what ivermectin actually treats? Everything comes full-circle.
Just contemplate who is building major facilities in central and southern Texas, and the potential for poetic justice.
They're building a new breeding facility in the US. They can't pull a Don't Look Up on this one because of the powerful business interests they need to placate.
If we all pass around the hat we can make a bet on Kalshi that they "WONT" do this. Right? That's effective democracy!
The Atlantic has two[1][2] rather good articles on the topic.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/flesh-ea...
[2]: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/05/screwwor...
When I was doing my PhD in bio one of my colleagues developed something called CRISPR gene drive, which had the potential of exterminating species wholesale. There was talk of using it to wipe out mosquito populations.
The riskiness of it was quite high though. Wonder if people will consider reviving it in this case.
Ordinarily, we wouldn't have issues, but seeing as the US is now a full-blown kakistocracy, being run into the ground by know-nothings and mental cases, I don't have much hope of seeing a competent response.
Apparently they feed larvae a warm slurry
Headline from March of last year:
Bird flu, screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump
See: https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22636-bird-flu-screwworm...
Elect stupid leaders, get stupid consequences.
As the article you've linked to makes clear, this problem predates the cut in funding.
The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.
Oh great, then the next admin can blame this one when the problem is still around. Why solve a problem when you can just blame the other guys.
The current administration is funding an increase in response:
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit...
It's right there, linked in TFA. The press release provided by the GP is instead discussing funding for the "UN Food and Agriculture Organization", which is different. Apparently they also do some unspecified amount of work on the issue.
That aid money went, in part, to preventing the spread of screwworms in Central America. As of 2024, the flies were mostly eradicated in Mexico and efforts were on-going in Panama to wipe them out down to the Darien Gap. In less than 2 years we've gone from them being almost entirely eradicated in North America to infections observed in the United States.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease.
I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
My point is that the instinct to be partisan on this issue is inane, but also factually incorrect.
> Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut.
Great, so we're agreed that this is at least a bi-partisan problem.
> Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease.
Fortunately, it is. This was linked directly from TFA:
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit...
A problem happening eventually is expected. The point of a good program is a layered approach that admits no layer is perfect so you have backups that kick in to minimize the impact of problems. So the problem was emerging in 2022, not great but not a tragedy. Cutting monitoring means we reacted slower and our inability to play with our neighbors well means that we can't coordinate a response quickly or as effectively. Destroying our layered, nuanced policies has real consequences and this is one of them.
Pointing out legitimate failure of an administration is not partisan -- denying or deflecting that criticism is partisan. The current regime has slashed so many programs based on the flimsiest reasoning (including "my predecessor supported this so therefore I hate it").
I'm more than happy to acknowledge any failures by Dem leadership because I'm not a party member and even if I were I would not let that blind me to the reality of that failure.
Screw worms existing before Trump doesn't make it a bipartisan issue. Trump cut the funding, did Democrats do too? So then no only one party ignored and actively defunded it, making it exactly a partisan issue. Good job trying to cover for trump, it's extra pathetic here
Umm, yes? The funding was put in place because of the problem.
it is the admin responsibility to protect its citizens.
has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?
Farmer here. We have had our access to medications for livestock severely curtailed over recent years. The screw work is already in Texas. This means there will be massive amounts of suffering we cannot help with.
If we had tariffs, this northward movement of herds would not happen. And American farmers who have to follow high minimum wage rules and strict environmental rules could compete.
It wasn't herds of cattle moving through the jungles of Central America that likely helped the screwworm breach the barrier we'd been maintaining for decades. It was mass human migration. Once they managed to move north any animal was a potential host, not just commercial critters.
And even then it probably could've been held at bay and fought back south, except Mexico in particular was extremely sensitive about any suggestion they might not have everything completely under control.
Even so, the US started contingency plans a while ago just in case, and construction of the new facility. The comments here are quick to try to take a jab at the government but short of nuking southern Mexico from sea to glowing sea once the screwworms breached the line, and that breach wasn't US territory, don't know how this was ever going to play out differently unless the locals at every step of the way stepped up.
> It was mass human migration.
[citation needed]
Humans generally seek treatment when infected with some horrible parasite, which would result in said parasite getting killed before propagating. Even for incredibly poor people - AFAICS screwworm is rather painful. You're not gonna carry that.
Tariffs would not stop the screw worm, which lives half of its life as a winged fly.
A fly that naturally spreads one mile per day does not travel from Panama to Texas in four years.
Maybe it came by a faster method.
northward movement of herds are already banned between mexico and the usa because of screwworms, so tariffs are irrelevant. Also transmission also occurs through wildlife so banning that is also not enough.
>We have had our access to medications for livestock severely curtailed over recent years.
Oh no, tell me it's not ivermectin...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220202042136/https://www.fda.g... https://www.tga.gov.au/safety/safety-monitoring-and-informat...
Did some further reading, and it seems likely that the shortages were at least partially created by a boom in demand and crackdown on counterfeit ivermectin products. It's hard for me to see this as a partisan issue when everyone involved was just doing the best they could under fog-of-war conditions.
I disagree, but I would also have a similar reaction if it turned out that toilet-paper supply chain issues left over from the pandemic were going to affect our ability to manage screwworms, and that particular overreaction was non-partisan.
Ivermectin is readily given to livestock. Sheep even get immersed in a bath of it, you can buy sheep drench in the same farm supply store you'll find the apple flavored ivermectin paste for horses.
Are you saying this because you only recognize the name from breathless covid propaganda? Or because you know ivermectin is pretty important in livestock management.
Both! I think it would be unfortunate if a valuable deworming drug was difficult to access in an acute worm crisis because it had became unexpectedly politically salient from an crisis that did not involve worms.
It is
Ivermectin is a very potent drug against parasites. That's probably why it worked so well in third world countries to "treat" COVID-- It didn't affect the virus but it did reduce the immune burden on the body by getting rid of other stuff
> If we had tariffs, this northward movement of herds would not happen.
Please explain how that would work.
Ahh yes tariffs will solve this problem,how's it doing solving all those other problems?
This article is misleading because it does not mention Trump or Musk or Doge, and they were mostly responsible for the new outbreak in the US. Mexican cattle imports were banned in the US in 2024 because of the screw worm. Then trump allowed mexican cattle imports in February 2025 even though the screw worm situation was not resolved. Then, in March 2025, Musk's DOGE cut funding for COPEG, the organization that suppresses the screw worm in Panama.
Then the screw worm really spread over Mexico and the United states. The administration then stopped mexican cattle imports in the summer of 2025 again, panicked because of the spread of the screw worm, then started them again in the fall of 2025, panicked because of high beef prices.
Panama was the ideal place to control the screw worm because it was a small chokepoint. The flies that birth the screw worm cannot fly far by themselves, the screw worm moves with cattle, and cattle almost always moves by land. So COPEG acting at the chokepoint was a cheap and effective way to keep the screw worm from entering north america. The article talks about how great COPEG is, it does not mention that Musk's DOGE cut their funding.
But now the screw worm is all over Mexico and the US, the choke point is lost. Now they are spending much more money all over Latin America and the US with much smaller effect.