The newly threatening  Zika virus is one that is a force to be reckoned with for humans. It has been positively linked to an increased risk of birth defects. This virus is primarily transmitted to humans in a similar way malaria is: through the mosquito. The mosquito can draw blood from a person with Zika and then pass it to another person the next time it bites someone. The effects of this virus were nonthreatening and until recently, Zika was almost a non-issue until it was linked to birth defects. To prevent the spread, humans have done things like making sure there is no standing water around civilizations because that’s where the mosquitoes mate. This might help some, but the threatening species, Aedes aegypti, is perfectly content breeding in the small amounts of water that pools in trash lying around a city. The prevention of standing water is largely unfeasible. Another option is to use the effective DDT pesticide, but it was responsible for overarching ecological effects on things other than mosquitoes. The most effective, but controversial solution was developed recently and uses a sort of biological warfare tactic to spread a sterility trait to the species. The ethical question is now posed: is it worth the unforeseeable and irreversible consequences of wiping out a species to prevent the possible birth defects?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/business/new-weapon-to-fight-zika-the-mosquito.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10795562/zika-virus-cdc-mosquitoes-birth-defects