genetically enhanced fish

[lancerland]

I was in a LFS on Tuesday buying some pearl danios, and the kid working there said if you like pearls you would love these, and he pointed me to a tank full of bright yellow danios. has anyone seen anything like this? I asked them if they were dyed because I remember reading that dyeng fish is a terrible thing, he told me that they weren't dyed, but genetically enhanced. Is this true???

[Weezer]

I belive that means Hy Brid....:)

[ct-death]

Danios are unfortunately a common target for genetically modified fish-types. Glo-fish (i.e. Danios) were the first to be modified :(

See some articles here:

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1228

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav2i3/glofish/Glofish.htm

[severum mama]

The fish are likely Glofish. They come in a few different colors now, afaik. They are in fact genetically modified, and not dyed, and are not hybrids. These fish are not sterile, as in the case of some hybrids, and the genes that make the fish "glow" are passed onto the offspring. Unlike dyeing fish, this process causes the fish no pain or suffering... but there are obviously other ethical issues involved in any instance of GM animals. If you only have a problem with a process like dyeing because of the suffering it causes (as well as the overall compromised health and shortened lifespan), then you may not take issue with Glofish. That's just something that you need to decide if you are considering keeping these fish.

[lancerland]

I wasn't considering keeping them, they actually looked really unnaturally to me, They would look really out of place in my tank. But it is good to hear that they aren't suffering like the dyed fish :)

[spirals]

One of my neighbors has some genetically altered danios (bright pink and neon green) which just look strange to me. Even more bizarre are her tattooed fish, yeah...tattooed.
they are little balloon belly mollies which have stripes (pink and purple), blue stars, and little dots tattooed onto them.
i still can't logically figure out how they did it, but it scares me

[247Plants]

Booo! to your friend!!!!

[jm1212]

yep, they are genetically modified. i hvae seen many colors, from red to purple. they are different from dyed fish, for they are born the way they are.

[clawlan]

...Even more bizarre are her tattooed fish, yeah...tattooed.

do they have Harleys?

[captaincrampton]

that fish tattooing is sick. how could someone do that?!?

[hitman12131976]

There is a fish out there called the "Mickey Mouse" Platy that I saw
http://z.about.com/d/freshaquarium/1/0/6/U/livebearer18G.jpg

Is that a tatoo?

[Mgamer20o0]

nope

[clawlan]

nope, thats natural as mgamer has said

[Que]

that fish tattooing is sick. how could someone do that?!?

With a really tiny needle... just kidding.

Q

[aquaman#1]

Glowfish r cool. And That mickey mouse platy well I wonder how people breed them that way.

[J double R]

yes, i personally have no problem with genetically modified fish, as it's a very small industry, and it causes no pain or suffering for anybody or anything. whilst i wouldnt actually BUY a bright green or bright red fish like that, i think its cool that theyre finding alternatives to tattooing.

[clawlan]

well said JR

[didy]

yes, i personally have no problem with genetically modified fish, as it's a very small industry, and it causes no pain or suffering for anybody or anything. whilst i wouldnt actually BUY a bright green or bright red fish like that, i think its cool that theyre finding alternatives to tattooing.

I agree, and I often wonder what all the fuss is about. They are so cute, especially for a child's tank. I do understand the concern about the dyed/tattoo fish, but not the glo-fish.

[nickmcmechan]

the sale of gm fish is illegal in the EU

[Malefic23]

The process of creating a glo strain of danio involves inserting the gene for the markings on jellyfish into the nucleas of a unfertilized egg. There's no pain involved for the fish, no shortened lifespan, and the gene divides with the fish's genes, remaining inside each cell. The gene codes for a flourescent protien that does the fish no harm. However, I still can't condone it. It's definitely better than dyeing or tattooing, and I hope it displaces that in the market, but I think there's plenty of nifty stuff in nature. No need to jazz it up.

[nickmcmechan]

So lets ask another question, a hypothetical one.

You live far way from any lfs, the one close by recently closed....

The journey to the nearest lfs would probably kill your fish as it is so far away, so you decide thats not an option. Yuo dont know anyone nearby who will take the fish off your hands.

You have to move house next week and you cant take your tank...

Would you put the fish in the local stream instead of euthanasia?

[Aislinn]

So lets ask another question, a hypothetical one.

You live far way from any lfs, the one close by recently closed....

The journey to the nearest lfs would probably kill your fish as it is so far away, so you decide thats not an option. Yuo dont know anyone nearby who will take the fish off your hands.

You have to move house next week and you cant take your tank...

Would you put the fish in the local stream instead of euthanasia?

No. Euthanising fish is always a last resort, but releasing them into a wild ecosystem is simply not an option.

I'd put them in buckets or rubbermaid tubs with battery powered air pumps and make the drive to the LFS. Unless it's a week long drive, they'd make it.

[nickmcmechan]

Fair enough...your saying to me theres always an option....so we should choose the option that causes minimum impact on the environment and minimum impact on fish...are we saying that gm is neutral to these conditions...if so why are we bothered about it?

[didy]

I don't think any of us can really say we don't try and improve on nature, or we wouldn't have glass tanks with fish in them in our living rooms.

Mine even has gravel that matches the color of the paint and curtains.

[nickmcmechan]

lol...good point didy...if we were that bothered would we even own tanks...dont we genetically modify when we 'create' varieties through selective breeding? So, if gm is wrong, is selective breeding wrong?

[clawlan]

you are doing more harm to a fish by taking it out of its natural habitat and keeping it in a glass cube than you are selectively breeding and genetically modifying. anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool

[nickmcmechan]

'fool' is bit strong, naieve might be more accurate...however...are you saying we should not engage in this hobby at all...are you saying it is unethical to store fish in a glass cube?

If that is the case, is there a means for us to conduct our hobby in a much more ethical manner?

[clawlan]

'fool' is bit strong, naieve might be more accurate...however...are you saying we should not engage in this hobby at all...are you saying it is unethical to store fish in a glass cube?

If that is the case, is there a means for us to conduct our hobby in a much more ethical manner?

oh dont misunderstand, i dont find it wrong to engage in our hobby if done ethically (proper sized tanks, not overcrowding, keeping water pristine, etc). I'm simply saying that if you are going to protest genetic engineering and cross breeding, then you better not have an aquarium of your own.

I personally having nothing against these practices.

[didy]

I don't think it's unethical to keep fish as a hobby, but I also don't have a problem with glo-fish. We wouldn't want them released into the wild, but the same could be said for fancy guppies and any number of other fish. Any fish released in an area where it's not native could be a problem. The snake fish released in MD is more of a problem than glo-fish could ever be.

By the way, the glo-fish were developed to aid in experiments on environmental pollutants in the ecosystem. They weren't created just to look pretty. The pet/hobby trade is just a bi-product of their real scientific purpose .

[nickmcmechan]

Thats my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that.

So, its essential that we do our absolute best to maintain a very healthy environment for our fish, in order to be as ethical as we can!

However, should we exaggerate the situation by purchasing gm fish...can our consciences be clear if we complicitly condone this by purchasing gm fish?

[clawlan]

i see nothing wrong with purchased gm fish, but i also have nothing against genetically engineering a baby to my liking...

[didy]

We've been genetically engineering animals for years, or I wouldn't have an 8 pound dog. The ethical considerations are different in humans.

[nickmcmechan]

So, why are they different...I dont want to get into the human debate because its off topic, but why do we believe its acceptable for animals?

[DarkSoul]

I dont like dying fish, or tattooing them.... thats sick and twisted.
Tattoos cause pain... i know, I have one on my head... I wouldnt do that to a fish that doesnt have the choice or ability to say "hey dude, lets go get some ink" like a human does.

Genetically modified fish however, I dont see a problem with, because they don't suffer.

[nickmcmechan]

However, your point was about choice, we already take choice away when we control fish in captivity, is it right to take the choice completely away before birth by gm?

So, if the ethical considerations are different in humans, what are the ethical consideration with fish - can anyone summarise / list them, ir is it that we simply feel its right or wrong?

Can anyone separate the emotion from the pragmatic in this debate?

[kw0me]

So, why are they different...I dont want to get into the human debate because its off topic, but why do we believe its acceptable for animals?

This is because an animal can't go hey man why do that. it hasn't got a highly evolved mind like a human. by highly evolved i mean dogs didnt invent the wheel or dogs can't drive a car. ect.

[kw0me]

We've been genetically engineering animals for years, or I wouldn't have an 8 pound dog. The ethical considerations are different in humans.

What breed of dog? as far as i was aware the only gm "product" that is used by the public is things like wheat and other grains or food stuffs(oh and glo fish but thats only new to the public). Correct me if i'm wrong but most animals that are different in that way is from selective breeding to create a new style.

[musho3210]

yeah a cross-bred dog isnt a GM animal, its more of a hybrid or something..... glofish are the first genetically modified "pet" for humans, i dont like them since there just not natural..... If these are accepted very well who knows whats next, go up the line to birds, GM them, then maybe move up to reptiles, get a glow in the dark lizard, maybe have some GM amphibians, why stop there, we would have reached mammals by then......

[didy]

True, I was using "genetically engineered" in the broader sense, to include selective breeding of qualities we want in companion animals, such as small size.

But this isn't correct, either,
"glofish are the first genetically modified "pet" for humans"

They were not genetically modified for the purpose of being pets. They were genetically modified for environmental science purposes.

From their website:
GloFish® fluorescent fish are beautiful and unique fish that were originally bred to help detect environmental pollutants. It was only recently that scientists realized the public's interest in sharing the benefits of this research. GloFish® fluorescent fish are safe for the environment and make wonderful pets for new hobbyists and experienced enthusiasts alike. To help address some common curiosities about GloFish® fluorescent fish, the following information is provided:

http://www.glofish.com/about.asp

[musho3210]

but now they are pets..... look at the second sentence, they are the first GM pets for humans, even if they werent GMed for that purpose they are still the first GMed pet.

p.s. lets not argue here, pm me.

[nickmcmechan]

So, remember Darwin and evolution and all that.

Theres a basic priniciple of evolution saying something along the lines of 'survival of the fittest' Surely if we interfere then we interfere with balance. Is the concern over the potentially dire consequences or concern ovet the animal itself? Where do our boundaries lie as pet keepers...where do we draw the line in what is right and what is wrong?

[nickmcmechan]

but now they are pets..... look at the second sentence, they are the first GM pets for humans, even if they werent GMed for that purpose they are still the first GMed pet.

p.s. lets not argue here, pm me.
Hey Guys, this is no argument, this is indeed a very healthy debate going on- keep it live here please?

In all honesty, I sit on the fence with the gm fish, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I just want to really understand why we think its OK or otherwise?

[jm1212]

yeah a cross-bred dog isnt a GM animal, its more of a hybrid or something..... glofish are the first genetically modified "pet" for humans, i dont like them since there just not natural..... If these are accepted very well who knows whats next, go up the line to birds, GM them, then maybe move up to reptiles, get a glow in the dark lizard, maybe have some GM amphibians, why stop there, we would have reached mammals by then......
dogs are all the same species. just because one is a different color or shape does not make it a different species.

[clawlan]

musho has some strong opinions that are fair, but I disagree with 100%. I see nothing wrong with genetic modification. if they move up to birds, reptiles, humans (oh dear god not humans!!!!!!), I don't care. GM humans to eliminate genetic diseases is the pinnacle of medical technology and I support 100%

[nickmcmechan]

musho has some strong opinions that are fair, but I disagree with 100%. I see nothing wrong with genetic modification. if they move up to birds, reptiles, humans (oh dear god not humans!!!!!!), I don't care. GM humans to eliminate genetic diseases is the pinnacle of medical technology and I support 100%
So, why do you feel its OK, whats your reasoning?

[musho3210]

musho has some strong opinions that are fair, but I disagree with 100%. I see nothing wrong with genetic modification. if they move up to birds, reptiles, humans (oh dear god not humans!!!!!!), I don't care. GM humans to eliminate genetic diseases is the pinnacle of medical technology and I support 100%

How is GM humans gonna help with medical technology? GM humans may even GM our diseases making them worse? Lets say the common cold (Acute viral nasopharyngitis) lets say you have the common cold but not that noticable yet. Then you get injected with the GM modification (lets say this GM made you stronger), what if the GM injection changed the sickness? Genetically modified virus that are stronger than the normal virus going everywhere. What if the GM people are immune to this sickness but it is deadly to non GM people, anything can happen, like the fish, on the glo-fish website, they say no glofish go for sale unless they have made sure that glo-fish has no differences from the normal zebra danio (danio rerio), they wouldnt say that if there were no differences in any fish......

[clawlan]

How is GM humans gonna help with medical technology? GM humans may even GM our diseases making them worse? Lets say the common cold (Acute viral nasopharyngitis) lets say you have the common cold but not that noticable yet. Then you get injected with the GM modification (lets say this GM made you stronger), what if the GM injection changed the sickness? Genetically modified virus that are stronger than the normal virus going everywhere. What if the GM people are immune to this sickness but it is deadly to non GM people, anything can happen, like the fish, on the glo-fish website, they say no glofish go for sale unless they have made sure that glo-fish has no differences from the normal zebra danio (danio rerio), they wouldnt say that if there were no differences in any fish......

You present an interesting but overzealous argument. When speaking about the medical profession and the implications of genetic engineering therein, I am talking about the elimination of genetic diseases, not attempted strengthening the immune system by injecting random chemicals; this science is infinitely more precise than your misguided example attempts to display. Diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, certain forms of cancer, depression, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, (over 4,000 already identified) have the potential to be prevented now that the problem genes can be located on the donor's chromosomes. A relatively simple procedure of replacing the affected genome will end tremendous amounts of pain and suffering.

In regards to your claim on possibly creating a super-strain of bacteria, that is wholly improbable and incongruous. Take into consideration all forms of antibiotics. An antibiotic works by invading the nucleus of certain bacteria cells, altering their DNA and essentially not allowing them to reproduce which ultimately leads to their destruction, and the host (me and you) becoming healthy again. Has this lead to the death of some people not able to tolerate the antibiotic? Yes. Has it saved and cured countless others? Yes. Is this genetic modification bad? Of course not.

You may bring up the issue of many strains now having resistance to most antibiotics; penicillin immunity being the most popular. This is to be expected, as is the case with any living organism. Killing of strains of a virus allows the unaffected strains to flourish. This previously secondary organism now doesn't have to fight for existence now that the dominant mutation is gone. This is the sole topic of Darwin's "Origin of Species".

Now, back to the original topic of genetically modified fish, specifically glo-fish. I will take this time to go into a little more depth about glo-fish, their origin, and their original purpose. In 1999, environmental scientists at the National University of Singapore successfully extracted the gene of a specific species of Jelly-fish that produces a green flouresecent protein and inserted into the genome of the common zebra diano. The obviously lead to the new phenotype known as the glo-fish. The purpose was to be able to release the fish into waters and when they came in contact with certain toxins, the fish would exhibit the characteristic glow. So in effect this was created to help save aquatic species and land species alike by quickly identifying these toxins in the water and correcting them before they could do any real harm.

You may protest that it is cruel to subject these fish to possible aquatic toxins. Though you obviously see that they would be subject to them anyways, and in much greater amounts if not identified sooner by the use of glo-fish.

Currently, there is also another kind of glo-fish which allows for the many other colors. These are created by extracting a similar gene from certain luminescent coral species and inserting them into the fish's genotype. As with both of these methods, no physical (or emotional) harm has come to the fish as a result of this practice. As I have stated earlier, by simple comparison, it is FAR more devastating to take a fish from its natural habitat and forcing it to live in a glass box, than it is to change the phenotype of the fish.

I can continue these examples with the cross breeding of other animals such as dogs. Take for example the cocker-spaniel whose origins can be traced as far back as circa 1620 as the cross between a common spaniel (from which all spaniel species have originated) and a mastiff. The cocker spaniel obviously looks far different than its originating parents of centuries ago but do you ridicule its conception and existence? Of course not. Is it because the cocker spaniel doesn't have neon green fur? The point that I am trying to make here is that genetic modifying, genetic mutations, and cross breeding has been around ever since the dawn of man. And one should not criticize this because they think it is unnatural or because they think is simply looks unnatural.

So to wrap up, if you are morally against genetic mutation, that is your decision and I will not ridicule you for it. But one must do their research and understand the gravity of their statements so as to boycott all forms of this. It is irresponsible (and embarrassing for that matter) to attempt to argue opinions and viewpoints without proper knowledge and a full understanding. I hope I have opened your eyes and at least given you a little insight into your well intentioned, though profoundly erroneous argument.


After reading this post, I feel it is necessary to mention my extensive background and research into philosophy, ethology, bioethics, and genetic engineering and modification.

[nickmcmechan]

You present an interesting but overzealous argument. When speaking about the medical profession and the implications of genetic engineering therein, I am talking about the elimination of genetic diseases, not attempted strengthening the immune system by injecting random chemicals; this science is infinitely more precise than your misguided example attempts to display. Diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, certain forms of cancer, depression, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis, (over 4,000 already identified) have the potential to be prevented now that the problem genes can be located on the donor's chromosomes. A relatively simple procedure of replacing the affected genome will end tremendous amounts of pain and suffering.

In regards to your claim on possibly creating a super-strain of bacteria, that is wholly improbable and incongruous. Take into consideration all forms of antibiotics. An antibiotic works by invading the nucleus of certain bacteria cells, altering their DNA and essentially not allowing them to reproduce which ultimately leads to their destruction, and the host (me and you) becoming healthy again. Has this lead to the death of some people not able to tolerate the antibiotic? Yes. Has it saved and cured countless others? Yes. Is this genetic modification bad? Of course not.

You may bring up the issue of many strains now having resistance to most antibiotics; penicillin immunity being the most popular. This is to be expected, as is the case with any living organism. Killing of strains of a virus allows the unaffected strains to flourish. This previously secondary organism now doesn't have to fight for existence now that the dominant mutation is gone. This is the sole topic of Darwin's "Origin of Species".

Now, back to the original topic of genetically modified fish, specifically glo-fish. I will take this time to go into a little more depth about glo-fish, their origin, and their original purpose. In 1999, environmental scientists at the National University of Singapore successfully extracted the gene of a specific species of Jelly-fish that produces a green flouresecent protein and inserted into the genome of the common zebra diano. The obviously lead to the new phenotype known as the glo-fish. The purpose was to be able to release the fish into waters and when they came in contact with certain toxins, the fish would exhibit the characteristic glow. So in effect this was created to help save aquatic species and land species alike by quickly identifying these toxins in the water and correcting them before they could do any real harm.

You may protest that it is cruel to subject these fish to possible aquatic toxins. Though you obviously see that they would be subject to them anyways, and in much greater amounts if not identified sooner by the use of glo-fish.

Currently, there is also another kind of glo-fish which allows for the many other colors. These are created by extracting a similar gene from certain luminescent coral species and inserting them into the fish's genotype. As with both of these methods, no physical (or emotional) harm has come to the fish as a result of this practice. As I have stated earlier, by simple comparison, it is FAR more devastating to take a fish from its natural habitat and forcing it to live in a glass box, than it is to change the phenotype of the fish.

I can continue these examples with the cross breeding of other animals such as dogs. Take for example the cocker-spaniel whose origins can be traced as far back as circa 1620 as the cross between a common spaniel (from which all spaniel species have originated) and a mastiff. The cocker spaniel obviously looks far different than its originating parents of centuries ago but do you ridicule its conception and existence? Of course not. Is it because the cocker spaniel doesn't have neon green fur? The point that I am trying to make here is that genetic modifying, genetic mutations, and cross breeding has been around ever since the dawn of man. And one should not criticize this because they think it is unnatural or because they think is simply looks unnatural.

So to wrap up, if you are morally against genetic mutation, that is your decision and I will not ridicule you for it. But one must do their research and understand the gravity of their statements so as to boycott all forms of this. It is irresponsible (and embarrassing for that matter) to attempt to argue opinions and viewpoints without proper knowledge and a full understanding. I hope I have opened your eyes and at least given you a little insight into your well intentioned, though profoundly erroneous argument.


After reading this post, I feel it is necessary to mention my extensive background and research into philosophy, ethology, bioethics, and genetic engineering and modification.
Fascinating....

So how do draw the boundaries as to what is right and wrong.

I dont disagree with anything said, but to *******ise your example, do we want a society where people walk around with glo-dogs, half dog half pig hybrids...I could go on. Who lnows what will be acceptable or not in the future...there must surely have been raised eyebrows over that friek dog that is now a cocker spaniel.

So, isn't the real question: where do we draw the line? What are the opinions on that?

I ask so that we think about this will all wash out in 100 years from now. The resistance to glo fish is good so that things aren't taken too far - isn't it? We dont want things to get out of hand in the future by giving people a free license, do we?

I would say the resistance to glo fish is healthy...while inthemselves I agree they are harmless...I think I'm trying to say its the potential of where it might go.............

[clawlan]

Fascinating....
I would say the resistance to glo fish is healthy...while inthemselves I agree they are harmless...I think I'm trying to say its the potential of where it might go.............

A very well crafted statement. This really embodies the unanswerable question of how far should it go and how should we approach the topic of bioethics. I certainly don't have the answer to that, as I don't think anyone can successfully argue a stopping point.

[nickmcmechan]

so, if we can't argue a stopping point, then its easy for people to argue the starting point...therefore total resistance to all gm would win over, and the potential benefits would never be learned.

is it therefore about measuring the consequnce...has no one ever done work on it? time for someone to get nobel prize!

in terms of the hobby, they are illegal over here, but I know for fact that 50% of the lfs around here sell them openly....wonder why its not enforced?

[ct-death]

I don't know why I feel compelled... :(

Before I start, this hobby started off as a scientific endeavor and latter became a means of preserving rare and threatended species. To a smaller degree we too help in this effort, but in large part, we are simply ametuers compelled to manipulate nature for our own pleasure. Don't make this out to be anything more than it is. For some, this is simply a retreat from the world, for others its a way of life, and for a few, its a passion to keep those few species we can control with us a little bit longer to try and understand a little bit more about our world. <-I wish I was one...

Now, as for this topic: The first genetically modified organism by humans was NOT the Glo-Fish. For animals it was the Wolf/coyote, for plants it was the "primitive" corn (I forget the name). With better technology, we can created more unique (or radical) changes in species in a shorter amount of time. Nothing more, but in the end it's the same thing that we are changing! Hair color, body shape, behaviors...just in the past we had to wait what many felt was a more "acceptable" or comfortable amount of time, which gives many the false sense of safety. Neither is more or less "safe" than the other.

Do I gauk at a 250lbs Mastif (its the world's largets dog FYI)? You bet! Do I gauk at a glo-in-the-dark fish? You bet! Heck I gauk at people that shave their poodles, pierce their nipples, build a house on the side of a muddy hill, or dye their hair pink...You bet!, but that's me. Other's do NOT find this behavior or change radical or uneasy at all. Its a matter of perspective.

I say it's a matter of perspective given this very important statement: If the alteration is not one that causes stress (whether it be pain or otherwise), or the potential to be used in a harmful way (i.e. creating a super disease) - then I am okay with it.

If this helps: This world will not be able to support the Humane "BIOLOAD" (to use one of our terms) in the not-so-distant future. What are our options? We can't simple change the water, but we can reduce our waste and bioload on the planet (i.e. recycling, reduction in CO2 emissions etc.) OR we can create a food product that reduces its impact...

Over 1/2 the world's population goes to bed starving, not hungry. We currently utilize bio-engineered foods to grow corn and rice in arid regions just to slow this suffering. Is this bad as well? Are you going to be the one to tell them this is unethical?

Bah, I digress as I knew I would, sorry. Simply put, you have a choice. If everyone felt the same and did not purchase these "products", these fish would not exist on the market - period. Oh and why you're at it, bring back your kid's pet dog and cat too...

[enrique4jc]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about these fish. I've never seen them in person, but I did see a video on youtube that showed them. To be honest, though they're definitely unique, I thought they were pretty cool. They would probably be out of place in anything but a specific tank for themselves, but if one were going for a certain artistic look, it could be nice. Besides, since it is a harmless process, at least as far as we know, I don't see the ethical dillema.

[nickmcmechan]

I don't know why I feel compelled... :(

Before I start, this hobby started off as a scientific endeavor and latter became a means of preserving rare and threatended species. To a smaller degree we too help in this effort, but in large part, we are simply ametuers compelled to manipulate nature for our own pleasure. Don't make this out to be anything more than it is. For some, this is simply a retreat from the world, for others its a way of life, and for a few, its a passion to keep those few species we can control with us a little bit longer to try and understand a little bit more about our world. <-I wish I was one...

Now, as for this topic: The first genetically modified organism by humans was NOT the Glo-Fish. For animals it was the Wolf/coyote, for plants it was the "primitive" corn (I forget the name). With better technology, we can created more unique (or radical) changes in species in a shorter amount of time. Nothing more, but in the end it's the same thing that we are changing! Hair color, body shape, behaviors...just in the past we had to wait what many felt was a more "acceptable" or comfortable amount of time, which gives many the false sense of safety. Neither is more or less "safe" than the other.

Do I gauk at a 250lbs Mastif (its the world's largets dog FYI)? You bet! Do I gauk at a glo-in-the-dark fish? You bet! Heck I gauk at people that shave their poodles, pierce their nipples, build a house on the side of a muddy hill, or dye their hair pink...You bet!, but that's me. Other's do NOT find this behavior or change radical or uneasy at all. Its a matter of perspective.

I say it's a matter of perspective given this very important statement: If the alteration is not one that causes stress (whether it be pain or otherwise), or the potential to be used in a harmful way (i.e. creating a super disease) - then I am okay with it.

If this helps: This world will not be able to support the Humane "BIOLOAD" (to use one of our terms) in the not-so-distant future. What are our options? We can't simple change the water, but we can reduce our waste and bioload on the planet (i.e. recycling, reduction in CO2 emissions etc.) OR we can create a food product that reduces its impact...

Over 1/2 the world's population goes to bed starving, not hungry. We currently utilize bio-engineered foods to grow corn and rice in arid regions just to slow this suffering. Is this bad as well? Are you going to be the one to tell them this is unethical?

Bah, I digress as I knew I would, sorry. Simply put, you have a choice. If everyone felt the same and did not purchase these "products", these fish would not exist on the market - period. Oh and why you're at it, bring back your kid's pet dog and cat too...
Absolutely agree with the 'feed the world' thing....

This compels a fascinating point....

What matter most when a human makes the decision to genetically modify a creature:

(a) the motivation for doing so, is there anyone who would happily argue that gm is wrong when it can help stop people starving and dying

or is it

(b) the consequence of doing so. In the above food for the starving example, the consequence is a clear benfit.

So lets apply this to gm fish:

(a) the motivation was a conservation issue. However, it is now purely for our pleasure

(b) the consequence was originally environmental concern and control of pollution, it is now unknown and random....isnt that a serious concern...where will it end on this one?

So, where does that leave us?

[OgreMkV]

I would just like to mention that there may be some as-yet undiscovered problem with the genetic codes of these fish. We know enough to play with genetics, but we still have no idea how the gesalt will be affected by seemingly simple changes on the inside.

I read awhile back about some genetically engineered trout. They were albinos. They were developed and released into popular fly-fishing streams to make it easier for sport fishermen to find them. Unfortunately, it made it easier for predators to find them too. Not to mention that they tasted bad and often died of sunburn.

Honestly, like most here, I don't have a problem with the activity. In relation to the Glo-fish themselves, I would say that these are definately pets. Probably, they wouldn't survive well in the wild. Too bright and all that.

These types of experiments have already been conducted on mice. Yes, glow-in-the-dark mice. I'm actually surprised that they haven't been marketed yet.

In my thinking, we're nearing the limit of what is reasonable in terms of GM animals. There's really no point to most things like that. Maybe cows that grow twice as fast or bacteria that absorb greenhouse gases or something. But, you know, as soon as someone GMs a lizard with wings... millions will stand in line to buy a baby dragon.

Plants, though, are another story. We have only begun the possibilities of plants. Everything from desert reclamation to feeding starving nations may be possible in the near future.

[clawlan]

haha. its of course both consequence and motivation. Some people may be morally against the alteration of "god's creations". Others may not have a problem with that but are afraid of what could become of genetically modified organisms. I think it all depends on your background, culture, and morale ideals.

[nickmcmechan]

So, if we take the emotion out of the debate, then we simply emotionally debate the consequence and motivation!!!???!!!???!!!!

[clawlan]

haha, um can you retype that? im confused

[nickmcmechan]

that was probably deliberate, just playing with the debate.

So, take the emotion out and you end up with a debate on consequence and motivation.

Inevitably, that debate will end up emtional in itself...

[clawlan]

that is obvious because the nature of consequence and motivation are wholly defined by emotion

[ct-death]

that is obvious because the nature of consequence and motivation are wholly defined by emotion

Well put.

As for the dangers of genetically modified organisms, it is simply not any greater than breeding the hard way - Again it just makes the process "faster".

And as for humans doing this; we are affecting every living thing on this planet whetehr we like it or not. Those creatures are adapting with or without our help. Does the level of direct involvement and/or the pace at which change is caused rrally matter? the end is the same.

And let's not forget Nature's own blunders throughout our natural history!!! Exctinctions and mass die offs due to the arrival of new species like we have never seen before has already occured multiple times already! I'm going to get the names wrong, but the Jurasic and the Crustacious Periods. Now those were Dog-Eat-Dog worlds!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not for the manipulation of an organism for the simply reason of providing me with some personal pleasure (ie. new fish species), I just don't think that's right (or to use the word: ethical). Again, "If the alteration is not one that causes stress (whether it be pain or otherwise), or the potential to be used in a harmful way (i.e. creating a super disease) - then I am okay with it." Others feel differently, and you now what - That's OKAY!

However, it really isn't any more or less of an issue as it has always been in the past, and that's my point. If the arguement is about the dangers, there really is none (ethically, yes, you have a position). Of course there will always be unknowns and possible dangers.

...but hey I can create a Super Bee from a simple Honey Bee and a small African Bee, what can be the harm in only one generation!?!?! :eek:

[kw0me]

"Plants, though, are another story. We have only begun the possibilities of plants. Everything from desert reclamation to feeding starving nations may be possible in the near future."

Sorry but i have to correct you they have been doing it to plants for the past 50-60 years. If they didnt we would have one fith of the volume of food availible to us.

[kw0me]

another one to think about is Stem cell research.it can make people walk again (has been proven in mice and other animals). the practice is banned on humans due to its the next step to clone people.

Would you want? allow the practice and ban cloning so you can walk again or seal it shut and forget about it.

[clawlan]

*********WARNING: OFF TOPIC*********
I just wanted to say thats its refreshing to know that there are other intelligent people out there who can carry on an intelligent conversation on a controversial issue. I was beginning to think I was the only one out there. So, anyone of you an attractive young woman in need of a soul mate?? :)

[didy]

another one to think about is Stem cell research.it can make people walk again (has been proven in mice and other animals). the practice is banned on humans due to its the next step to clone people.

Would you want? allow the practice and ban cloning so you can walk again or seal it shut and forget about it.
Stem cell research, in any of its forms, is not banned. At least not in the U.S.

[Star_Rider]

Well put.

As for the dangers of genetically modified organisms, it is simply not any greater than breeding the hard way - Again it just makes the process "faster".

And as for humans doing this; we are affecting every living thing on this planet whetehr we like it or not. Those creatures are adapting with or without our help. Does the level of direct involvement and/or the pace at which change is caused rrally matter? the end is the same.

And let's not forget Nature's own blunders throughout our natural history!!! Exctinctions and mass die offs due to the arrival of new species like we have never seen before has already occured multiple times already! I'm going to get the names wrong, but the Jurasic and the Crustacious Periods. Now those were Dog-Eat-Dog worlds!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not for the manipulation of an organism for the simply reason of providing me with some personal pleasure (ie. new fish species), I just don't think that's right (or to use the word: ethical). Again, "If the alteration is not one that causes stress (whether it be pain or otherwise), or the potential to be used in a harmful way (i.e. creating a super disease) - then I am okay with it." Others feel differently, and you now what - That's OKAY!

However, it really isn't any more or less of an issue as it has always been in the past, and that's my point. If the arguement is about the dangers, there really is none (ethically, yes, you have a position). Of course there will always be unknowns and possible dangers.

...but hey I can create a Super Bee from a simple Honey Bee and a small African Bee, what can be the harm in only one generation!?!?! :eek:

interesting take..however, science has still not determined what actually killed the dinosaurs.(what they are debating this?) ;)

compared to the dinosaurs humans have only been on the earth one tick of a clock..

I wouldn't exactly call this a 'blunder of natural history"
especially if you consider one theory (large object impacting the earth changing the environment)...

my personal take on gentically modifying anything....we are still waiting to see what the actual impact is really going to be.

still a very intersting read.

personally I don't care for modified fish.

[ct-death]

I wouldn't exactly call this a 'blunder of natural history"
especially if you consider one theory (large object impacting the earth changing the environment)...

I was actually trying to specifically avoid the whole asteriod/volcano theory and time, but was rather just hoping to keep it to the greatest period in our earth's living history for mass extinctinctions and the creation of new species and that this is a "Blunder" only in that in order for change there is suffering in the natural world (I find this perfectly normal; I just liked the word "blunder" to make a point). ;)

Again just going to the point that chnage is normal, and we aren;t doing anything that hasn't happend in nature already thousands, or rather millions of times already. The Killer Bee example is just to further show that even with "normal" or more conventional means "we" and thus nature can achieve the remarkable in just 1 generation

[nickmcmechan]

ok, see the points in page 7 here, lets bring them back into gm fish and back on topic guys

[Toirtis]

the sale of gm fish is illegal in the EU

Also in Canada.

[Toirtis]

One of my neighbors has some genetically altered danios (bright pink and neon green) which just look strange to me. Even more bizarre are her tattooed fish, yeah...tattooed.
they are little balloon belly mollies which have stripes (pink and purple), blue stars, and little dots tattooed onto them.

Fish with words on them are out now....will not be long until they are tattooed with adverts.

[OgreMkV]

Here's a thought... would you by genetically modified fish that have no different external appearance, but have been modified to either
A) secretes an enzyme that breaks down ammonia, Nitrates, and/or nitrites
B) secretes an enzyme that attacks chlorophyll (no live plants, but no algae either)
C) secretes urea as pellets that do not dissolve in water instead of as a liquid.

These are a couple of GM mods that might be beneficial to hobbiests.

[nickmcmechan]

Here's a thought... would you by genetically modified fish that have no different external appearance, but have been modified to either
A) secretes an enzyme that breaks down ammonia, Nitrates, and/or nitrites
B) secretes an enzyme that attacks chlorophyll (no live plants, but no algae either)
C) secretes urea as pellets that do not dissolve in water instead of as a liquid.

These are a couple of GM mods that might be beneficial to hobbiests.
no, the effects if this was spread to the natural environment somehow would be comlpetely disastorous

[clawlan]

no, the effects if this was spread to the natural environment somehow would be comlpetely disastorous

I believe you should rethink this answer. Think about all the fish available online and at stores. Think about all the plants available online and at stores. Think of our entire hobby. If you release those back into the wild in areas that they are not native, they could decimate native species (zebra muscles, kiobab deer, wild dogs, etc). There is really no real difference.

[nickmcmechan]

I stand by the answer, but should explain....

a) secretes an enzyme...amonnia etc will occur in nature to feed bacteria and is therefore necessary
b) attack chlorophyll...all river plants would die
c) pellets that dont dissolve...not bothered really.

So, I was replying specifically to the points in question for the reasons stated...

[nickmcmechan]

.................maybe our entire hobby is unethical.................

[clawlan]

from a strict environmentalist, of course it is. we are taking creatures out of their habitat and keeping them in "fish bowls" for our own pleasure. But I think this standpoint is a little too harsh. So long as our tanks are not over crowded and are maintained properly, the fish live a great happy life and are actually safe from predators and other things that would kill them in the wild. Again, its all in the eye of the beholder.

[kmail5776]

I stand by the answer, but should explain....

a) secretes an enzyme...amonnia etc will occur in nature to feed bacteria and is therefore necessary
b) attack chlorophyll...all river plants would die
c) pellets that dont dissolve...not bothered really.

So, I was replying specifically to the points in question for the reasons stated...

Actually, I think C) pellets would be too much stress on the fish, since they would biologically have to pull the water out internally. Lizards and birds do it (secrete pure urea) to conserve water. They are pretty dry animals.

As for A), if a fish secretes enzymes like that, would they then even secrete ammonia then, or something else (like tri nitro toluene?)

[clawlan]

i think that was more of a rhetorical question...

[OgreMkV]

Oh, I agree totally that these fish, if released into the wild would be a total nightmare. Of course, the same thing is happening with pet Boas released into the Everglades right now. Anytime you release something non-native, the results are almost always a BAD THING.

However, I was thinking of some things that all these genetics companies might consider to make a quick couple of bucks to support all their research. Some people would snap them up looking for a quick cure to their tank issues. Of course, those are the same people that would release them into the wild... sigh.

No, my thing is more of a marketing plan rather than a what's a good idea thing. Like Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, "They were so busy trying to figure out if they could, they didn't think to figure out if they should."

[spirals]

while i find this entire debate wonderful and mind boggling...i still can't get the image of a glow-in-the-dark lizard out of my head...

[clawlan]

i still can't get the image of a glow-in-the-dark lizard out of my head...

http://i6.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/9b/31/ec18_1.JPG

[ct-death]

.................maybe our entire hobby is unethical.................
Zoos, Aquariums, Nature Preserve Parks...All of these as well, or just not the last one?

The point I'm making is, again it's a matter of perspective. Most would find the concrete cages of the old managerees apalling, but Zoos have come a long ways - They now paint their walls and have added plants (Wait that sounds a lot like my tank :eek:)!

Anyways, one could agrue that a Nature Preserve is in essence just a really big Zoo in the end, but instead of moving the animals we moved the "zoo". Now I don't think any of us would make a case that there is anything bad with these obviously.

re: Clawlan's comment on his statement concerning the practice of our hobby being unethical as a bit harsh (I would have to agree). I agree in part, b/c if our hobby is practiced properly it is NOT very stressful at all to the fish (stress itself is just not avoidable, but then the Wild isn't much easier!).

My issue is really that very few of us practice our hobby 'for' the fish, but rather we practice it for 'us' ultimately. As such, there will inherently be conflicts between fish care/treament and our own wants. Just click on any of the Forums and count the many posts on "Can I have this fish in this tank with these fish?", or better yet, "Why did my fish die?", or "Why do the other fish hurass my new fishy?", or "Why wont my fish breed?", etc...... :(

If ethicality was such a paramount concern, no one would get fish w/out knowing everything that there was to know (one of the key aspects of this hobby is the pursuit of this knowledge IMO), and no one would do a Cycle with fish...

P.S. I have enjoyed this discussed and have looked forward to other's inputs and thoughts - Thanks ;)

[didy]

If ethicality was such a paramount concern, no one would get fish w/out knowing everything that there was to know....


Can any of us ever know all there is to know? Isn't the fact that you can't simply study for a few weeks and know it all part of the appeal of fish keeping?

Is it safe to say that those who object don't object to the glofish's development for scientific purposes, but rather them subsequently being available for sale to fish keepers?

I think this all boils down to whether or not societies laws/regulations should be geared toward the lowest common denominator, or geared toward personal responsibility. If it's the former, all of fish keeping could be called into question.

Many of the objections to glofish seem to be concerns about the possibility of them finding their way to natural waters. That certainly isn't an environmental concern for these fish exclusively.

[nickmcmechan]

Ok guys, lets face into some facts:

- people do release unwanted animals into the wild
- our hobby is firstly for our own pleasure, secondly for the care of fish
- hundreds of thousands of fish are 'killed' every year by hobbyists

So, in all honesty we're bad enough as it is, isn't it a disgrace to genetically modify for our own pleasures...we've taken it too far haven't we?

However, before you all jump on my back and beat the hell out of me, heres some other facts:

- endagered species such as Arowana can be preserved in the hobby
- when our knowledge is good we can take care of the fish pretty well, we could argue that perhaps even better than in the wild on some cases
- we all seem to enjoy breeding, so we also create life and all in all it probably balances out eventually

So, when I look at a couple of pros and cons above, I still cant justify in my mind the glo fish...however this probably purely emotive, so convince me its ehtical to propogate glo fish...I'm not arguing about it being unethical...lets look at it the other way (innocent until proven guilty) --> prove to me its ethical?

[didy]

isn't it a disgrace to genetically modify for our own pleasures...we've taken it too far haven't we?



As was already pointed out, they weren't genetically modified for our pleasure.
The genie was already out of the bottle when they started selling them commercially.
It was done by environmental scientists for the purpose of conducting experiments on pollutants in the environment.

[nickmcmechan]

neverhtheless, its for our pleasure now...what next?

[nickmcmechan]

prove to me it would be ethical to do so

[didy]

prove to me it would be ethical to do so
No one can do that, since you've admitted your objections are based in emotion, rather than objectivity.

[daayda3]

I wasn't considering keeping them, they actually looked really unnaturally to me, They would look really out of place in my tank. But it is good to hear that they aren't suffering like the dyed fish :)
This i sjust my oppinion, but the yellow glofish look like swimming bananas:rolleyes:

[Aislinn]

prove to me it would be ethical to do so
This is not possible. Ethics are neither mathematical nor scientific fact, and therefore can be neither proven nor disproven. They can only be argued...around and around in circles, until you get tired, give up, and start doing tequila shots. I'm partial to Patron, myself. With lime.

[jm1212]

prove to me it would be ethical to do so
prove to me it isnt.

[clawlan]

prove to me it isnt.

haha. ok, we all know that ethics is a subject that cannot be proven or disproven. Also, to the comment above, I never said that I feel this hobby is unethical. I am simply stating that ethics is a matter of personal perspective and that it is possible for some to view the hobby as unethical and that viewpoint could not be disproven.

Overall, I am for the proper treatment of fish and all animals for that matter, but then again, 'proper treatment' is also a matter of opinion.

[ddyerfamily]

Danios are unfortunately a common target for genetically modified fish-types. Glo-fish (i.e. Danios) were the first to be modified :(

See some articles here:

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1228

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_2/cav2i3/glofish/Glofish.htm

bump

[nickmcmechan]

good answer, thought someone would 'rose' to the challenge haha

ok, do we start a poll on this one?