Would it be wrong to surgically or genetically alter a fish to keep it small?

[SubRosa]

This might call for thread of its own and if the op agrees I'll start one, but I'm curious. How many who voted "No both are wrong" would be willing to impose their will on everyone else by passing laws to ban the practices?

 

[the wizard]

I thought that genetically was okay - really that's all breeders are doing when they're selectively breeding. They're altering the genome of a strain of fish. The way I see it as long as the selective breeding doesn't lead to fish that are unusually unhealthy it's fine to selectively breed for whatever characteristics you like.

You are talking about breeding, the OP was talking about altering the genetics in a lab through scientific experimentation simply for man's pleasure and nothing else.

In counterpoint Id still say one shouldn't invalidate a science just because of the potential for abuse. None of us would like to have surgery without anesthetics right, but the dude on the street corner hooked on the 'done is getting the bad side of the science that helps us by giving comfort when being cut open and having parts rearranged.

If genetic rendering can achieve the same means as line breeding thousands of generations of cattle just to control meat marbling, ratio of feed to poundage gained etc and all the other things agroscience does, it has a validity. theres just as much potential to help as there is to hurt.

The type of engineering I support is the monster sized trouts and salmon that hit the news and made everyone freak out last month. If we took 100 years to line breed them in isolated colorado stock ponds and named them something local we'd all be enjoying them on our plates but someone does it in one generation and all of the sudden its bad. Try to imagine naming how controlling genes for size in an animal could harm a human eating it, you break down the DNA as you digest the animal its genotype is lost in a stomach. its not like they manufacture self poisons or anything, they are just larger or fatter!

we all benefit from that, because you and I like steaks lol

so, why is it bad if a scientist took skinny cattle originating from the african plains (the origin of all our steaks, they rarely eat, are unadapted for adipose body fat stores and had to transform to serve our porterhouse desires) and genetically turned them into a brangus in one fell swoop?

Let's talk about some of the changes we have done to cattle. We have been feeding them hormones to make them beefier and to give more milk. We consume them. As an end result we now have children that look like adults and their hormones are driving them nuts because their bodies are maturing too fast. So even if it is to benefit mankind, it should only be done through breeding and not through science intervening as we don't know until it is too late what kind of long term or side effects there will be.

 

[Fishfriend1]

IMHO, if we ever manage to perfectly predict something life will get really boring. I never bothered to specialize how my mollies bred, got some very nice fish out of the mix, and a large number of rejects who are soon to be somethings dinner. Nothing can be perfectly predicted, its just not possible. When we breed creatures for traits, we never know whats going to come out of it, we just think we do. All those people who breed dogs and cats for their looks and then found out that they have heart problems or hip issues, they didn't predict that, so why should we have to do the same thing for genetically altering something? Its just stupid, we will still get the same result, it just takes longer to do it by breeding.

IMO, if we can't do it with genetically altering something in 1 generation, they we shouldn't do it by breeding. Same result, different reactions. Makes no sense at all.

I have a species of fish that is very cool. You can chop the entire tail off and it will be able to grow it back like those lizards that do the same thing. This fish can then be released and will survive just fine in the wild. Now, if we can create such a fish, should we?

 

[Manolin]

@the wizard,

I know. I guess my point was that modifying genes in the lab isn't all that different than selective breeding. So if selective breeding is okay, then so should in-lab genetic modification.

 

[Ara]

nice input I didn't know cats had all those inbreeding probs. Over the years Id always heard of labs w hip issues, bulldogs and sinuses etc but in all my time id never heard of those mutations. then again the only cats ive ever known were tabby and mixed alley cats lol never seen a fancy breed only online funny huh and Im 35.

Thanks!


Yeah, I only recently heard about it, and did a lot of research since then. Kinda scary what we do for aesthetics, both to ourselves and to animals.

 

[DGC]

hey i know, get a bigger tank

 

[Fishfriend1]

hey i know, get a bigger tank

and if you can't afford one? What then?

 

[DGC]

the question was surgically or genetically alter fish , i say get a bigger tank, if you can afford to surgically or genetically alter fish then you can afford to get a bigger tank IMHO

 

[kelly82]

the question was surgically or genetically alter fish , i say get a bigger tank, if you can afford to surgically or genetically alter fish then you can afford to get a bigger tank IMHO

my thoughts exactly. i wont keep fish that grow too large for the tanks i have. i would adore to have a red tailed catfish, they are one of my favourite fish, but i wouldnt want one altered so i could keep it in a smaller tank.

 

[Inka4040]

and if you can't afford one? What then?

Fish keeping is not a necessity. It is a LUXURY any way you cut it. If you can't afford to keep a particular fish properly, you have no business keeping it, and should probably reevaluate your priorities in general.

I know. I guess my point was that modifying genes in the lab isn't all that different than selective breeding. So if selective breeding is okay, then so should in-lab genetic modification.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more thoroughly. Selective breeding is comprised of choosing the most desirable traits of a given animal from a "list" of mutations/variations within a given species own genetic potential. Choosing for some traits over others does indeed cause drift, but at no point are we pushing animals past their own genetic potential with selective breeding. Modifying genes in the lab is an entirely different beast, whether it involves screwing with an animal on the genetic level, or splicing in genes from other animals/plants. The two concepts are entirely apples and oranges imo.