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

[captaincaveman9]

A good point. But if we have the power to do so, why not do it?


So why can't we alter them in an easier way? Lab-type mutation is pretty much a speedier way of selective breeding and hybridization.

A valid pont, but who's to say that something in unnecessary or wrong?

There is a reason that scientists in most universities are required to take ethics classes. The easiest way to describe it, is the basis for the original Jurassic Park movie. Just because science has the ability to clone or create a genetic mutation, does not make it a good idea or ethical. Genetically mutating something (not talking about selective breeding as that doesn't fundamentally alter the creature's DNA) is not something that I think is a moral activity.

I do not have a problem with geneticists and virologists studying DNA and altering DNA and RNA to create vaccines and attempt to eliminate some illness is a good thing. However, altering the DNA of a complex organism for purely aesthetic reasons is wrong, even if it deters people from the hobby.

 

[Ballyhoo]

both are wrong if the goal is simply to keep them in a smaller tank. There are very few cases where genetically altering something is acceptable, and I only partly agree with genetically enhanced crops so they are more productive. However, Morally I think altering a fish genetically is opening a can of worms as not all genetic enhancements results can be predicted. And Surgically altering a healthy fish just so you can keep it in a smaller tank, is similar to the way i view unnecessary cosmetic surgery. It's a vanity thing and that is also wrong in my book.

the genetic altering of crops has it's benefits though. Take Golden Rice for example. It is rice that is genetically altered to be high in vitamin A. Many countries that rely on rice as the staple in the diet have a high rate of blindness, impaired immune systems, growth defects and unnatural death; especially in children largely due to the lack of vitamin A and other macro nutrients. Golden Rice has been genetically altered to contain those deficient nutrients and thus decrease the occurrence of previously mentioned health issues.

http://www.goldenrice.org/ for more information

 

[captaincaveman9]

the genetic altering of crops has it's benefits though. Take Golden Rice for example. It is rice that is genetically altered to be high in vitamin A. Many countries that rely on rice as the staple in the diet have a high rate of blindness, impaired immune systems, growth defects and unnatural death; especially in children largely due to the lack of vitamin A and other macro nutrients. Golden Rice has been genetically altered to contain those deficient nutrients and thus decrease the occurrence of previously mentioned health issues.

http://www.goldenrice.org/ for more information

Umm, you missed the point of my post. I mentioned i have no issues with some genetically alter crops........

 

[Ballyhoo]

Umm, you missed the point of my post. I mentioned i have no issues with some genetically alter crops........

Ummmm...wasn't trying to argue or say you were wrong. Just having a conversation.........

My bad dude.

 

[Kaosu]

..genetically fine we do it all the time from cattle to cats...every thing!!!
physically? ..no that is cruelty

 

[russellah]

I sort of agree. But it's good for getting people into the hobby. As a 6 year old, are you going to go in and select the 'boring, brown, zebra danio', or the 'bright, colorful, glofish'?

A good point. But if we have the power to do so, why not do it?

I actually want to be a geneticist when I grow up (I'm 14) And yeah, very true

So why can't we alter them in an easier way? Lab-type mutation is pretty much a speedier way of selective breeding and hybridization.

Like I said before, why not speed up the process?

IMO, our 20g tanks are just as good as what a minnow would live in in the wild. I mean, go to your local stream, and look at one of the pools. In Maryland, you see a pool that looks to be the size of a...30g tank maybe. There are multiple minnows, crayfish, suckers, and the occasional trout or smallie. But in our tanks, there is no freezing, no predators, no pollution in the way it can happen in the wild, etc.

True, but all that we're doing is speeding it up. What's wrong with speed?

I'm really curious to see a picture of them.

A valid pont, but who's to say that something in unnecessary or wrong?

We as in i mean everyone who ever kept a fish as a pet. Way more fish have died of accidental torturing than fish that have stayed happy and alive. And plus we pretty much have to experiment on animals for our own evolution. Who knows? Altering fish may lead to something groundbreaking. Or it just may lead to more dead fish. Luckily they breed faster than rabbits.

 

[Kaosu]

We as in i mean everyone who ever kept a fish as a pet. Way more fish have died of accidental torturing than fish that have stayed happy and alive. And plus we pretty much have to experiment on animals for our own evolution. Who knows? Altering fish may lead to something groundbreaking. Or it just may lead to more dead fish. Luckily they breed faster than rabbits.

you do have a point its not like people are lining up to be tested on...

 

[excuzzzeme]

Where there is no need, there should be no manipulation. Where there is a need to help alleviate a famine, drought, flood or other human suffering, brings a different set of values.
The best of intentions when rushed, becomes the worst of solutions as evidenced by the elimination of an indigenous species to an introduced species. Since it is based on money demanding results in a false timeline, true impact is often not known until it has gotten out of hand. By then, it is too late to put the rabbit back into the hat.

 

[Piranha86]

Originally Posted by CWO4GUNNER
As far as surgical alterations purely for amusement or appeal is completely unnecessary and most likely wrong. For medical reasons or tagging in the case of farming its acceptable IMO. Of course there are extreme cases like the story of the 3 legged pig the farmer loved but that's a story for a different time.

Well I think Hannibal Lecter would agree with you but if your looking for a line drawn in the sand I think its the intend of the hart as to whether it for selfish reasons or for the good of others. My grandfather would mutilate the ears of his cattle by cutting a v notch out of one ear as part of the ID brand and of course brand them with hot irons. All us kids would make an dis-assembly line every year to process roosters and some hens by one cutting off the head the other dip them in boiling water and 3 other pluck while another dressed. all of which were done for unselfish reasons and felt neither good or bad about doing it. It was life on the ranch.

But who draws the line? You just contradicted yourself, you said I was like hannibal lecter (excellent movies, btw) and then that you chopped up cow ears. Cows feel more than fish!

both are wrong if the goal is simply to keep them in a smaller tank. There are very few cases where genetically altering something is acceptable, and I only partly agree with genetically enhanced crops so they are more productive. However, Morally I think altering a fish genetically is opening a can of worms as not all genetic enhancements results can be predicted. And Surgically altering a healthy fish just so you can keep it in a smaller tank, is similar to the way i view unnecessary cosmetic surgery. It's a vanity thing and that is also wrong in my book.

So if it screws up genetically, destroy it! It's not like we have to give the weirdly-mutated fish a nice life, IMO.

There is a reason that scientists in most universities are required to take ethics classes. The easiest way to describe it, is the basis for the original Jurassic Park movie. Just because science has the ability to clone or create a genetic mutation, does not make it a good idea or ethical. Genetically mutating something (not talking about selective breeding as that doesn't fundamentally alter the creature's DNA) is not something that I think is a moral activity.

I'm trying to say that if we take 30 years to breed a mini-goldfish or something, why not take 2 years to do it in a lab?

..genetically fine we do it all the time from cattle to cats...every thing!!!
physically? ..no that is cruelty

Good point, but is it really cruelty? I've trimmed puffer fish teeth and removed some kind of tumor from a moor in our pond, under anesthesia of course. Is that wrong? It probably saved the fish's life. Why not go a step farther?

We as in i mean everyone who ever kept a fish as a pet. Way more fish have died of accidental torturing than fish that have stayed happy and alive. And plus we pretty much have to experiment on animals for our own evolution. Who knows? Altering fish may lead to something groundbreaking. Or it just may lead to more dead fish. Luckily they breed faster than rabbits.

Exactly. It's not like a mutant evil monster godzilla fish type thing is going to happen.

you do have a point its not like people are lining up to be tested on...

I think the line is crossed when we reach warm-blooded animals, personally.

 

[captaincaveman9]

I'll say this as my last statement for this thread, as you aren't getting my point. The fast and easy approach to getting what you want and using science to get fast without fully understanding what the ramifications of the outcome (yes science is trial and error, and you are talking about deforming a LOT of fish to get to your end result). Selective breeding to get the end result you want, doesn't play around with the genetic factors that make that fish, that kind of fish. Intentionally causing genetic mutations over and over again until you get what you want. AND, you are talking about doing it purely to engineer a pet, and not for some other purpose other than commercial gain.

Your point is "why not engineer it here and now?". However, you keep missing the point of if it SHOULD be done at all. Genetic engineering is something that should NEVER be taken lightly, and to do it just to make a pet or make a profit from making that animal is not always the right thing to do.

My point is, just because scientifically we have the ability to do something, does not mean people should.