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

[Lab_Rat]

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.

Good post CCM. Pir, scientific research on animals is extremely strictly regulated. For my PhD work I had to take classes on proper animal care and control, and ethics, even though I was only working on in vitro cancer cells. I don't know of a single IACUC committee that would approve of doing what you propose. All research protocols are formulated to keep animal sacrifice to an absolute minimum. You would be able to do it privately, with private funding, but that doesn't make it ethically right. Like I said, I had to take all sorts of classes on care and ethics for my research on cancer cells.

 

[DGC]

I'd say both are OK. It's not like it would be done majorly, it would be expensive and only serious fishkeepers could afford it. And if they keep it small, it would probably be sterile.

Get a bigger tank!!

 

[SharkaThon]

Well that brings up the point of ethics.

While GloFish are pretty, I would NEVER buy one. Blood Parrots are cute, but I would NEVER buy one... And then there are fancy goldfish... I do not feel like genetically altered [or strange hybrids] should be sold. I don't think scientists should be focusing their efforts on creating a profit by selling un-natural fish to the public.

Glofish were not created to make money. They were the results of experimentation for research on pollution in the ocean. They just happened to catch people's eyes and caught on from there.

I would have no problem with GENETICALLY modifying a fish to make it smaller, as long as it didn't suffer because of that. As long as its organs grow proportionately with it, that would be fine. That's the main problem I see with stunted fish. Their organs end up becoming too big for their bodies and cause the fish pain and general discomfort. An example of a case like this is Herve Villechaize. He killed himself because he couldn't take the pain from his organs growing too large.

 

[sandstorm320]

I see no problem with genetically modifying fish so long as they are properly cared for (ie in the large tank until you can be sure of the size fish you end up with) and as long as you don't try sell the altered fish to unsuspecting buyers.

 

[Rikkias]

Voted both as wrong, however did not vote lightly as genetic engineering of animals has already occurred in the selective breeding of many animals, and selective breeding isn't in my mind always a bad thing however sitting in a lab injecting DNA etc. etc. IMO is where genetically becomes wrong.

Its easy to get on a soap box or high horse and say its morally/ethically wrong or even cruel to engineer or surgically alter a creature as a pet.

However mankind has been doing it [Genetically at least] for almost as long as we have walked on two legs. Dogs were Wolves way back when yet now, from a few wolves we have hundreds of breeds of dog. Many are not recognized as pedigree in certain countries due to the short existence of the 'breed'.

Studies on foxes in Russia where foxes were breed based on temperament with emphasis on breeding the least aggressive foxes has shown that more than one thing is being "bred" besides temperament. Colouration also changed for example.

Pigs on farms have a long lineage of breeding for meat production, but once they escape the farm within a few generations they will naturally regain many of their boar ancestor characteristics such as tusks, straight/er tails and a coarse fur coat.

I used to keep chickens and had Legbars and Silkies. The Silkies were great layers laying an egg every other day, all through the year, even in winter long after the Legbars stopped laying. However the eggs were small and white shelled rather than the unusual green shells of large Legbar eggs. My soloution was to get a rooster Legbar and Silkie hen isolated from the rest of the flock and incubate some eggs. I only did one generation and from that I ended up with one hen and 4 roosters. And that hen was my best layer ever giving me lovely green shelled medium sized eggs almost daily in summer and every other day or two in winter.

Although not exactly lab mad scientist Genetic Engineering its none the less altering animals from one characteristic/trait to another by the process of (un?)natural selection.

As for surgically it too already happens in an evolutionary sense. Animals that are prolific breeders can be kept together but by having the ones not wanted for breeding spayed/neuterd you can control the direction of the 'evoloution'.

Sorry if that reads contradictory but such a provoking question has me straddled on both sides of the moral and ethics fences.

 

[RodInCALIFORNIA]

I think PETA or The Animal Liberation Front should pay the OP a personal visit ........ why add to cruel and unusual torture for your enjoyment? Visit ringing bros barnum and bailey circus if you need tortured animals to entertain you, its the cruelest show on earth!
I'm glad we were able to ban the circus from our area in CA

I guess you can tell I wouldnt support such experiments on fish nor buy them.

 

[gt1009]

I have no issue with genetic modification at all. Look at the majority of crops today. Everything people are working on is better strains that produce more fruit per plant and are more disease resistant. Look at things like pet dogs. Each breed is from the same species, but through line breeding and crossing we have countless individual breeds. Even albino specimens are bred to produce more albino offspring. A great example is the EBJD. We are doing basic genetic modifications every time we breed a BGJD with another to produce more EBJD offspring. Glofish are slightly different, in that they have, in a lab, inserted a gene from a jellyfish into the zebra danio's genome. I don't find that wrong, because it does not harm the fish at all, whereas things like tattooed and dyed fish are physically harmed. Glofish are hatched and reared just like any other.

 

[XanAvaloni]

mutant evil monster godzilla fish

BAND NAME!

ahem, on topic: I voted "genetic, ok" with much the same feeling as those already expressed. Artificial selection has existed since long before there was scientific understanding of the process, in plants even before in animals.

My waffling on the subject of lab-based modifications goes more in the direction of resource allocation. Is it right to devote the mechanical and human resources required for such an effort to what is essentially a frivolity, when it could be spent on cures for disease, relief from suffering, or just a deeper understanding of the biological process in general?

I dunno. Well, yes, I do know, but as I have not yet been proclaimed Empress of Earth my opinions on such matters do not yet prevail.

And re: the Jurassic Park angle, decades earlier Robert Heinlein wrote a little story called "Jerry Was a Man." Monkeying with DNA can have unexpected consequences.

 

[SubRosa]

I think PETA or The Animal Liberation Front should pay the OP a personal visit ........ why add to cruel and unusual torture for your enjoyment? Visit ringing bros barnum and bailey circus if you need tortured animals to entertain you, its the cruelest show on earth!
I'm glad we were able to ban the circus from our area in CA

I guess you can tell I wouldnt support such experiments on fish nor buy them.

PETA and ALF should pay you a visit, given that neither group supports the ownership of any animal. PETA is mostly just a bunch of ignorant wackos, but ALF is a criminal organization by its very nature. If these are the types of groups you need to impose your will on others then you're a hypocrite. And lots of other things that aren't nearly as nice and that would earn me an infraction if I posted them here. Try living your life in a manner consistent with your "ideals". There's nothing wrong with selective breeding. Surgery is over the top, but as long as the op owns the animals in question it's none of my and more importantly it would seem, your business.

 

[fishycat]

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.

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.

Both very good statements to be considered.

I voted no. Hopefully one day I will have the space for a larger tank or a pond, then I will have goldies. Until then, there are other fish I can have & enjoy... for me that is enough.