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.
