I will be getting glofish soon, and I was wondering if anyone here has any and can comment if they are as vibrant as in the pictures that the company posts. Also how much they glow under a black light. I also received an email from the company, which said they would be releasing green and yellow later this year.
Glofish Question
- Thread starter ttan
- Start date
ttan said:
Not having possessed Glofish™, I can only refer you to the website's statements (which, I presume, you may already have read):
From http://www.glofish.com/.
I will never support this kind of company. The fact that they are relaseing new colours, is even worse.
hawkeye01 said:
Your statements as to the nature of Glofish™ are not entirely correct; moreover, concern with the general ethicality of marketing genetically modified living organisms developed for non-scientific purposes is the primary rationale for aquarist refusal to purchase Glofish™. Glofish™, per se, were never used to detect pollution in waterways; whereas their predecessors (as with they, Brachydanio rerio - zebra danios, a common laboratory subject and popular aquarium denizen - infused, while eggs, with jellyfish fluorescence genes) were modified to specifically "respond to the presence of chemicals like oestrogen through the estrogenic promoter and heavy metals and toxins through the stress-responsive promoter" (from http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/research/gallery/research12.htm). Glofish™, on the other hand, have been engineered to display the "fluorescent coloration" continuously, independent of any environmental triggers.
Last edited:
I dont see the big deal with glofish. It is not like people are injecting dye into them like glassfish. The property is introduced into the genetics. It is passed on to the next generation. No animals are suffering from this. Are people saying they should strictly be used for scientific study, or is that wrong too?
flyfly said:
I don't know about Glofish, but the development of other genetically modified animals has caused a great deal of animal suffering in the form of animals with various defects before the desired animal was obtained. Details at http://www.cruelscience.ca/research-gm.htm
Genetically Modified Organisms
I'm suprised at the public outcry over a genetically modified pet. I don't see any American boycot of GMO foods. And you eat those. All the time. Whether you know it or not.
Personally, I'd rather have a GM fish on display in a tank than on my plate.
Of greater concern than GM zebra danios are, say, GM salmon. GM salmon grow bigger, faster, than their natural counterparts. That makes them more attractive mates in the world of salmon. Unfortunately, they are not as hardy, and succumb to infection and hardship at a rate greater than their natural counterparts. This makes them sexy weaklings. Perpetrators of false advertising in the natural world.
The ramifications of this are potentially disasterous. Being more attractive, they could sexually outcompete wild cousins. Weaker genes could, theoretically would, crowd out stronger genes. There are computer models of one escaped salmon bringing the wild populations to extinction.
This is not the most likely outcome of these models, but it can happen. One fish is unlikely to destroy the salmon world. The problem is, thousands escape farms every year. And then, it's a lot more likely.
Sometimes, the benefits of genetic modification outweigh the risks. Take "Golden Rice". This is rice modified to produce Beta-Carotene. It is saving thousands of third world children from blindness. Tell them genetic modification is flat-out wrong. Better yet, tell their blind parents.
Like most things, GMOs are neither all good, nor all bad.
It seems to me, a dayglo baitfish won't last as long in the wild, as say, anything. Have you ever noticed how many fishing lures look like Glofish? And in northern climates, they'd have to swim south pretty fast not to end up little frozen Glofish.
Besides, if any Glofish do make a dash for freedom, the snakeheads will probably take care of them anyway. Maybe we should modify snakeheads...
I'm suprised at the public outcry over a genetically modified pet. I don't see any American boycot of GMO foods. And you eat those. All the time. Whether you know it or not.
Personally, I'd rather have a GM fish on display in a tank than on my plate.
Of greater concern than GM zebra danios are, say, GM salmon. GM salmon grow bigger, faster, than their natural counterparts. That makes them more attractive mates in the world of salmon. Unfortunately, they are not as hardy, and succumb to infection and hardship at a rate greater than their natural counterparts. This makes them sexy weaklings. Perpetrators of false advertising in the natural world.
The ramifications of this are potentially disasterous. Being more attractive, they could sexually outcompete wild cousins. Weaker genes could, theoretically would, crowd out stronger genes. There are computer models of one escaped salmon bringing the wild populations to extinction.
This is not the most likely outcome of these models, but it can happen. One fish is unlikely to destroy the salmon world. The problem is, thousands escape farms every year. And then, it's a lot more likely.
Sometimes, the benefits of genetic modification outweigh the risks. Take "Golden Rice". This is rice modified to produce Beta-Carotene. It is saving thousands of third world children from blindness. Tell them genetic modification is flat-out wrong. Better yet, tell their blind parents.
Like most things, GMOs are neither all good, nor all bad.
It seems to me, a dayglo baitfish won't last as long in the wild, as say, anything. Have you ever noticed how many fishing lures look like Glofish? And in northern climates, they'd have to swim south pretty fast not to end up little frozen Glofish.
Besides, if any Glofish do make a dash for freedom, the snakeheads will probably take care of them anyway. Maybe we should modify snakeheads...
Last edited: