Yes, how some are kept may be considered uneithical...but I think the OP was focusing more on the fish themselves.
what ever you do.. dont use black lights.. they can harm fish eye sight.
Right, but there is a difference between genetic modification so that we can feed more people or produce fuel, vs. genetic modification so that we can make a fish that glows in the dark and looks like a bag of Skittles.
This kind of reminds me of the whole animal testing debate. I'm not sure how valuable animal testing actually is (not being a scientist, myself) but I assume it has some validity. If that is the case, then I am all for animal testing if it is for a medical reason. Cancer drugs? Yes. Cosmetics? Not so much.
Again, even though I feel it is unnecessary and promotes irresponsible fishkeeping, I do not believe it is unethical to have/make Glofish. I just shudder at those "Glofish tanks" much the same way I shudder at the tiny betta hex receptacles, or whatever.
In 1999, Dr. Zhiyuan Gong and his colleagues at the National University of Singapore were working with a gene that encodes the green fluorescent protein (GFP), originally extracted from a jellyfish, that naturally produced bright green fluorescence. They inserted the gene into a zebrafish embryo, allowing it to integrate into the zebrafish's genome, which caused the fish to be brightly fluorescent under both natural white light and ultraviolet light. Their goal was to develop a fish that could detect pollution by selectively fluorescing in the presence of environmental toxins. The development of the constantly fluorescing fish was the first step in this process.