"GloFish" Where do you stand?

[adblair]

Well, although this is an old topic renewed, I will contribute my opinion.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion. It may differ greatly from yours, but it is mine and it will not vary for any amount of discussion or argument.

There are really 2 separate issues here for me.
One: Do I think it is acceptable to genetically engineer fish?
Not in this case.
Selective breeding, yes. Genetic engineering, maybe. If the genetic engineering is something which might have been achieved through selective breeding, and the genetic engineering is just a quicker means to achieve the same result, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. However, in this case, the genes being added are not genes that could have been transferred through selective breeding, but are genes from a different type of organism (either coral or jellyfish, I can't remember which it is). This type of genetic engineering is NOT natural, and has as much potential to cause problems as it has the potential to be beneficial. If anyone wants me to elaborate on my reasoning, PM me.

Two: Would I buy these fish?
Yes. I have purchased 5 of them. My daughter wanted them, so they currently occupy her bedside 10 gallon. While I oppose the way they were created, they WERE created, and will continue to be created. My refusal to purchase them would not change that. You can't turn back the clock on genetic engineering.

 

[Tightdog1]

Genetically Mutaed Fish Are Bad For The Hobby

NO , GENETICALLY MUTAED FISH ARE BAD FOR THE HOBBY, for example, flowerhorn, and trimac, some sell trimac as flowerhorn to "maximize" and some the other way around, it is hard to tell the difference, and therefore you dont know if you have a genetically mutated fish or a "pure" F0/F1 fish.
i could go on for days.

** IT ALL COMES DOWN TO PERSONAL PREFERENCE **

 

[Kasakato]

This trand is 1.5 years old.

 

[FooF]

interesting thread. i dont have much to add, other than i wouldnt buy them simply because i dont care for danios much. heh.

carry on.

 

[drjlb]

Being new to this forum, I did not see this thread the first time around. It is quite interesting to read everyone's opinions. As a molecular biologist, I would add a word of caution that a lot of information contained in this thread is wrong. I very seriously doubt that "the scientist" sold anything to the "local breeders." Researchers that work on model organisms such as zebrafish (as zebra danios are referred to in the open literature) are typically funded by the NIH (National Institutes of Health) or the NSF (National Science Foundation). Those types of funding agencies frown on the selling of laboratory findings (read lose your funding if you do so).

The process of inserting an ectopic gene (one not normally found in the organism) into the fish genome is not a very complicated one. Any competentent molecular biologist with a little zebrafish development background could manage it. So, all a fish breeder needs to do is find a PhD willing to do the work. Once the strain is established, the breeder needs to keep them, well...breeding. If these strains were unable to produce offspring, the cost of cloning in the gene into each fish would not be cost effective. Therefore their claims of the fish not being able to reproduce is a laughable one.

 

[Lobo.]

i accidentally voted no, but i really would buy one...
funding needs to get to our geneticists somehow... they seem just as harmless as the normal ones... but they glow under a black light. what is wrong with a fish that glows in a blacklight?? do you think that this mutant trait is going to make them into fish zombies or something??? scorpions glow under a blacklight and they have no problem.... i dont get what makes these fish any worse on the environment than any other non-native fish... if they had modified agression or what not id understand.. but they jus glow in a blacklight... makes them eiser to catch if you wanted to round them up, jus take a big blacklight and kill all the glowing fish...

sry didnt see how old this is... i saw it on the instant servay thread on the homepage...

 

[ljse]

I see nothing wrong with genetically modifying fish, but I voted no because I dont like the way they look. I prefer natural color fish. There are a lot of brightly colored fish that are readily available, such as neon tetras, which look amazing under a moonlight.

 

[CBTF]

I dont see it as a problem. What makes them glow isnt harmful to nature.

Further, if they are reproducing I doubt it matters, im sure many danios are set free all over the world every year.

On the grounds of them wreaking havok- no more than a regular danio would.

They arent dyed and dont seem to have any mutations i think they're fine.

 

[watermelon]

People who are against this type of stuff and protest about it are called "PETA freaks!"

 

[skywalker525]

As it was said before...why should anyone be more concerned that a "glofish" escaped into the wild than a regular zebra danio. There is no more danger caused by these fish than any other fish that may survive in the natural habitat in which it is kept.

I personally wouldn't purchase one of these fish because I don't really see the point....but it isn't up to anyone (CA state government for example) to tell anyone what they should do...especially when there isn't really any danger to the environment.

I have an animal science degree from Cornell University so I have a little background to work with.

The debate on these fish should stop. If you want them, buy them. If you don't want them , then don't buy them.