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

[Jannika]

Ethical or moral high ground on these issues seems shaky at best.

 

[Lab_Rat]

Genetically altering creatures isn't wrong, but simply because we can do isn't a valid reason for doing it, IMO

I agree somewhat with this post. This morning's lecture in my Pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics class was on genetically altering laboratory mice (now why this lecture is part of the course curriculum I have no idea since I'm all clinical and no bench research anymore). Scientists and researchers genetically alter mice (transgenic, knock in, knock out) to mimic human disease states to attempt to find a cure or treatment for human diseases. We primarily discussed transgenic and knock in mouse animal models for alzheimer's studies. The professor emphasized several times keeping the number of animals utilized to a minimum, and avoiding unnecessary sacrifices. All animals are well cared for and have rigorous standards of care that must be met.

What Piranha is suggesting pretty much violates the whole idea of avoiding unnecessary sacrifices. Many fish would be sacrificed in what he is proposing, to create a fish that looks cool. I doubt that would be well accepted with reputable scientists.

Wonder how everyone feels about docking tails and cropping ears on dogs?

Hate it, with the caveat that if it were to improve an individual animals quality of life then it's ok. For example, a puppy suffers a broken tail that causes nerve damage/pain, then I'm fine with docking it. For pure cosmetics, no way.

 

[Piranha86]

This thread kind of exploded....
Ayway, I was kind of thinking, and am starting to partially agree with some of you. I now see why surgery would be considered wrong, but I think genetic mutation would be fine.

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.

But ethics are opinions. I have ethics by my standards, and people have ethics by their standards but not my standards, and my ethics are lower than people's standards, but I do see your point.

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.

I agree with you 100% that stunting is wrong.

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.

It wouldn't exactly be a cheap fish. Glo fish are zebra danios (very easy to breed) and they're still $5 each.

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.

I see your point(s).

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.

I would enjoy a visit from PETA. They wouldn't.
And yeah, circuses are terrible. I agree with you on that.

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.

Tattooing and dying are terrible. But this isn't what the thread is about.

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.

I wasn't going to perform surgery on a fish or anything, I'm just provoking interest.

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.

Thank you for kindly making your point.

Genetically, yes, it would be awesome if someone managed to get a breeding population of discuss the size of black skirt tetras. Maybe a 3 inch long great white

Surgically, no, that would be cruel and mean. Thats completely unnatural, whereas genetics means that it could happen given time. We just make it faster and more likely.

I agree.

Just like to address this comment.

Just because we have to power to do something doesn't mean we should.

Heres an example: We could wipe out the middle east with nuclear weapons, but is that even close to the right thing to do? Or we could create some kind of tech that wipes out invasive species, but is that the right thing to do?

Genetically altering creatures isn't wrong, but simply because we can do isn't a valid reason for doing it, IMO

FF, I'm talking about mini-fish, not the war!
And that would be bad because...?

Wonder how everyone feels about docking tails and cropping ears on dogs?

Seriously...

axolotls are tiger salamanders that have reverted back to a completely aquatic life supposedly due to predators on the land where there are none in the water. it's been said that some tiger salamanders can have a chemical added to their water to keep them from from reaching their adult appearance. however that does not make an axolotl... it makes a chemically altered salamander with a significantly shorter life expectancy.

as for glofish... they were discovered however they may have... but that hasn't stopped the japanese from purposely repeating that genetic trait just for show... they now are breeding "glo" angels... putrid... like clown puke gravel, but putrid on a genetic level.

epic posts, by ccm, btw...

Wow, because you're completely original, aren't you? If you're going to pretty much repeat someone, and granted, you were respectful, you might not want to cite your reference

Hate it, with the caveat that if it were to improve an individual animals quality of life then it's ok. For example, a puppy suffers a broken tail that causes nerve damage/pain, then I'm fine with docking it. For pure cosmetics, no way.

Good point.

 

[Lab_Rat]

But ethics are opinions. I have ethics by my standards, and people have ethics by their standards but not my standards, and my ethics are lower than people's standards, but I do see your point.
I agree with you 100% that stunting is wrong.

There are professional ethical codes of conduct that one must abide by in their field. Sitting on my bookshelf right now is a text book on research ethics and another one solely on protecting study volunteers in research. If you hope to become a geneticist you will be held to the high ethical standards of your profession. If you disregard these standards you are not likely to be respected in your field and it would be career suicide. Something to keep in mind...

 

[Taysius]

Wonder how everyone feels about docking tails and cropping ears on dogs?

I'm against this as well as others have stated. It's pointless and cruel.

I still stand by my original comment that you can't always have everything you want.

 

[RazzleFish]

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.

GloFish were originally created to stay the "normal" color and then when a pollutant was added to the water they would show their bright colors. The experiment failed, however, when they could not control when or where the color kicked in so the fish hatched the color they are. How many scientific creations are just open to the public where they would "cathc people's eyes"? None. When the gene they implanted in the eggs of these fish didn't work out they sold their fish giving them a brand name of GloFish! How many other fish have a brand name?!?!

To add to the problem, both angelfish and convict cichlids have been injected with the gene by the same scientists! Now tell me they didn't know that they would have the same results with the gene always being on. The started out well but as soon as that first group of fish sold well they decided to make a fortune by selling their fish to the unaware public.

Wonder how everyone feels about docking tails and cropping ears on dogs?

If it is done by a vet who knows what they are doing and it doesn't cause the animal pain, I think it's ok. Do I like the look of it? No. Will I refuse to buy a dog because of it? No. I am really neither for or against it.

Ethical or moral high ground on these issues seems shaky at best.

I agree!

 

[Fishfriend1]

FF, I'm talking about mini-fish, not the war!
And that would be bad because...?

Red: So, is it really that big a difference? Just because we can do something does not mean we should, not by a long shot. Humans can do a ton of things we shouldn't (nuclear weapons, supervirus, completely wipe out species, create monsters... the list is pretty long) but does that mean we should do it for the hell of it? My standards say hell no, just cause I can cheat doesn't mean I should, does it? I could just steal my sister goldfish, but instead I'm going to do it her way and let her take them to her school and put them in the "pond" thats there. Because both common sense and my standards tell me to. Do your standards tell you to edit the genetics of creatures that have been around for much longer then humans have? Mine don't. Who knows what would happen if some idiot released a super hardy, disease resistant, fast breeding, highly adaptable, human-engineered fish into the wild? It could wipe out entire ecosystems. For altering fish I don't see a problem with "is it right" thats for the people who buy them to think. I'm more worried about the "what if it gets away" issue.

Green:We're an invasive species, for starters, so it would wipe us out everywhere but Arica, and 2, invasive species are just doing what their genetics tell them to. And who knows, maybe 300 years from now the ecosystems of the world will have adapted and become stronger with the new variety. Oh, and 3, they exist naturally, something we create would be unnatural and therefore not a good choice. Now, if something like that happened naturally, I would have no qualms, even if I was being wiped out because I don't live in Africa.

 

[russellah]

you do have a point its not like people are lining up to be tested on...

Yeah most people like to stay ignorant about the immoral things they've accepted as OK and just get on high horses and say "YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT"

 

[captaincaveman9]

you do have a point its not like people are lining up to be tested on...

Yeah most people like to stay ignorant about the immoral things they've accepted as OK and just get on high horses and say "YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT"

As someone who was part of medical testing as a Twin (yes there are twin studies done still so people DO line up for experimentation). And, not to long ago, my twin (we are identical) and i were willing to sign up for more research. The pay for being a test subject really isn't that great, especially for the sacrifices you have to make to be a test subject or a control. Most experiments require years of weekly or monthly physicals and extra pokes and prods and donating different fluids.

http://www.australianacademicpress.com.au/Publications/Journals/Twin_R/TResearch.htm

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~taylorlab/TwinRsch.htm

http://www.sri.com/policy/healthsci/twin/

AND, before a drug is released there are clinical trials, that's still using people as test subjects. And, people line up for those as well. granted people are generally desperate for a solution for some of them, but still people do volunteer for it.

I'm sorry, but using the "people don't sign up for research" is not a real argument.

 

[Zaffy]

Being a geneticist I see nothing wrong with genetically altering a fish. BTW, selective breeding is a type of genetic alteration (if you don't believe me compare a chihuahua to a wolf). Has anyone ever tried to breed mini goldfish? I for one would love a goldfish or two, but in my current housing don't have a space for a large enough tank so a mini goldfish would be perfect (and maybe could actually be humanely housed in a Fluval Chi ).

I agree with this completely. Except the geneticist part, I studied population ecology instead.