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

[captaincaveman9]

mutant evil monster godzilla fish

BAND NAME!

ahem, on topic: I voted "genetic, ok" with much the same feeling as those already expressed. Artificial selection has existed since long before there was scientific understanding of the process, in plants even before in animals.

My waffling on the subject of lab-based modifications goes more in the direction of resource allocation. Is it right to devote the mechanical and human resources required for such an effort to what is essentially a frivolity, when it could be spent on cures for disease, relief from suffering, or just a deeper understanding of the biological process in general?

I dunno. Well, yes, I do know, but as I have not yet been proclaimed Empress of Earth my opinions on such matters do not yet prevail.

And re: the Jurassic Park angle, decades earlier Robert Heinlein wrote a little story called "Jerry Was a Man." Monkeying with DNA can have unexpected consequences.

As an added point in this thought...

Technically, the original book Frankenstein was also an exercise in poor scientific ideology.

 

[the wizard]

I'd say both are OK. It's not like it would be done majorly, it would be expensive and only serious fishkeepers could afford it. And if they keep it small, it would probably be sterile.

You are kidding right?

 

[Fishfriend1]

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.

 

[Fishfriend1]

A good point. But if we have the power to do so, why not do it?

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

 

[Fishfriend1]

Just wondering, what would you fishkeepers out there think of a fish that had all its organs in its head, with the back of the skull and base of the spine being where the organs stopped and the tail made of muscle started? Genetically altered so that you can chop the head off, throw it back in, and the fish will come out unharmed. Just a daydream, but still, we could probably manage to make something like that even now.

 

[SubRosa]

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

 

[dundadundun]

A good point. I would still love a mini redtail catfish or arowana. Isn't that what axototls are? Actually, I think that happened relatively naturally. But still...

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...

 

[Rikkias]

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

Cropping ears I have no knowledge of so can't comment on but docking tails Is wrong when done for asthetics. Locally a number of breeders dock their pups claiming they are going to work as gun dogs then sell them in the pet trade.

A long flowing tail on a working dog can be a liability to the dog and a place where injury and infection can set-in/start. It dosn't make it right to dock but the reasons for doing it are apparant even if I disagree personally with them.

 

[dixienut]

Cropping ears I have no knowledge of so can't comment on but docking tails Is wrong when done for asthetics. Locally a number of breeders dock their pups claiming they are going to work as gun dogs then sell them in the pet trade.

A long flowing tail on a working dog can be a liability to the dog and a place where injury and infection can set-in/start. It dosn't make it right to dock but the reasons for doing it are apparant even if I disagree personally with them.

some of the worlds best and most used working dogs have long tails and extra long ears,.. so that idea is bull,.. ie coon hounds beagles and bloodhounds,.. all are not docked,..

also draft horses tails are docked only for the laziness of the owners to put harness on and have the tails not get caught in the rigging,.. when braiding would stop this, also dairy cows tails are also docked to keep them from swatting the workers,..lol and also to help stop spread of manure to the udder and have cleaner milk, when all is needed is to keep thim in natural areas that are not filled with manure and that have bedding,.. and to wash them good, all is laziness of humans,..

please name a gun dog that has to have their tails docked? i'm at a blank,.. perhaps you need to have better aim with your gun if your about to shoot your dogs taill off?
bird dogs have been docked i believe to keep wagging not seen as much as with a full feather tail fur,.. but that is for not scaring birds away,..

beagles run non stop in briers and have long tails,..

 

[the wizard]

My last post was in a rush to get to work. The answer IMO should be basic common sense.

Where there is no need, there should be no manipulation. Where there is a need to help alleviate a famine, drought, flood or other human suffering, brings a different set of values.
The best of intentions when rushed, becomes the worst of solutions as evidenced by the elimination of an indigenous species to an introduced species. Since it is based on money demanding results in a false timeline, true impact is often not known until it has gotten out of hand. By then, it is too late to put the rabbit back into the hat.

Excellent post.

But who draws the line? You just contradicted yourself, you said I was like hannibal lecter (excellent movies, btw) and then that you chopped up cow ears. Cows feel more than fish!

So if it screws up genetically, destroy it! It's not like we have to give the weirdly-mutated fish a nice life, IMO.

I'm trying to say that if we take 30 years to breed a mini-goldfish or something, why not take 2 years to do it in a lab?

Good point, but is it really cruelty? I've trimmed puffer fish teeth and removed some kind of tumor from a moor in our pond, under anesthesia of course. Is that wrong? It probably saved the fish's life. Why not go a step farther?

Exactly. It's not like a mutant evil monster godzilla fish type thing is going to happen.

I think the line is crossed when we reach warm-blooded animals, personally.

And you know this how? Fish are living animals with a nervous system. Where there are nerves there are nerve endings. With nerve endings there is feeling. Feelings of both pleasure and pain.

It is this kind of thinking that reinforces the need for ethics (you should look into the definition of that word) classes for people studying the subject at hand as LR has stated.

I'll say this as my last statement for this thread, as you aren't getting my point. The fast and easy approach to getting what you want and using science to get fast without fully understanding what the ramifications of the outcome (yes science is trial and error, and you are talking about deforming a LOT of fish to get to your end result). Selective breeding to get the end result you want, doesn't play around with the genetic factors that make that fish, that kind of fish. Intentionally causing genetic mutations over and over again until you get what you want. AND, you are talking about doing it purely to engineer a pet, and not for some other purpose other than commercial gain.

Your point is "why not engineer it here and now?". However, you keep missing the point of if it SHOULD be done at all. Genetic engineering is something that should NEVER be taken lightly, and to do it just to make a pet or make a profit from making that animal is not always the right thing to do.

My point is, just because scientifically we have the ability to do something, does not mean people should.

I agree wholeheartedly. The bottom line is this.

The only genetic altering that does not subject the animal to cruelty is breeding to alter the genetic code. Your "microwave" method of lab alteration of dna can only take an animal with a set nature and alter the animal to the point that it cannot be true to it's nature.