Fish injected with coral gene = GLOWFISH

[Genetics]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8781259#post8781259 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by uztaryn
Hey I got a FW Molly to live in my 125 SW for almost a year (until a sebae nem finally ate it, kids were horified when I shouted "Yes! Finally!" I could never catch the bugger)... .I wonder if you could acclimate these to saltwater as well?

Aren't Mollies brackish water? They can be acclimated to either freshwater or saltwater but I don't think you can do this with many other freshwater fish.

I read about these Glofish awhile back. The idea was to measure toxins within the water using visual reference of glowing but the problem was fish tend to react on parts per billion level of harmful toxins. So they always fluoresce. They seem harmless enough but do raise interesting and controversial questions. Is it really a problem to genetically engineer our pets? We've domesticated and bred them to our liking so why not speed the process up?

 

[Hormigaquatica]

I think for a lot of people it goes beyond domestication and selective breeding- this is deliberate hybridization between animals that could never reporoduce together naturally. I know... mules, jennys, ligers (which are pretty much my favorite animal ever...) etc are all manmade hybrids, but this goes a bit more extreme- its a designer animal. Im not sure you can find a place in the natural order of things where an Invertebrate has crossed with a vertebrate.

The glo-fish are NOT sterile either. Because they are not 50-50 hybrids, just select genes manipulated one at a time, their ability to reproduce isnt inhibited since the genes that are spliced in dont really affect that process. The only reason glo-fish supposedly dont breed is that they are sterilized in the lab/factory before being released. BUT... some can and do make it through the process, and they have been bred in home aquariums; the company puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that the fish are patented, so noone is allowed to breed them. But, the idea of patenting a living creature is a whole nuther set of questions.

Personally.. I dont like em. I put them in the same category as Parrot Cichlids, painted glassfish, tattooed fish, dyed fish, etc.

 

[zeppelin]

I put this one rung lower on the pet store ladder than the stupid dog crosses that are so popular right now. You know. The dogs that, if they mistakenly bred 5 years ago, would be labeled as mutts, but are now, with the proper marketing, selling for $1500+ a piece. The same thing happened in the snake industry about 8 years back. A guy named Steve Osborne out West started crossing an albino Grey-Banded Kingsnake with every other type of kingsnake and milksnake he had. Produced some real goofy crosses that, if they came out pretty, he would sell for astronomical cash.

With this, you have gone beyond the intentional crossing of 'like' animals, and crossed 2 very dis-similar animals. Whats next? Maybe a mouse crossed with a cat? Talk about chasing your own tail. How about a pig crossed with a cow so you get both beef AND pork in a single animal? Be great for the meat industry.

I think the original premise of doing it was admirable. But then the human element entered into it........GREED. There was a line in Jurassic Park that comes to mind. " You were so focused on if you COULD do it, that you never thought about if you SHOULD."

 

[szwab]

seeing as the liger was bred for it's mystical powers. I don't have an issue with that.

wow all the conterversy. just think what'll happen on the boards once they are available nationally!

 

[porky]

You troublemaker you
Peronally I would love to have some of those red guys in the first pic, in my FW planted tank. I think they would look AWESOME next to my neon tetras!

The FDA apparently found Blake's arguments persuasive: It issued a three-sentence statement in December giving GloFish a clean bill of health, declining to regulate it.

From what I have read, it can be a nightmare getting something past the FDA, not an easy process and highly regulated.

 

[Genetics]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8783686#post8783686 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by szwab
seeing as the liger was bred for it's mystical powers. I don't have an issue with that.

LOL. I agree.

Zepplin,
"With this, you have gone beyond the intentional crossing of 'like' animals, and crossed 2 very dis-similar animals."

There was not any crossing done with this animal. It was an isolated gene that they were trying to place under a specific promoter for expression when exposed to a toxic substance. It was inserted during development and then out bred into the general population. They are not sterile b/c other than that insertion there is no difference between the glo-fish and the original. They are sterilized for patent protection only and are thought that if released into the fresh water here they won't survive due to their disadvantageous coloring.

This will be the first mass marketed genetically modified poikilotherm. If that helps anyone sleep at night.

Besides it's more fun to work with these guys anyways.

Actually, this has been in my head for awhile. Would anyone object to a red sinularia or a blue frog spawn?

 

[prance1520]

People will decide what happens with these. If they are appauled, they won't buy em, and the company won't spend their millions of dollars on lab and scientist fees on something that doesn't make them any money.

If my neighbor wants to keep a funny glowing fish, so be it. I personally think they look too much like Swedish fish, which are my favorite, and would be worried I might sleepwalk and eat one on accident (unless they engineer them to taste like swedish fish, then we can have another discussion).

That being said, if any of you comes to take away my liger from my basement, I'll have it go invisible and shoot fireballs at you from his tail.

 

[porky]

I agree, being a true capitalist I believe we should let the market determine thier success... if there is a market for them people will buy them if there is not they won't.

 

[icu2]

Just think how much money consumers could save if someone were to manipulate a pine tree to prduce light as a lightening bug.

glow in the dark plants

 

[Hormigaquatica]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8783927#post8783927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by prance1520
People will decide what happens with these. If they are appauled, they won't buy em, and the company won't spend their millions of dollars on lab and scientist fees on something that doesn't make them any money.

These fish have been on the market for the better part of 2 years now; they have been available off and on from every major freshwater store in the city. Honestly- they sell out Fast almost every time. People either just see a pretty red fish, or they think its super cool that it is genetically engineered. It was very rare for me to have a customer who was put off by the whole thing and decided not to buy one. They Are cool looking, and it is interesting work being done, no doubt, its just that most people really dont think about it much beyond that. Dunno if thats a good thing or a bad thing, just a personal moral matter I guess.

I would have done a lot better in my philosophy courses if I could have written papers based on Zebra Danios rather than Bertrand Russel.

 

[icu2]

This conversation is a little late though, Roundup Ready soybeans have been around for almost 10 years now (another GMO). Soybeans are modified for gain, but then again, less tillage= less fuel consumption and less soil erosion (= less chance for runoff of otherwise used agricultural chemicals).

 

[szwab]

yep i think i read somewhere that nowdays it's hard if not impossible to find seed for vegetables that haven't been modified in one way or another.

 

[zeppelin]

OK. I want someone to start work on implanting the gene from King Crab that makes them grow those long tastey legs into a lobster. I would definitely be down with an 'all you can eat' crabster buffet.

 

[icu2]

LOL... crabster

 

[CaveManNOhio]

To modify plants(vegetables) to make them better for food supply is a totally different thing from manipulating an animal just so one can make money. I to am very much a capitalist and love to see people make money and prosper from their ideas, until it crosses the line of taking a animal and modifying it just so one can make a buck. That's's just me.
And to answer Genetics question "Would anyone object to a red sinularia or a blue frog spawn?" I would if man did it, if nature does it on it's own then no I wouldn't. Again that's just me. What you think is what you think and I respect it.

 

[icu2]

The intent of engineering the fish was to help detect pollution; not for profit. The outcome ended up being the pet industry. I guess I would have a problem if it was "made" to sell but not if it was done to help solve a problem as this one was and it ends up becoming a salable item.

 

[tkeracer619]

Next they will give sharks laser beams on their foreheads.

 

[aquaman7]

Technology is being put toward personal gain, immortality, indulgence, and commercialism. The scientific world is stifling in my opinion. While we look for fountains of youth and luxury we don't realize we're implementing methods and products that kill ourselves.

 

[itZme]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8790657#post8790657 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tkeracer619
Next they will give sharks laser beams on their foreheads.

Frickin' laser beams :lol: