Glofish Facts

[Teelie]

I just saw the claims that genes have transferred from species to species. Thus far no actual documentation though and absolutely no evidence that these random genes did anything at all to the infected animals. The worst that could happen is some offspring glow under black lights. More likely it'll just end up as yet another "junk" gene that sits around and does nothing to the animal or species. If anything though, it just reiterates the point that people should not let their pets go in the wild.

 

[annka5]

I think Teelie makes a good point re: non-native fish being more invasive and potentially more dangerous to native stocks. And not many people here would be for a ban of all ornamental fishkeeping.
Also, I was taking the earlier post re: the profits from these sales going into funding of further genetic research at face value - admittedly likely to be a drop in the ocean of the cost of this type of research.
However, we never will know what DNA is involved in synthesising which proteins, and in turn what these proteins then do without the research. I've never heard a convincing argument that genetic research is a blind alley and will not lead to any advantages; the fact that we're not there yet in all instances is to me a recommendation for more research to be carried out. Certainly in the case of some genetic ailments the speed of progress in the last 5 years has been incredible.
I would never suggest that ALL and ANY conceivable experimentation is justifiable, don't get me wrong, but I think that glo-fish are perfectly OK.

 

[chibi]

Geez, this thread is weird. Scientific stuff that looks copy and pasted, flames, and all kinds of stuff. o_o

I think Glofish are okay. They aren't harmed in the process. I'd never want one, though... to unnatural.

 

[xxBarneyxx]

I'm really in two minds about genetic manipulation in general.

The scientist part of me says that in order for our species to survive and evolve in the long term we need to do more genetic research and manipulation and we need to do so without pissing about with "moral issues". This science will only reach its full potential if the research scientists don't have to worry about the ethical issues involved. Also as with most things the commercial applications are what are going to drive the research which discovers the important information.

The moral part of me though thinks that we shouldn't be screwing around with nature and that genetic manipulation could lead us down some very dark alleys.

 

[annka5]

We've been selectively cultivating and breeding since prehistory - domestic animals, crops, etc etc. That is "messing about with nature" too - and we're stilll doing it now.
The only difference with genetic modification in this kind of instance is that we're introducing genes which are not naturally present in that particular organism- traditionally, the gene had to be in there in order to selectively breed for it to show up. It's really a difference in degree, not a difference in type.
I don't agree that we need genetic research to ensure future survival of the species as a whole - we've managed well enough so far - but I do think it is an area of science which has truely enormous possibilities and we shouldn't ignore it.
I don't agree tha scientists should not be concerned with moral or ethical considerations - everyone should be as human beings, and no-one should exempt themselves from having a moral code or view, ever.
I just don't think that all GM is bad.

 

[afishdude]

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...m.php?news=1327

 

[fry_lover]

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...m.php?news=1327

aww, the poor "victims" are being treated like "criminals" i could get my violin out

 

[ArauraDiscus]

Can the scientists really be 100% sure that that won't happen? Not 99.95%, but 100%. If they are honest about it, no scientist should say they are 100% certain about anything like that.
======

Genes can't be trasnfered from one eukaryote to the next. The only oeganism that can mutate genes by adding its own to another is viruses, most viruses have RNA, not DNA. DNA is a complete strand while RNA is partial and needs is easier to bind and manipulated. The virus mutate the bacteria which also normally have RNA. It's also not possible to mutate an animals cells without injecting the DNA directly into cell nucleouses. If you injected the fishes ground up body contents into your bloodstream or ate them, there is absolutely no change for mutation. It needs to be forced into a cells nucleus or nucleoulus.

 

[CruX]

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...m.php?news=1327

aww, the poor "victims" are being treated like "criminals" i could get my violin out

Fishkeepers who purchased illegal genetically modified glowing fish from an online auction site say they are being "treated like criminals" by authorities.

Biosecurity New Zealand officials and two security guards visited the home of Tristan and Carissa Clements in Cashmere, New Zealand, to cull about 20 of the illegal GM fish.

"We are victims in this", Tristan Clements told Stuff. "Biosecurity was incompetent and allowed them through customs."

Biosecurity New Zealand was told about the illegal GM fish after members of the public saw the fish advertised for sale on an Internet auction site.

I think they have got a point, not everyone knows whats ethical or legal with regards to fishkeeping. You walk into a shop and you expect the shop to be selling legal goods. The same with online auction sites, they have rules and a code of conduct. The people at fault here are not the hobbyists, however the people who imported the fish, and sold the fish are to blame, as well as 'bio security' for not detecting it. However I do feel sympathy as the importer thought they were dyed not GM, that being said, why import dyed fish? Ban the lot then you won't have to worry about UV lights for odd coloured fish, if it looks wrong it probably is.

 

[fry_lover]

Can the scientists really be 100% sure that that won't happen? Not 99.95%, but 100%. If they are honest about it, no scientist should say they are 100% certain about anything like that.
======

Genes can't be trasnfered from one eukaryote to the next. The only oeganism that can mutate genes by adding its own to another is viruses, most viruses have RNA, not DNA. DNA is a complete strand while RNA is partial and needs is easier to bind and manipulated. The virus mutate the bacteria which also normally have RNA. It's also not possible to mutate an animals cells without injecting the DNA directly into cell nucleouses. If you injected the fishes ground up body contents into your bloodstream or ate them, there is absolutely no change for mutation. It needs to be forced into a cells nucleus or nucleoulus.

many, many people will not understand that post at all

 

[GuppyDude]

I understood it.

 

[fry_lover]

I understood it.

me to

 

[Teelie]

Same here. But we do have a lot of younger members who might not.

 

[afishdude]

i understood it also and i failed biology. and im only 16

 

[GuppyDude]

It's 7th grade science, I'd hope it makes sense to most here.

I found this here online, short read.

Under florescent lighting, his toenails and hair glow.