Glofish!

[moohug4]

I'm really curios. What is your opinion on geneticaly modifiying fish for the pleasure of viewing? I live in a place where they are banned, but what about you? Also, if you have any, can i see pictures?

 

[Bignose]

To be fair, they weren't just modified simply for pleasure. Zebrafish are a very common aquatic "guinea pig" in that their anatomy is very well understood, and their generic makeup is very well understood, and they breed rapidly. They are used a lot for toxicity studies of aquatic chemicals. In fact, this was an original purpose of the GloFish -- to glow when they were in the presence of pollution and thusly act as an indicator of dangerous concentrations of pollutants. See more on the wiki page: http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish Yes, they have also been marketed commercially, so it is an open questions whether that is ethical or not.

As a mod note, I think that we can have this discussion on ethics, but please keep it civil. And, try to cite any facts you use. Ethics can and is a scientific subject, but it still must be dealt with rationally and logically.

 

[Katty]

I personally don't see a problem with glofish. We have been modifying plants and animals for thousands of years (cows, dogs, plants, etc.) through breeding, even for things like aesthetics, genetics seems like it might be the next front. However, someone may also be against artificial selection as well as genetic modification. The only change in the fish is their color, so I can't see any greater problem of them becoming invasive in the wild, and people (hopefully) aren't eating them so it's not like there is a health risk to humans. The fish I have seen don't seem to be suffering, but as we all know you can't really tell a fish's emotions by just looking at it.

Anyways, what I'm rambling on about is if it's "OK" for us to breed animals into "unnatural" forms like tiny dogs or long-finned fish, I don't really see a greater problem with genetically changing their appearance, within reason. However, I can understand if someone is opposed to modifying an animal in varying degrees or at all, genetically or through breeding, these are just my personal opinions and everyone need not apply.

 

[SBL]

I see no problem with GloFish or geneticly moddified animals. If there are GloFish who are fertile and can breed and have been bred to the thousands, they stand no chance in the wild due to their color since bass, brim, and pike are attracted by the bright colors. I have to agree since they are minnows in a since, they can survive cold temps, I have some Zebra Danios in pond outside who survive when its 20 degrees F outside. GloFish are just another step towards the future.

 

[Mikaila31]

I made bacteria glow once! But they were still boring...

I prefer wild-type fish. Nothing wrong with glofish but not something I would own. Lots of things can glow the way glofish do. Genetically Modified is a big word and I think it scares a lot of people. It is a big step, with it we can make things possible that otherwise could not happen. In this case a jellyfish gene ending up in the skin cells of a fish. Humans since long ago have been changing the genetic makeup of the organisms we interact with. Dogs, cats, horse, cows, chickens, corn, rice, trees, ect, ect. Both in ways that are positive and negative for us. Not all effects are wanted or intended. For example the shrinking size of food fish because of the size limit. Made since long ago, fish needs to be yay big before it can be food. This rule along with overfishing has led to smaller fish. A reaction on the fishes part to survive. If fish stays small and is able to breed it can produce new generations. If it gets big it gets caught and eaten. In a deeper since this separates humans from other hunters. We have the habit of going after the biggest and "best" individuals.

 

[KittyKat]

I prefer wild-type fish to line bred fish and, if the option was available, would not purchase genetically modified fish at the moment.

I live where they are still banned and there is still some hostility toward anything genetically modified. With regards to fish for the aquarium trade, I see it as a process to speed up line breeding, potentially producing healthier fish as little or no inbreeding is required for the process. Still, for the aquarium trade, I do not see it as a necessary procedure at this time.

 

[BusyMumof5]

This is interesting!

 

[FreedomFighter]

I personally don't see a problem with glofish. We have been modifying plants and animals for thousands of years (cows, dogs, plants, etc.) through breeding, even for things like aesthetics, genetics seems like it might be the next front. However, someone may also be against artificial selection as well as genetic modification. The only change in the fish is their color, so I can't see any greater problem of them becoming invasive in the wild, and people (hopefully) aren't eating them so it's not like there is a health risk to humans. The fish I have seen don't seem to be suffering, but as we all know you can't really tell a fish's emotions by just looking at it.

Anyways, what I'm rambling on about is if it's "OK" for us to breed animals into "unnatural" forms like tiny dogs or long-finned fish, I don't really see a greater problem with genetically changing their appearance, within reason. However, I can understand if someone is opposed to modifying an animal in varying degrees or at all, genetically or through breeding, these are just my personal opinions and everyone need not apply.

This is more or less, what I was going to say.

 

[moohug4]

I prefer wild-type fish to line bred fish and, if the option was available, would not purchase genetically modified fish at the moment.

I live where they are still banned and there is still some hostility toward anything genetically modified. With regards to fish for the aquarium trade, I see it as a process to speed up line breeding, potentially producing healthier fish as little or no inbreeding is required for the process. Still, for the aquarium trade, I do not see it as a necessary procedure at this time.

Me too. I think they look better natural.

 

[spectrum]

I don't think theres anything wrong with it, I just wouldn't own them, or any modified fish like long tailed variations and so on, it just wouldn't seem right for some reason.

 

[golfzzin]

I personally don't see a problem with glofish. We have been modifying plants and animals for thousands of years (cows, dogs, plants, etc.) through breeding, even for things like aesthetics, genetics seems like it might be the next front. However, someone may also be against artificial selection as well as genetic modification. The only change in the fish is their color, so I can't see any greater problem of them becoming invasive in the wild, and people (hopefully) aren't eating them so it's not like there is a health risk to humans. The fish I have seen don't seem to be suffering, but as we all know you can't really tell a fish's emotions by just looking at it.

Anyways, what I'm rambling on about is if it's "OK" for us to breed animals into "unnatural" forms like tiny dogs or long-finned fish, I don't really see a greater problem with genetically changing their appearance, within reason. However, I can understand if someone is opposed to modifying an animal in varying degrees or at all, genetically or through breeding, these are just my personal opinions and everyone need not apply.

I like this

 

[the biffster]

http/www.glofish.com/ethics.asp

just found this i did not write this

 

[ddgbumblebee]

I don't like the idea of tampering with genetics. It is dangerous. You must understand that modification is far more different than the present day with our newer technology. We are able to inject all sorts of things to produce completely different characteristics in animals that obviously aren't suppose to have them otherwise they would be evolving to do so.
I suppose it depends on the level of modification here. Breeding same species and then getting colour morphs in my opinion is ok, as it happens in the wild also, it's just they don't get a chance to survive. However, breeding different species is just unatural and results in some deformities, if not on the outside at a cellular level. One step further is genetic modification which I think is the worst, although is rarely done...or so we are told.....just my opinion.
Dylan
Although I do have to admit some stunning specimens and new blood-lines come out of some of these practices.

 

[Bignose]

I don't like the idea of tampering with genetics. It is dangerous.

This is an awfully broad statement. Sure, it can be dangerous, but the knowledge gained from doing it may cure or prevent many of the most horrible diseases of mankind and animals alike. What about creating crops that are drought resistant, or able to create 3 times their biomass using less water and nutrients? Or engineering bacteria to perform tasks like cleaning up nuclear waste, or other pollution neutralizing or turning the waste into something benign? All of the above are things that may very well be possible, and possibly not in the very distant future.

The issue more at hand is whether the risks are worth the possible rewards?

 

[ddgbumblebee]

Yes, it is a broad statement, perhaps too broad. All of these examples can have positive and negative outcomes. During the creation process things always go wrong at some stage- this is because we don't know EXACTLY what we are doing, otherwise our product would already have been created. It is these mishaps (which can't be prevented) that can cause weird and unnatural things. All of these prototypes, as you might call them, are either useless (are now the way they are) or harmful (uncontrolable) in some way.
I suppose I am focusing more on the unfinished product here, or the prototypes and should take in a wider spectrum. Yes, the final product most likely will be very helpful to civilisation it's just the question as to how far they are manipulated as to what there side effects might be.