Glofish

[JenJ]

Sorry for starting this - is it best to just delete the thread?

 

[eaglesaquarium]

I fully support genetic modification for the betterment of society. I don't support the manufacture of fish purely for profit.

This view is my own and does not necessarily reflect that of the owners, admin or other moderators of this forum.

 

GloFish® fluorescent fish were originally developed to detect pollutants in our water, one of many discoveries with roots in the ongoing biotechnology revolution.

From their site...

Sorry for starting this - is it best to just delete the thread?

 
 
No, I don't think that it needs to be deleted - Glofish(R) are a part of the trade, and people have very strong opinions about them.  It is a worthwhile debate to have.  We just need to be "fair" about criticisms leveled so as to not be libelous.  I think that things are balanced fairly well.  Ultimately, people will decide what course of action to take.  The thing that's most important for me is to make sure that there is no false information presented.

 

[sadguppy]

Personally, I think they are horrid. In the same way that I would not have pink gravel, plastic plants and spongebob ornaments on my tank, I would not have these unnatural frankenfish!

Creepy.

That's clearly my personal opinion, and whilst they remain illegal in the UK I have no reason to try to preach to or convert others against them, however to me, there are clear ethical reasons why it should not be done and nature tampered with in this way for profit, and as with dyed or tattooed animals, I would boycott a store which chose to sell them. I don't even like heavily selectively bred fish like balloon fish, nature all the way for me.

 

[JellOh]

As someone who owns 3 Glofish (rescues from Craigslist) I would never buy them and prefer the natural beauty of fish like Cardinal Tetras, but I see nothing wrong with the fish themselves. Nothing is done to them that wouldn't happen to any other fish. They are not dipped, dyed, tattooed or tortured. Yes, the first few were genetically spliced, but I'm going to take a guess and say that happened in a test tube. Personally, I am ok with changing a few fish to help out the whole pond. Having owned a few i can personally say that despite their rocky start with their first home they are just as healthy, active, and happy as the zebra danio they school with. I can understand why people don't want other people to change things, but we need to face the fact that we ballsed up some of the world pretty bad, and if colorful fish are going to help us un-ballsify the world in even a little way, then let there be colorful fish.


That being said, I'm have no love for the Glofish company themselves. They promote their fish as.. almost fun little ornaments or easy pets. Almost like petco does with betta. And I defiantly have a beef with most people who buy them. They tend to be impulse buyers who see pretty fish and grab at them. The poor guys I got were in a 2 gallon hex with 2 rosy barbs and did everything but chew through the glass to find more room to swim.

 

[DreamertK]

Well as for the process itself, it would have to have been done right after egg fertilization while there is still very few fish cells. You couldn't possibly change the DNA of an multicellular organism that's fully developed - that's just too many cells and you wouldn't be able to change all of them. Pharmaceutical companies insert DNA into bacteria to produce chemicals such as insulin by exposing a culture of bacteria to a virus that inserts the DNA to produce the chemical they desire from it. They used to harvest insulin from pig pancreases. To me it doesn't sound as destructive as stabbing a needle under a fishes skin or dipping the fish in acid. Perhaps they sunk too much money into this experiment to benefit society (detect water changes in public water) before they could find out the fish couldn't change color in response, and then need to make up the money by selling the fish.
 
As for HIV, just today I was thinking how useful it could be in regards to evading the immune response. If it didn't have such devastating effects, such as changing it's genetic information to attacking specific cells that are not T lymphocytes, then it could most certainly be beneficial.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Does the fluorescence harm the fish?
No. The fish are as healthy as other fish in every way. Scientists originally developed them several years ago by adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish eggs before they hatched. Today's GloFish® fluorescent fish are bred from the offspring of these original fish.

 
From the FAQ. 
 
 
 

Where do GloFish® fluorescent fish come from?
GloFish® fluorescent fish were originally bred to help detect environmental pollutants. By adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish, scientists hope to one day quickly and easily determine when a waterway is contaminated. The first step in developing a pollution-detecting fish was to create fish that would be fluorescent all the time. Scientists soon realized the public's interest in sharing the benefits of this research, a process which lead to GloFish® fluorescent fish.

 

[TallTree01]

That sounds a lot like incest to me. They're using these fish to detect radiation? Im no radiation scientist but even I can tell that's not good.

 

[sadguppy]

It is really no different to selective breeding which has given us the balloon molly, the fragile guppy and dgd. Still doesn't convince me I'm afraid!

 

[Corykeeper]

The original intent was purely scientific, as the quote above says they were trying to find pollutants in waterways. the glofish would glow if there weren't any pollutants so that they are an easy indicator for scientists and so that wild fish could find them easier and eat them, thus preventing an invasive species problem.

 

[the_lock_man]

That sounds a lot like incest to me. They're using these fish to detect radiation? Im no radiation scientist but even I can tell that's not good.

 
Not radiation, other pollutants.
 
When I first came across Glofish(R) I was appalled at the thought of it. There's no need to manufacture fish, there are so many beautiful natural fish available. THinking it through further, they are a by-product of valid scientific research. Whilst the quote from their website is a little misleading (people are buying the outcome of the research, not sharing the benefits), would the research be viable, financially, if they couldn't sell the fish? If it means (and I don't know if it does or not) that research funding can then be used to fund research into cures for HIV, cancer, alzheimers, et al, is it then fair to criticise the manufacturers?
 
Dunno.