Glow in the dark fish in the U.S.A. yay!

Can I first start by saying how well everybody has written about this subject (especially Ken - this seems a subject very close to Ken's heart).

Personally, I wouldn't want a GloFish whether it was created for the benefit of mankind or for a selfish grubby money making scheme.

What I see is a degrading of this fish, for the benefit of a species that should know better. We don't of course.

I can see the attraction in a fish that glows. In my tank, it is unlikely to set up home. As Ken stated before, with the diversity of fish available (just think about the number of colours a guppy can come in for instance), do we really need this type of fish?
 
Ok, making medicine for sick animals and mutating them are two different things! Usually they say things so they can sell their product. I do not believe that everything on the glofish.com site is completely true. Trademark a fish? What if you breed it? Are they going to come to your house and take away all your fish? lol! :kira:

I don't think the fish are what you would say "Mutated". It's not like x-men or anything. I just know that someone else is going to come out with a different fish to try to beat the competition and call it shinefish or something. I just hope people don't start to take drastic measures with the fish to make them "pretty"


KEN: I totally and completly agree with you on everything you have been saying. ROCK ON!!!!!!! :band:
 
okay, pardon my ignorance here, but i haven't had a chance to do much research on these. embryos are injected with the dye, which from the sounds,is a natural dye (jelly fish/coral) not something manmade. then those embryos will later pass on this new gene to their offspring. what i want to know is, since they've been doing this for many years, what are the long term effects on the fish? do they continue to be healthy? can they successfully breed with non-glo varieties of themselves? i mean, when fish are dyed by injecting something into them, it only lasts a short time and isn't passed on to offspring, but does often have ill effects on the health of the fish. but does this? are they continuing to create new fish or are the ones on the market the offspring of those already having the new gene?
i guess my thoughts are, if it isn't harming the fish or changing their quality of life, is it really so inhumane? i know its not the same as selective breeding for certain color traits etc, but the fact is, these fish were created to help better the world in a way, and rather than just killing them off after theyve served that purpose, whats the harm in introducing them into the hobby? just my opinion, i'm sure someone will point out the error of my ways :lol: i don't intend to buy any, they dont' fit in with my setups, and i do have to agree with what someone said, that they may end up just being a fad, the thrill of the glow will wear off for owners and they may just get rid of them. who knows for sure. but if these fish are healthy then i see no reason to discourage those who are interested in them from adding them to their fishy family (unlike dyed fish).

by the way, cheers to everyone for being so civil so far :clap:
 
Ken_g_w said:
As I said in my earlier post, fish have evolved their huge diversity and colours for a reason, as I stated above fish that live in enviornments with no light do not develop such colours and patterns. This indicates that the colours and patterns perform a basic function for the fish or why bother evolving the colours in the first place? Ken
Good debate going here. Lots of very strong feelings about humans messing with nature and such...as we all know, many scientific experiments with animals have resulted in incredible discoveries for mankind (kinda nice being at the top of the evolution ladder)

Ken you make a lot of good points in your posts, I quoted just one and wonder what you think about the beautiful fancy tailed Bettas that everyone is paying for? If I'm correct those beautiful colors and tails do not appear in the wild. Therefore, is that not man creating something for the $$$$?

I know it's not exactly the same but if dye is injected in an embryo and then passed on naturally from there what's the problem? By the way, I read that in Molly's response, I don't really know if that's how it's done. I personally have no interest in this fish but more in the whole debate.

Thanks
 
Ken you make a lot of good points in your posts, I quoted just one and wonder what you think about the beautiful fancy tailed Bettas that everyone is paying for? If I'm correct those beautiful colors and tails do not appear in the wild. Therefore, is that not man creating something for the $$$$?

These fish are bred from their own gene pool, the colours and traits are from interplay with dominant and recessive genes, like winning the lottery, one fish is born with a trait already implied in its genes but more to the fore, then bred with another fish with other genetic traits not shown in its siblings and so on... nothing is added or taken away, just shuffled.
Im no advocate of this process, but nobody forces the fish to breed with a certain partner, the fish will breed themselves if they are comfortable with it.

Ken
 
i didnt read all the posts but ive read that theyve had a gene from a sea squid or octopuss or somethin....and thats what makes them glow.....not 100% sure what sea creature it was from but it was from a sea creature
 
Great reading Molly....from the write ups you posted I certainly didn't read anything inhumane did you?

It was interesting to see that anything genetically altered is much less accepted in Europe than the US. One article said that in the UK nobody is touching these fish "with a ten foot poll", and in San Diego they are very excited about the idea, such different viewpoints across such a small pond :fish:
 
Someday our decendants, mutants all :alien: , will wonder what all this fuss was about.
 
MANY_A_MOLLY said:
so, do these fish only "glow" when the lights are out of if black light is used? do they look normal otherwise?
I'm curious about this too. Since they were bred in order to produce a fish that would glow when toxins are present, I would guess they don't glow normally.

I'm having trouble deciding what my point of view on this is. I'm not against genetic engineering when it's for a good cause (mainly medicine). This seems to have started out as something to help with the environment, but I would not call breeding these fish for commercial purposes a good cause. I do know that I would not want any of them in my tanks. I much prefer the fish with their natural colours. Glowing fish would probably creep me out.

By the way, to those who can't be bothered reading the articles provided, it's DNA from jellyfish that was used.
 
Sinuhe said:
Where the river goes said:
*has no aspirin to put away* lol I don't believe (much) in modern medicine. I stick to herbal tea remedies. It's worked great for me :)
Just a thought: Will you also not believe in modern medicine when you or a loved one gets seriously ill? I'm aware that a huge % of people use alternative "medicine", many in combination with traditional medication, too. If that helps them, and they don't get side-effects, then it's fine (even tho using certain natural remedies with traditional drugs can sometimes have serious side-effects). But when people get seriously ill, tho, and especially when there is an emergency, I'd say nearly 100% of people turn to Western medicine, and want every possible help they can get to stay alive. As far as I know, most alternative medicine is not backed up by reliable research, and if there was a way homeopathy, or herbal tea, for example, would cure cancer, I'd like to see. I do agree that Western medicine is not very "natural", but it's the best we have to treat diseases and keep people alive for as long as possible.
You make some good points there. Most herbal tea remedies available commercially are for non-serious/life threatening health problems and to be honest, I'd recommend seeing a doctor for that. However, the use of some teas/herbs (all legal I might add) can help prevent many illness'.

One of the reasons a lot of research has not been done by modern or "western" medicine is because herbal remedies takes away from their pocket books, plain and simple. Everything is a business.

I disagree that western medicine is the best way to keep people healthy. Nor do I believe herbal remedies are the absolute way to go. Both have their positves and their negatives. Prevention is the key, which is something that isn't well emphasised in modern medicine as the majority of it is based on a person already being ill and coming in for medications, etc.
 
FanOFish said:
Great reading Molly....from the write ups you posted I certainly didn't read anything inhumane did you?

It was interesting to see that anything genetically altered is much less accepted in Europe than the US. One article said that in the UK nobody is touching these fish "with a ten foot poll", and in San Diego they are very excited about the idea, such different viewpoints across such a small pond :fish:
Hey, not everyone in San Diego is excited about it :p
 
FanOFish said:
Sorry, I meant the fish shop owners that they interviewed from San Diego.
No problem :)

Speaking of fish shops (or pet shops) I saw some of glo fish today at Petsmart. More interesting though were a bunch African Dwarf Frogs clowning around in one of the tanks. Interesting little guys! :lol:
 
Natural? NATURAL!?!?! Tell me if you think this looks natural. This is another color of glofish they are planning to bring out after the red. This is no longer for the good of science and finding pollutants. This is just profit now!

THE PIC!!!!!!!
 

Most reactions

Back
Top