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

[andyt_uk]

i have so much i want to add t this discussion but just cant find the right words.
I am actually disappointed with myself for my earlier post on this topic, i should have thought out my words better -- but hey..

firstly though, i am a scientist by training and education
i also have certain beliefs in the field of religion, boy what a conundrum that one is

but back to the glofish
i can understand why they were created - perhaps there may have been better ways to achieve their goals, and perhaps it is all just a marketing propaganda scam - but lets assume the glofish people are sincere with their facts.

one problem is that these fish will continue to be bred/created/used probably for various 'research' schemes over the years to come.

the marketing guys tell us the new gene has no effect on the life of the zebra, they can still breed, life expectancy remains same, they do not become prone to any ill effects that 'normal' zebras arent prone to

(by the way, what is the normal life expectancy of the zebra danio?)

this debate has already spawned many sub debates ranging from the ethical aspect of 'tampering' with nature to the benfits of modern/western medicine v's traditional/herbal remedies - which are all valid points and add to a well thought out argument

i am a great believer in science, but at times science and modern medicine has failed me.

I disgree that anything should be genetically altered just because we can, or simply to create something nicer to look at, but where there is some benefit then there may be an argument strong enough to support it. Not because be are assuming some god like power over other living creatures, but if our intentions and aims really do serve the greater good then there is room for discussion.
i believe that a greater being probably did have some part to play in our existance, and if that is true then humans have been crafted with the skills and abilities to develop and advance our scientific skills - which still doesnt mean we should do stuff just because we can, but that we need to use the high moral and ethical judegment which the greater being has also allowed us to develop.

i have come to respect Ken in many ways in the relatively short time i have been a member here, and i fully respect his views on this, and support much of what he has said despite the apparant initial differences in our views on the subject.

i think i originally suggested i would be interested in these fish, but given further consideration, i suspect i would simply look at them in a shop out of curiosity

 

[Sinuhe]

Sinuhe

They say you can either you can make foods your medicins or make medicens your food.

(eat right or take lots of meds)

I wish it was that simple. But not all disease can be prevented with the right kind of a diet.

Modern medicine does a lot trying to prevent illness in the first place, but at the end of the day it's everyone's personal choice how they live. Everyone knows smoking is dangerous, but still millions of people keep smoking. A doctor can't force a person to stop smoking, they can only strongly suggest it. Medicine can't take responsibility of individual people's actions. If you choose to overeat, you can. If you choose not to exercise, nobody can force you to. People are given the information, it's their own choice what to do with it.

A lot of illnesses can be prevented, to a certain degree, by a healthy life style, but not 100%, and with many diseases there is no known way of preventing it. At that point, it's modern medicine's duty to make the best it can to cure the person, or at least prolong their lives. Most people would consider it inhumane not to help a person if we know how to.

 

[FanOFish]

It's pretty amazing isn't it how the subject of Glofish can set off discussions on health and diet; science and religion, etc. That is exactly what differentiates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.

We humans do many things both good and bad and the reason we do is because we can. The reason other humans question whether it's good or bad is because they can. We are the very top of the evolutionary scale and we really don't know what another species would do if they were the top of the scale; perhaps we would be their pets.

Scientists found a way to use a lowly fish (lowly in the evolutionary sense) and they have found a way to use this fish to better the environment. You can take it a step further and say that if this fish can detect pollution earlier so that it can be treated that will help........fish.

Ken, you said that most people you know that keep fish do so because they are interested more in their habits than how nice they look etc. That's great but don't you think all fish are better off in their natural habitat than in our tanks? If fish could decide do you think they would be jumping into the nets so we can put them in a tank with fake plants and castles? Once again, isn't it great to be at the top?

Many fish are raised on giant farms in places like Tailand for profit. Many of us may not like the idea that the world revolves around the almighty $$ but it does. It is that $$ that allows us to spend hundreds or even thousands on pretty tanks, lights, filters, and fish! I think we fool ourselves at times thinking that we are not messing with nature by keeping fish and other animals strickly for our pleasure and amusement. If you are a "good fishkeeper" you care about water quality, temperature, the right mix of fish etc. But the fact remains we are taking species that are lower than humans and keeping them as pets, and many people are making a lot of money from the hobby....isn't it great to be at the top

 

[thecichlidaddict]

Each to his own, as long as nobody tries to introduce these monstrosities to the wild then I don't have a problem with it.

I do believe that this is a trend anyway. I find that once people get more involved with fish they tend to stray from the phony fish and go more natural anyway. Plus, how many people like to watch their tanks in the dark? Personally, I put a lot of work and money into making my tanks look nice, and I'd until they invent glow in the dark plants, rocks, and sand, glowing fish are pretty useless.


By the way, most of the more common aquarium fish are most certainly bred for us. Catching the fish wild increases costs and in turn the cost of the fish, only fish that are not sold often enough to breed, or fish that are very difficult to breed, are caught wildly.

 

[Opcn]

sorry I meant to quote from this but ended up completely deleting it! very sorry ocpn )

 

[Opcn]

Direct from glofish.com

How common is the use of fluorescent zebra fish in science?

For over a decade, fluorescent zebra fish have been relied upon by scientists worldwide to better understand important questions in genetics, molecular biology, and vertebrate development. Fluorescent zebra fish have been particularly helpful in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy.

opcn

 

[Cian McLiam]

I sincerely doubt that making a fish glow in the dark is advancing us toward a cure for anything, for all we know, they may be donating the bodies of mutant fish that dies during the process. As I have posted, I have sent an email with my concerns to the company but have not had a response yet. Maybe Im wrong, perhaps a glow does cure cancer, who knows.
As for their claim about water testing only one thing rings true: they are a cheaper solution.

They say it is more accurate than lab tests. Lets picture the scene:

Bob: hey George, are those green fish glowing as much as yesterday?
George: um, I dunno.. werent we looking at the red ones yesterday? anyway they always look the same to me.
Bob: no, im sure they look a little darker, I'll file a report...

Nature is a beutiful thing and glofish arent going to hurt it if everyone behaves responsebly.

To me it seems the damage is already done, as for people acting responsibly, the fact that mutant fish are available for sale wholesale and could be introduced to the wild very easily tells us a lot about human responsibility.

Ken, you said that most people you know that keep fish do so because they are interested more in their habits than how nice they look etc. That's great but don't you think all fish are better off in their natural habitat than in our tanks? If fish could decide do you think they would be jumping into the nets so we can put them in a tank with fake plants and castles? Once again, isn't it great to be at the top?

Again, my thoughts on this were very clear on my earlier post thus:

I have a strong belief that when you take a wild animal from its habitat, undertake to breed it or just keep it in your home, you have also taken on the moral responsibilty to look after its welfare and wellbeing. Without this fundemental moral responsibility, keeping any animal captive is barbaric and reprehensible. I think subjecting these animals to this kind of treatment is a breach of this responsibilty and starts us on a very slippy slope where the value of life itself becomes a cheap commercial interest rather than a fundemental right for every creature.

BEFORE YOU STOP READING read this, from the glofish web site:

 
Due to an overwhelming response to our discussion board, we are upgrading our forum to accommodate more users. Please check back soon to visit our new and improved discussion board! In the mean time, please email [email protected] if you’d like to get in touch with us.

 

funny that isnt it. When I located a cached page from google, I got:

Forum Topics Posts Last Post Moderators


GloFish™ General Discussion
General discussion of GloFish™ fluorescent fish. 5 7 24-Nov-03 01:50 GloFish


GloFish™ Care
Caring for your GloFish™ fluorescent fish. 1 1 24-Nov-03 00:21 GloFish


GloFish™ Ethics
Ethics of GloFish™ fluorescent fish. 1 1 24-Nov-03 00:25 GloFish


GloFish™ Science
The science behind GloFish™ fluorescent fish. 0 0  GloFish

Strange, pulled after only 10 posts.....

Ken

 

[Opcn]

The oposition is always way more outspoken than those who agree and if we always agreed more with those who opose we would never do anything worth doing. For example when George W (a president for whom i harbour no love) whent to england we (the US) heard all about the protest and how he is an evil man but nothing about how 80% like the guy hmmmm funny. or about how WASP males (I am not one of those) have a great plurality in the united states but are openly slighted by college boards and even laws because while they may out number those who are for afirmative action and reperations (both of which are systems where a non guilty party pays the unharmed prodogy of those who were enslaved(and not all of them either not the white endentured servents))but the minority is vastly louder. Mostly because it is politicaly incorect to be part of the majority.

Opcn

 

[Cian McLiam]

There is a very old saying that answers your wonderings:
What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right.

80% like Bush?? Where did that statistic come from?? Wasnt this about fish?

Ken

 

[Opcn]

all we know, they may be donating the bodies of mutant fish that dies during the process

ken grr

1who would take fish bodies
2What fish are undergoing the "process" these zebras are being bred not manufactured all these baby glo zebras need a glo momy or a glo daddy
3You know that they are being bred its less expensive and safer for the fish not to mention faster try not to make disingenuous statements thats not a good idea.

Opcn

 

[Cian McLiam]

I am supposing much about the process true, but unless I get answers from the manufacturer we cant know for sure, this topic is to question the reasons and arguments for and against. I dont think its fair to say I am disingenuous because I dont agree with you, when you are making guesses also.

Ken

 

[guppymonkey]

The oposition is always way more outspoken than those who agree and if we always agreed more with those who opose we would never do anything worth doing. For example when George W (a president for whom i harbour no love) whent to england we (the US) heard all about the protest and how he is an evil man but nothing about how 80% like the guy hmmmm funny. or about how WASP males (I am not one of those) have a great plurality in the united states but are openly slighted by college boards and even laws because while they may out number those who are for afirmative action and reperations (both of which are systems where a non guilty party pays the unharmed prodogy of those who were enslaved(and not all of them either not the white endentured servents))but the minority is vastly louder. Mostly because it is politicaly incorect to be part of the majority.

Opcn

This is sort of like Fox News Channel, just strange and not true at all. AND I have no idea what it has to do with glofish. The reason the opposition is louder than those that agree is that most of the time those that agree are just lazy complacent people that are uninformed and don't want to be informed. With George W. is opposed by most people, in the UK and in the US, but because he has backing from the people who gain the most money and has actively supported them getting even more money he is still shown to be a popular "good" president.

Anyways, back to the glofish. The glofish was developed to test water conditions, I haven't really read what water conditions it tested for or how it tested these conditions. Do they all swim over and tell the scientists "We better get Timmy out of here the radiation is getting a little high"? Most likely they test water conditions that could be tested without damaging animals but its cheaper for the companies in the long run to use animals than pay for expensive equipment. Just like its cheaper for companies to just dump their wastes (which is why they need to test water conditions afterwards) than to pay for proper waste disposal.

In the US there hasn't been much of a stir over the whole glofish issue. Mainly because Americans are the most complacent lazy people on the planet. Unless the issue has to do with war or gay rights than Americans can't give a damn. Europe seems to take genetics more seriously. After outbreaks of mad cow disease and other nasty little diseases they have very strict laws about animals being imported. They also seem to have more of a care for the future. Maybe (this is all my personal opinion) they care more about the future because of their long recorded past and how it has been threatened for basically most of the last century. So, while Americans embrace anything commercial ("We are American we must buy stuff even if it serves no purpose just because we have to buy stuff") the rest of the world has a little more care.

Of course I could be wrong! The Spice Girls came from the UK so they obviously aren't that great over there!

 

[Cian McLiam]

Unedited and with no comment, from News From Babylon

Ananova [UK] Story filed: 11:17 Sunday 28th April 2002

The man who helped create Dolly the sheep says every cloned animal is genetically and physically defective.

Ian Wilmut, of the Roslin research centre in Scotland, says, for instance, that cloned sheep and cattle can suffer from excessive size.

He also found mice could have placentas up to four times the normal size and discovered pigs with heart defects. Mr Wilmut has published his findings this weekend with a warning to scientists over attempts to clone humans.

Dolly the sheep was born with chromosomes which have shortened telomeres and now suffers from arthritis at a far younger age than is normal in sheep.

The telomeres are the DNA tips which protect the end of the chromosomes. In normal sheep and humans, the telomeres grow shorter with age.

As they shorten, cells seem to become more prone to disease and death. This has been linked with diseases of ageing and cancer, reports The Sunday Times.

It has also been found that many cloned mice, despite being given normal amounts of food, become grotesquely fat. Many cloned cows, sheep and pigs have developmental difficulties, lung problems and malfunctioning immune systems.

Mr Wilmut looked at the behaviour of methyl molecules which attach themselves to DNA in all cells and help to control many of its functions. He found that the methylation of the DNA in adult cells differed sharply from that of sperm and eggs.

It means that when a nucleus is taken from a cell of an adult animal and injected into an egg - the process that leads to a clone - its DNA is formatted in radically different ways from that found in sperm.

He believes this is why the genes of cloned animals seem to behave in unpredictable ways and suggests that human clones are also vulnerable to this problem. He said: "Nobody should be attempting to clone a child."

Ken

 

[Opcn]

Just because they are transgenic doesent mean they are cloned, Infact they arenot cloned. And the glofish websight says outrightthat they are bred.

As far as fish escaping to the wild they pose less of a threat than other zebras because of reduced ability to avoid preditors and an increased bioload (that flourescent pigment is hard to make) the males produce 90% of the sperm of wild type and the females produce 50% of the eggs. But it still benefits the species because they can now fill a new niche (that one in the black light aquarium) andif it stops benefiting them they will not be purchased and breaders whon't bread any more and you will get your way.

 

[Opcn]

Hey they will come in yellow and orrange eventualy too!