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

[FanOFish]

I know I said I was through here but I am only talking about fish...

There are many threads here talking about nature and killing off species of fish for science or consumer amusement etc. Let's keep in mind that the fish we populate our tanks with no longer come from 'nature'. There are giant farms raising all of these fish for one reason....Profit.

Ultimately, if the glofish does become popular it will be just another fish on the farm. Nothing in nature will suffer because of this. Our fish are no more from the wild than the dogs we keep as pets are. First and formost, fishkeeping is a hobby to some and a business to others...both are necessary for either to survive. The zebra danio that is swimming around in it's natural habitat will survive either way.

It's time for everyone to just relax and enjoy our hobby and respect the differences in opinions...you know 'agree to disagree'.

 

[Opcn]

Ken I missenterperated that your fish were hybrids just like you miss enterperated that glofish were cloned. And I will conceed that to you From what I understand now It's just that your angels are a mix between two color paterns that where selectively bred just like people breed mollies. My bad

Opcn

And why did someone else open a thread on the subject this ones almost to 100

 

[Opcn]

Hey cmon guys ust 7 more responses and this thread hits 100. You could talk about the fact that there is no way to stop genetic research because there will always be a country willing to do it (ust like human cloning) and how steemed that gets you.

Opcn

 

[andyt_uk]

Let's keep in mind that the fish we populate our tanks with no longer come from 'nature'. There are giant farms raising all of these fish for one reason....Profit.

may be largely true for freshwater species, but a lot of our marine buddies will point out that much of their livestock is wild caught - which does make kens argument even more pertinent, the variety in shape and colours of marine fish, is so vast that if none of them please you and you feel the need for some kind of modified fish then go find another hobby

 

[FanOFish]

may be largely true for freshwater species, but a lot of our marine buddies will point out that much of their livestock is wild caught - which does make kens argument even more pertinent, the variety in shape and colours of marine fish, is so vast that if none of them please you and you feel the need for some kind of modified fish then go find another hobby [/quote]
Thanks Andy, you are correct I was really referring to freshwater fish.

 

[andyt_uk]

still not got your 100 replies though ;-)

 

[spellingwitch]

I just started a longish post to this thread and lost it. Argh.

I'm a newbie to this forum but wanted to jump in and add my $.02 to this discussion.

When I first heard about the glofish my first reaction was that they were cool and I had to get some (after reading the details on the glofish website). But in general I am opposed to genetically-modified anything, particularly when crossing genes between species.

The difference between breeding new colors of a fish species (or dog breeds) and inserting foreign genes from another species is that the glow gene would likely not have appeared naturally. The jellyfish gene does not belong in the danio. And the jellyfish and the danio could never cross-breed on their own. So it is a bit of playing Dr. Frankenstein because the danger is when you start playing with genetic material mistakes or unforseen consequences can happen.

I think the glow gene is pretty harmless, it doesn't cause the fish any harm (or it wouldn't survive/reproduce for very long) and it isn't toxic to any predators because it is still a natural source of luminescence, not a paint or a chemical. And if science has been using the glofish to detect pollutants for years now, then they are probably sure there are no harmful surprises attached to that glow gene that they didn't predict.

Scientists have already bred glow genes into many animals, including tobacco, orchids, potatoes, rabbits, mice, and even a monkey (although the monkey was unsuccessful and didn't glow). You can see more here:

http/www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gene_sa..._gallery2.shtml

The reason they use glow genes is because it is very easy to see if it worked or not. Usually scientists use it with another gene, so that if the glow is successful they can tell the whole genetic modification was successful.

The glofish are not harmful in and of themselves...but the problem is that people will not stop there. It's what can happen in the long run that is the danger. As with all technology the ability to transplant genes can be used for good, and for evil, can have effects that help people as well as harm them.

You can read more about genetic modification at this site: http/www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/

Although I personally think the glofish themselves are harmless, it all comes down to the fact that just because we *can* do something, does not necessarily mean we *should.*

 

[Opcn]

Hey I am glad this post has kicked back up (If only for a bit) because now I get a chance to say this.

Centers in the News:
University of Cincinnati [ Centers in the News ]


Zebrafish May Be Toxin Detectors

By Lisa Cornwell
Associated Press
December 26, 1999

CINCINNATI - Glowing zebrafish could be used to identify pollutants in drinking water supplies if a research project under way at the University of Cincinnati proves successful.

The glow comes from firefly genes inserted into the DNA of zebrafish. The fish light up when exposed to PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, which are known to cause cancer in humans.

"These fish are much more sensitive than current water testing systems that can detect concentrations of PCBs," said Dr. Daniel Nebert, a professor in the university's Department of Environmental Health and in the human genetics division of its Department of Pediatrics.

Using the zebrafish would cost less and take less time than testing the water with equipment or taking samples of mud or fish that then would have to be tested, he said.

The zebrafish are not harmed and eventually lose the glow when removed from the polluted area, Nebert said. And, he added, "They can be detoxed and used again."

Monte Westerfield, a professor of biology and director of the Zebrafish International Resource Center at the University of Oregon in Eugene, said he was aware of the UC research and believes such a project is feasible.

"Zebrafish have been used for years for toxicology and water pollution studies, and researchers have been making transgenic zebrafish for about 20 years," he said.

The small size of the fish _ about an inch long _ and their ability to reproduce quickly and in large numbers have contributed to their common use in genetic and biomedical research. Westerfield's center provides zebrafish from the wild and transgenic zebrafish and frozen sperm for researchers around the world. The center did not provide fish for the University of Cincinnati project.

Nebert, who is overseeing the project, said he became interested in using fish as pollution detectors in the 1970s when he heard that the enzyme levels in some fish off the coast of Nova Scotia increased the closer they came to an oil slick.

Nebert first considered using transgenic trout but switched to zebrafish because they are less complex genetically.

Michael Carvan, the assistant research professor conducting the project, said researchers are working with Clermont County, just east of Cincinnati, to apply their studies at Lake Harsha.

"And if it works there, it no doubt would work in other places," he said.

The researchers will place ordinary zebrafish in tanks filled with lake water to see if they can survive before risking the transgenic fish.

Paul Russell, a retired biochemist and a water quality consultant for Clermont County, is excited about the project. "We have a closed hazardous-waste landfill about five miles up the river from the lake, which serves as a significant amount of drinking water for the county,'' he said. ``We need very sensitive tests that would alert us to leaks early."

The plan is to pump lake water into tanks holding the transgenic zebrafish, perhaps by late spring. The tanks would be at a pumphouse that draws water from the east fork of the Little Miami River and in the water intake tower at the lake.

So It turns out they are viable polution detectors so the less than observant individual who kept complaining about cycleing the tank was wrong (he also made fun of my inability to spell which is proof that he is a jerk) and It's not amonia that they tested for.

as far as transgenics go There is a danger if we don't keep track of what is transgenic. If they take a gene from potatos and stick it in to a carrot someone who is allergic to potatos may be hit hard when they eat a carrot.

Opcn

 

[andyt_uk]

I just started a longish post to this thread and lost it. Argh.

I'm a newbie to this forum but wanted to jump in and add my $.02 to this discussion.

When I first heard about the glofish .....The difference between breeding new colors of a fish species (or dog breeds) and inserting foreign genes from ....the danger is when you start playing with genetic material mistakes or unforseen consequences can happen.

I think the glow gene is .....they didn't predict.

Scientists have already bred glow genes into many animals, including tobacco, orchids, potatoes, rabbits, mice, and even a monkey (although the monkey was unsuccessful and didn't glow). You can see more here:

http/www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gene_sa..._gallery2.shtml

The reason they use glow genes is because it is very easy to see if it worked or not. ....be used for good, and for evil, can have effects that help people as well as harm them.

You can read more about genetic modification at this site: http/www.amnh.org/exhibitions/genomics/

Although I personally think the glofish themselves are harmless, it all comes down to the fact that just because we *can* do something, does not necessarily mean we *should.*

i've randomly paraphrased that quote just so you can tell what i am referring to..

but isnt it nice to see someone doing some research and not spouting some knee jerk urban 'facts' about these fish

i havent done that much research into the subject myself, but i remain open minded about the whole debate and i am 100% certain some of the 'facts' quoted here come only from the authors mind, i am also equally certain other facts can be backed up.

i will quote one other person

Auratus

People keep bringing up the fact that these fish were made for science and for the good. What good is selling them to the public? That's not what they are going to be used for anymore.

whilst i am not saying selling them is good, it isnt necessarily bad; and what makes anyone think that just because the glofish is to be marketed like this that it wont be used in research anymore?

And to have fish that are pratically like lab rats is discusting. The site says that they are used to detect pollutants but forgot to mention that they die finding them.

do they?

 

[De Plano]

I just read in the paper that they are not going to allow them to be sold in California.

 

[Jo]

They are some interesting links, I'm not joining this topic because I have no firm opinion, but I particually liked this quote abuot canaries..!!

Zebrafish are being modified at the University of Singapore using fluorescent genes from jellyfish and sea anemones. The fish are designed to glow in the presence of water pollutants, functioning as a warning system - a bit like a canary in a mine.

 

[FrankSlapperinni]

I don't seem to get it. how could anyone actualy want this fish? I look at them, and their unreal colors wouldn't fit anywhere but a labratory, I couldn't possable imagine on in my aquarium.
I guess its just a question of ethics, but these fish seem compleatly wrong (plus their website is realy sleezy too). I personaly wouldn't mind seeing every last one shipped off to the meat grinder and used as fertiliser, along with all the blood parrots and painted glass fish.

 

[Jo]

I personaly wouldn't mind seeing every last one shipped off to the meat grinder and used as fertiliser, along with all the blood parrots and painted glass fish

Isn't that a bit of a waste of life tho...I understand that your opinion is that these fish are wrong, but surely it would be better to concentrate on stoping these types of fish being "made" (if it is your opinion that they are wrong) than on killing existing stocks....?

 

[andyt_uk]

I don't seem to get it. how could anyone actualy want this fish? I look at them, and their unreal colors wouldn't fit anywhere but a labratory, I couldn't possable imagine on in my aquarium.

well dont buy one

I guess its just a question of ethics, but these fish seem compleatly wrong (plus their website is realy sleezy too). I personaly wouldn't mind seeing every last one shipped off to the meat grinder and used as fertiliser, along with all the blood parrots and painted glass fish.

sorry but i find this even more abhorent - you would kill an innocent animal just because you dont like the idea of it - ethics.. hmmmmm

 

[Jo]

sorry but i find this even more abhorent - you would kill an innocent animal just because you dont like the idea of it - ethics.. hmmmmm

my point exactly andy!!