How Do You Guys Feel About "glofish"

[The_Dude]

I personally don't see any harm in it, and I would love to glow in the dark!That's a pretty cool idea imo.

 

[GoldLenny]

They don't actually glow in the dark... but rather, they are fluorescent so they glow under blacklight conditions. http/www.glofish.com/

They are genetically engineered zebra danios ( http/fish.mongabay.com/danios.htm ) , not dyed, so I don't have a problem with them. I'm not 100% sure I have a problem with dyed/tattooed fish.... I guess as long as it's done safely and properly. I wouldn't buy one but I understand if someone wants to have weird fish, gravel, plants, etc. I don't personally have any tattoos or dye my hair but I've dated girls who have both of these things. Just like I don't have a problem with eating genetically engineered corn in my Corn Flakes (read the label if you don't believe me. LOL) Lot's of seeds for agricultural products are genetically engineered to resist various insects or disease.

 

[three-fingers]

I have a problem with dyed and tattooed fish, but unless I'm missing something I have no problem with the GM 'glofish'.
They breed, and the babies are the same, so it's not like the fish have been put through stress or had harm done to them.

But like I said, I may be missing something. I've never even seen glofish, I don't know if they have a shorter lifespan, maybe more prone to certain diseases or maybe they are stressed and confused by the colours of the other danios in the shoal.

If they were legal here, and I saw them in the shops, I'd probably buy them just for the novelty factor. I don't like all the fancy varieties of fish beyond maybe albinos and golden forms (sometimes I think long finned varieties are cool), but glofish are just brightly coloured zebra danios.
I like zebra danios.
And I like bight coloured fish.

 

[The_Dude]

I've had some and they're only a little more finicky about water conditions but other than that, they're pretty much funky colored zebra danios.And as they say here in the states,they're 100% legal eagle,oh but not in California.I've seen them at walmart, and they act just like normal zebra danios no stress or anything, it's just that they're the colors of neon lights outside of bars and strip joints and glow under black lights (also found in some bars.lol.)

 

[dwarfgourami]

I wouldn't be interested as my interest in fish colours is more to do with evolution and function, but I don't have a big ethical problem with them either- which I do with dyed fish. Basically, there is no safe or humane way of dyeing fish, if you see a dyed fish you may assume it has been cruelly treated.

 

[PufferFishRule]

dyed fish....cruel...unjust...inhumane why id like to shoot the lil S-o-B who though of such a cruel idea...its wrong! there is no "proper" way to dye a fish...cruelty to a helpless animal and should be against the law....anyone who thinks otherwise should be dyed themselves to see if they like have a needle full of crap injected into there skin...or being dipped in chemicals that alter color and appearence.....like i said cruel..thats what im leaving it at

 

[andywg]

dyed fish....cruel...unjust...inhumane why id like to shoot the lil S-o-B who though of such a cruel idea...its wrong! there is no "proper" way to dye a fish...cruelty to a helpless animal and should be against the law....anyone who thinks otherwise should be dyed themselves to see if they like have a needle full of crap injected into there skin...or being dipped in chemicals that alter color and appearence.....like i said cruel..thats what im leaving it at

Indeed, but with glo-fish they have had some genes from an anemone grafted to the danio's genes so the colouration is produced by the fish, not a chemical.

 

[loachman]

It's sort of interesting these discussions even come up.

A very similar thing has/is done in the pharmacuetical industry all the time to produce medicines. They take bacteria and "inject" (figuratively) them with genes to make whatever drug they need. Insulin is a common example. Nobody complains about this and ethics of it are not an issue at all. Maybe because it's a bacteria and it's not "cute and cuddly."

This is basically what is done with the glofish. They take a gene and add it to the danios DNA (most likely when the fish is still embryonic and hasn't divided yet past a single cell. Let a pair of these fish grow to adulthood and breed them). It's then hard coded for the fish to be this way, and their offspring will naturally be this way as well.

I personally don't have a problem with it, although I really dont' think the fish are all that interesting. I'm not planning on buying any. I prefer the natural fish much moreso.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

It's sort of interesting these discussions even come up.

A very similar thing has/is done in the pharmacuetical industry all the time to produce medicines. They take bacteria and "inject" (figuratively) them with genes to make whatever drug they need. Insulin is a common example. Nobody complains about this and ethics of it are not an issue at all. Maybe because it's a bacteria and it's not "cute and cuddly."

are bacteria able to think/feel etc though? (there's a word for that and i can't remember it, grrr)

 

[loachman]

It's sort of interesting these discussions even come up.

A very similar thing has/is done in the pharmacuetical industry all the time to produce medicines. They take bacteria and "inject" (figuratively) them with genes to make whatever drug they need. Insulin is a common example. Nobody complains about this and ethics of it are not an issue at all. Maybe because it's a bacteria and it's not "cute and cuddly."

are bacteria able to think/feel etc though? (there's a word for that and i can't remember it, grrr)

They can react to external stimuli. Is this "feeling?"... probably not. Definitely not in the way we usually think about it at least.

But do genetically modified animals "feel" any different? Certainly, tatooed and dyed fish do feel that and are affected negatively by it (there is little debate on that subject)...but for genetically modified animals there is no evidence that they do. The change is intrinsically part of them.

There are the ethics of "playing god" that can come into it, but that's really something that's asking for a heated debate. So I'll just say that they cannot be blindly ignored, regardless of which side of the debate a person is on.

 

[Lateral Line]

Transgenic organisms in general suffer from the same potential problem, that the genetic alteration escapes into the wild. The GloFish modification seems fairly harmless and is likely to have a negative affect on the survivability of carriers of the genes in a wild population.

The ethical issue as I see it is that if such transgenic organisms can be sold for premium prices, the producers will see potential markets for other modifications, ever weirder. The potential for the production of "monsters" i.e. fish which end up living a thourghly miserable life encumbered by extra fins, tails the list is endless leads to to support the current EU ban on transgenic organisms.

Similarly, I can see fish being dyed or tattooed and this being passed off as genetic modifcation therefore non harmful to the fish. Of course they won't breed true, but by then, the seller has made his money and gone.

It is not, therefore, the GloFish I have a problem with, it is the inherent greed of mankind when the potetntial for a fast buck is in the air.

 

[OohFeeshy]

The thing is Lateral, that's already happening. It's much easier to mutate fish through selective breeding than GM (or so I would imagine)- the latter requires a lot of effort and money when the former could probably be done over a few years and cheaply (well, relatively cheap). Look at fancy goldfish, flowerhorns and such- if you banned GM fish on the basis that it could lead to mutant fish, you'd have to ban selectively bred fish too.

I see no problem- they're small, easy to care for, attractive- certainly a better buy for most beginners than dyed parrots, goldfish etc, and once the demand has lessened slightly, the price will come down quite a bit. I don't think there's much chance of any cross-geneticism happening- certainly not in the UK (low temps, winter, native fish etc etc.), and even in warmer climes like the US, there's a lot of predators (not exactly the most discreet of fish), and how would they even transfer the genetics? It's of no advantage, certainly.

 

[Lateral Line]

I don't believe that to be correct OF.

Most of the "fancy goldfish" strains have been line bred to their current state over centuries. There are hardly any that would survive a season in the wild, indeed, the most extreme examples have to be seriously mollycoddled in order to survive in captivity. That is not life, that is simply existance, an example of what I believe could be in the pipeline if GM is not kept under control. The difference with GM is that a lot of these things could be created within a year or less - there is no way you could start with non-domesticated carp and breed, through selective breeding, a "bubble eye" goldfish in that time frame. You'd be lucky to create a "goldfish" that bred true in a decade.

Flowerhorns and other hybrids are relatively easy to produce because they do not require very high tech systems, just add some fish from geographically isolated populations and see which will breed with which. Put a positive spin on it, hype them, and away you go. The danger with some of the hybrids is that unlike mules, they can be viable breeders, thus they pose a threat, and I oppose the hybrid trade for the same reasons. There have been incidents in the far east, Malaya in particular where this has already been an issue.

With GM, there is always the chance of the modification escaping into the wild. I agree, the particular modification made to these creatures is not likely to enhance their survival, thus they are unlikely to pose a threat to species, but read the rest of what I said above. The perceived "demand" for these things WILL attract medium sopisticated laboratories who, probably as a side effect, may see ways of offsetting costs by producing weird "items" they may be able to sell to a gullible public.

As for the survival of alien species a long way from home, just read the literature. It is full of cases where an "X" from "Y" was suprisingly found living in "Z". In the "London Apprentice" pub in Isleworth, SW London, is a collection of stuffed fish rod caught from their terrace. One is a Megladoras irwinii.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an opponent of GM per-se, but I believe it should be carefully controlled until it is a mature technology. I don't believe creating weird items for the pet trade is a productive use for the technology.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Most of the "fancy goldfish" strains have been line bred to their current state over centuries. There are hardly any that would survive a season in the wild, indeed, the most extreme examples have to be seriously mollycoddled in order to survive in captivity. That is not life, that is simply existance, an example of what I believe could be in the pipeline if GM is not kept under control. The difference with GM is that a lot of these things could be created within a year or less - there is no way you could start with non-domesticated carp and breed, through selective breeding, a "bubble eye" goldfish in that time frame. You'd be lucky to create a "goldfish" that bred true in a decade.

Fair enough, my timescale was a bit out But equally I'm not sure you're right in saying it's easire to GM. It's a pretty lengthy process- apart from anything, you'd have to do serious work actually isolating the required genes, and that's pretty tricky when you consider how many genes have to work together to cause a particular trait. Then there's the actual process which is pretty tricky- certainly not middle east fish farm work- not to mention expensive. I don't think there's much more risk with GM than selective breeding, if any- look at what selectively bred bettas are doing in their native land- and while it should be carefully monitored to avoid exploitation, with the fairly limited amount of things you can do to fish with it, I think there are far more important things that have been left unchecked.

 

[The_Dude]

Dude, they cloned a sheep.They can make babies in a glass cylinder.What harm is a fish going to do compared to Frankenstein and his sheep?!