Please don't buy this fish when it shows up stateside...
- Thread starter AquariumBoiler
- Start date
At the risk of starting a debate:
I would get them. They are cool, and they don't involve dyes the way the "painted" fish do. "Painted" fish must suffer cruel processes to give their color. The process that gave these fish their color was actually done in the egg as a genetic tag. Unless there is some way that this genetic mapping is leathal or detramental to the health of said fish, then heck, it's all good in my book.
Yes, I am pro-genetic research of any kind. No I do not intend to start a eugentics "desiner baby" debate of any kind. If people will like to stick strictly to the medical benefits or lack there of, of genetic research, then yes, debate would be interesting. But please keep your arguments in the realm of reality and not the fears of science fiction. If you are against genetic research, why?
~~Colesea
I would get them. They are cool, and they don't involve dyes the way the "painted" fish do. "Painted" fish must suffer cruel processes to give their color. The process that gave these fish their color was actually done in the egg as a genetic tag. Unless there is some way that this genetic mapping is leathal or detramental to the health of said fish, then heck, it's all good in my book.
Yes, I am pro-genetic research of any kind. No I do not intend to start a eugentics "desiner baby" debate of any kind. If people will like to stick strictly to the medical benefits or lack there of, of genetic research, then yes, debate would be interesting. But please keep your arguments in the realm of reality and not the fears of science fiction. If you are against genetic research, why?
~~Colesea
i think theyd keep me up at night with their beady eyes
but seriously though. im not against genetic research, because im diabetic, and i need insulin to live, its made with genetic research, and medical technology(and i feel like a guinea pig on a daily basis) i need to constantly monitor my blood and keep it at a decent level plus eat a strict diet or i will expire, as with millions of other health problems every day. i often think about being able to freely eat the things i want and not have to do injections anymore and also think about how much happier and healthier all the other people in the world would be if we found cures for these disease, BUT...think of how many lives are brought into the world each day alone, if no one got sick or died the world would get full really quickly( im sorry if i sound cold hearted, im not meaning to.) what i am worried about is their being to many humans and not enough natural resources to sustain life on the many levels it takes for us and everything else here to survive naturally.
just my opinion, whats yours?
but seriously though. im not against genetic research, because im diabetic, and i need insulin to live, its made with genetic research, and medical technology(and i feel like a guinea pig on a daily basis) i need to constantly monitor my blood and keep it at a decent level plus eat a strict diet or i will expire, as with millions of other health problems every day. i often think about being able to freely eat the things i want and not have to do injections anymore and also think about how much happier and healthier all the other people in the world would be if we found cures for these disease, BUT...think of how many lives are brought into the world each day alone, if no one got sick or died the world would get full really quickly( im sorry if i sound cold hearted, im not meaning to.) what i am worried about is their being to many humans and not enough natural resources to sustain life on the many levels it takes for us and everything else here to survive naturally.
just my opinion, whats yours?
Genetic research could be extremely beneficial to mankind especially for medical purposes- but I am against GM foods- I don't beleive they should be screwing around with stuff we eat, adding all kinds of wierd bits and pieces of DNA from here and there so that apples will be shinier or more pest resistant or whatever- at the end of the day once you change that code, an apple may look like an apple... but at its most basic level, its not an apple anymore- they don't know what eating that stuff is going to do to us and I for one do not want to find out by making myself a guinea pig for Dupont, or Bayer or whoever else thinks they can make a bigger profit from poisoning the planet.
Did I just fly right off the handle there?
Did I just fly right off the handle there?
Seeing how I am a molecular biology/biochemistry major, being totally against genetic research would mean that I'd be against employment. I actually work in a plant virology lab that has geneticlly altered, virus carrying aphids. I could be wrong but I think that genetic research seems to be a bit too immature to be making new fish. I really wish this article had more detail as to the differences between these new glowing fish and their less ugly counterparts. The more I think about it, this in itself doesn't seem too bad, as soon as maybe next year we may see something truly bad or harmful released by an irresponsible company. These fish, at least to me seem to be opening the gates for anyone who wants to make their own kind of fish. I guess it was a bit hasty of me saing these fish are terrible. I was thinking more about what could/likely will be than what is. I think genetic research should be applied more cautiously and to fields that will benefit mankind more than just having a replacement nite lite in their fishtank.
found a pic:
http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/26/0726gfp.html
they inject them with jellyfish dna and firefly protein i think.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/26/0726gfp.html
they inject them with jellyfish dna and firefly protein i think.
i dont necessarily think it was wrong to create them... i dont know the purpose of the research so i wont comment on that
my problem with these fish being sold as pets is that they will create a demand for more of the same...also i think we will see alot more fish painted/dyed green from irresponsible fish farms looking to make a buck that dont have the ability to make the "glow in the dark" ones genetically
i wont buy them
btw-nice to see you back aquarium boiler
--liz
my problem with these fish being sold as pets is that they will create a demand for more of the same...also i think we will see alot more fish painted/dyed green from irresponsible fish farms looking to make a buck that dont have the ability to make the "glow in the dark" ones genetically
i wont buy them
btw-nice to see you back aquarium boiler
--liz
AquariumBoiler's link was interesting. A glowing rabbit "for arts sake". The article had the following quote from Arthur Kaplan . . . one of the best known bio-ethicist:
Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said Kac's works were a reminder to
scientists to watch what they do and to discuss the ramifications of their
inventions.
"When rabbits glow, it should remind us that you can make small changes and
have big results," said Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania.
"Genetic engineering could be used for all kinds of strange purposes," he
added, including a future of genetically altered humans. "You could have
kids going from school that glow to prevent them from getting hit by cars.
My point being, what modifications are acceptable and what aren't? There
aren't any guidelines, any rules. For the love of art isn't enough."
One bio-ethicist . . . I forget his name . . . was on the West Coast . . . was in his 80's . . . probably dead by now . . . suggested genetically engineering a species of "sub-humans" that could be used to perform dangerous tasks . . . the example he used was simple tasks relating to exploring volcanoes.
Pretty scary stuff. I do agree with Linwiz, this fish is likely to create a market demand . . . and that will encourage more of this sort of thing.
Medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said Kac's works were a reminder to
scientists to watch what they do and to discuss the ramifications of their
inventions.
"When rabbits glow, it should remind us that you can make small changes and
have big results," said Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania.
"Genetic engineering could be used for all kinds of strange purposes," he
added, including a future of genetically altered humans. "You could have
kids going from school that glow to prevent them from getting hit by cars.
My point being, what modifications are acceptable and what aren't? There
aren't any guidelines, any rules. For the love of art isn't enough."
One bio-ethicist . . . I forget his name . . . was on the West Coast . . . was in his 80's . . . probably dead by now . . . suggested genetically engineering a species of "sub-humans" that could be used to perform dangerous tasks . . . the example he used was simple tasks relating to exploring volcanoes.
Pretty scary stuff. I do agree with Linwiz, this fish is likely to create a market demand . . . and that will encourage more of this sort of thing.
Wow, I'm impress, sane people! Thank you all for your contributions.
As stated before, the glowing affect was pretty much a by-product of the research. Glowing mice have been around for years, and they are a great benefit to science. Instead of having to do so many post-mortem exams to find out which ones are the mice carrying the genes you want, you simply seperate out the glowing mice from the not glowing mice in the litter, and you know the glowing mouse has the gene you want. Or if you don't want that gene, then you would pick the not glowing mouse. Very time saving and cost effective that way, and scientist are trying to breed such mice with distinct characteristics all the time.
I used to work for a researcher who was doing studies that was breeding for a specific brindled-colored mouse with stubby legs because these mice were chimaras, carrying two sets of genetic code, their own and one for which they were "host" (for lack of a better word). Mice don't natrually occure in a brindle pattern, not even in fancy mouse breeding, the brindle was a result of the introduced material. If it wasn't for the fact they were chimaras, I'd've probably adopted some, they were the most beautiful and cutest things, for mice. Unfortunately due to their chimara state, they weren't suitible for life outside the labratory, and many of the surplus in the colony was humanely disposed of.
Humans have been breeding desiner animals for ages, that's why we have all the different dog breeds we do. Let's face it though, not everybody who owns a retriever ever does any hunting, or owns a shepard do any herding. So it is only natural that people would want glowing fish even if they have no intention of doing genetic research.
And trust me, it may seem a bit ironic, but the pet trade is a better option for the surplus than the alternative, which would simply be euthanasia. At least then a percentage of those fish would have a chance. And I think I said before, in another thread, since so much research is underfunded as it is, all the better to make money where you can.
And I do agree, some of this is really going to backfire as other not so honest folk try to cash in on the cow. But I am glad to see so much support for genetic research, at least for all the benefits that humanity can gain.
As far as humans poluting the world, well, there is a theory that humans are actually parasites of the worst sort, and not very smart ones because they kill their host. We were once likened to a virus. While disease and stress we can all be compassionate about, nature always has its checks and balances, so I do agree with the theory that we haven't cured everything because without disease killing off humans, we'd overpopulate ourselves to death. Unfortunately, the thing coupled with that is, as always, so long as that disease isn't on my doorstep. Is it truely fair that many of our "population checks" occure in ecconomically-impovished countries?
AIDS has once been described as "The Next Plage" because of how many deaths it claims. In case you didn't know, The Black Plague, was what set civilization back a good 50 to 100 years when it hit, and was the single most event to actually cause negitive population growth over the entire world. So in the effort too keep the human population of planet Earth from reaching the 7 billion point, should we abandon all research efforts towards curing AIDS?
Cancers I don't believe will ever be cured because cancers are on the genetic level, something really funky happening with the coding. Because everybody is genetically different, each cancer, no matter how similar they present, will always be genetically different from someone else's cancer. To completely cure cancers (I mean erradicate their occurances from ever happening, not just send them into remission with chemo) you would have to alter the very essence of the human genome.
In which case, someone brought up, in essense, we won't be human anymore. Are we? If an apple is no longer an apple because it was genetically altered to be resistant to drought and therefore can provide food and trade for an impovished desert country, then we would no longer be human if we genetically erradicate the occurance of cancer in our cells. Bad or good? Is it bad to genetically alter corn to resist leaf molds so as to yeild higher crops to feed more people?
Besides, we are all already guine pigs for Bayer and all those other companies, and not just via food.
And all this from glow in the dark fish.
~~Colesea
As stated before, the glowing affect was pretty much a by-product of the research. Glowing mice have been around for years, and they are a great benefit to science. Instead of having to do so many post-mortem exams to find out which ones are the mice carrying the genes you want, you simply seperate out the glowing mice from the not glowing mice in the litter, and you know the glowing mouse has the gene you want. Or if you don't want that gene, then you would pick the not glowing mouse. Very time saving and cost effective that way, and scientist are trying to breed such mice with distinct characteristics all the time.
I used to work for a researcher who was doing studies that was breeding for a specific brindled-colored mouse with stubby legs because these mice were chimaras, carrying two sets of genetic code, their own and one for which they were "host" (for lack of a better word). Mice don't natrually occure in a brindle pattern, not even in fancy mouse breeding, the brindle was a result of the introduced material. If it wasn't for the fact they were chimaras, I'd've probably adopted some, they were the most beautiful and cutest things, for mice. Unfortunately due to their chimara state, they weren't suitible for life outside the labratory, and many of the surplus in the colony was humanely disposed of.
Humans have been breeding desiner animals for ages, that's why we have all the different dog breeds we do. Let's face it though, not everybody who owns a retriever ever does any hunting, or owns a shepard do any herding. So it is only natural that people would want glowing fish even if they have no intention of doing genetic research.
And trust me, it may seem a bit ironic, but the pet trade is a better option for the surplus than the alternative, which would simply be euthanasia. At least then a percentage of those fish would have a chance. And I think I said before, in another thread, since so much research is underfunded as it is, all the better to make money where you can.
And I do agree, some of this is really going to backfire as other not so honest folk try to cash in on the cow. But I am glad to see so much support for genetic research, at least for all the benefits that humanity can gain.
As far as humans poluting the world, well, there is a theory that humans are actually parasites of the worst sort, and not very smart ones because they kill their host. We were once likened to a virus. While disease and stress we can all be compassionate about, nature always has its checks and balances, so I do agree with the theory that we haven't cured everything because without disease killing off humans, we'd overpopulate ourselves to death. Unfortunately, the thing coupled with that is, as always, so long as that disease isn't on my doorstep. Is it truely fair that many of our "population checks" occure in ecconomically-impovished countries?
AIDS has once been described as "The Next Plage" because of how many deaths it claims. In case you didn't know, The Black Plague, was what set civilization back a good 50 to 100 years when it hit, and was the single most event to actually cause negitive population growth over the entire world. So in the effort too keep the human population of planet Earth from reaching the 7 billion point, should we abandon all research efforts towards curing AIDS?
Cancers I don't believe will ever be cured because cancers are on the genetic level, something really funky happening with the coding. Because everybody is genetically different, each cancer, no matter how similar they present, will always be genetically different from someone else's cancer. To completely cure cancers (I mean erradicate their occurances from ever happening, not just send them into remission with chemo) you would have to alter the very essence of the human genome.
In which case, someone brought up, in essense, we won't be human anymore. Are we? If an apple is no longer an apple because it was genetically altered to be resistant to drought and therefore can provide food and trade for an impovished desert country, then we would no longer be human if we genetically erradicate the occurance of cancer in our cells. Bad or good? Is it bad to genetically alter corn to resist leaf molds so as to yeild higher crops to feed more people?
Besides, we are all already guine pigs for Bayer and all those other companies, and not just via food.
And all this from glow in the dark fish.
~~Colesea
I would like to join this debate but first I need to sleep on the topic and give it some thought. I saw this newspaper article in my inbox as well a week or 2 ago... sort of just shrugged it off, was a bit busy and frankly last week I was sick of aquariums anyway (long story)
anyway now that it seems as if they are making their USA (and probably Canada too) it's time to consider it.
anyway now that it seems as if they are making their USA (and probably Canada too) it's time to consider it.