Genetically Engineered Pets Hit the Market

psoriac writes "According to this article the Taiwanese Taikong Corporation is starting to sell "Night Pearls" - zebrafish that glow in different red and green patterns thanks to genes from jellyfish and marine coral. US sales are expected to follow."

Comments

Huh?

[cmburns69]

This is a disturbing trend. The same problem exists with genetically altered pets as with genetically modified foods. There is the potential (and its likely) that the GM version is more hardy than the natural version; Therefore, if left to compete in the open environment (maybe some seeds spread to a different field, or some kid turns their fish loose in the sea) they could replace the natural species.

I don't know what the solution is, because there are many good uses for GM products, but its an issue that needs to be thought out carefully, instead of just saying "cool!"

Re:Huh?

[Telastyn]

How is that a problem?

If left to their own devices simple mutation will eventually lead to the hardier species anyways.

More of a problem is if they are not hardier species and rely upon artificial environments [man] to survive. Even then it's simply an ethical consideration about making a species that is doomed without us. Are we ready for the responsibility and the such.

Personally I think it's cool. I also think that *someone* is going to do it, as someone will always disregard ethics for some reason or another...

Re:Huh?

[penguinlust]

What about the recent story of the Canadian farmer. He had modified seeds of some kind blow into his field and mix genetically with his seeds for the next year. Mansanto has sucessfully sued him to stop hime from using their patented genes and he how has no farm left.

This same kind of thing could happen with fish or whatever. Some fish that is not as steril as thought breeds with another unmodified fish and a kid gives one of the offsping to a friend. If this goes a bit further then the owner of the patent will be forced to defend it and sue all the kids. Or maybe their parents because they should have known better.

It should not be posible to patent anything related to life and its genetic makeup. I think the farmer should have sued Monsanto for providing a substance that corrupted the years of plant breeding he had done to get the crop just as he wanted it.

Silly me. The farmer could not afford enought lawyers to darken the skies. American justice at its best.

Re:Huh?

[sabaco]

Lower down, a poster mentioned some GM seeds (patented, btw) blowing in to a farmers yard. He was then sued by the company which owned the patent, and lost his farm. It is this sort of thing that we cannot predict.

That's hardly the fault of Genetic Modification, and entirely the fault of our stupid patent litigation laws. If you want to argue that companies shouldn't be able to own species or modifications, I'm right there with you. And it probably would reduce GM research a little. Banning GM because of patents just makes no sense at all.

I really wish the so-called "environmentalists" would stick to actually doing something to help the environment, like supporting lumbering (since they will replant the trees) rather than strip farming (who don't care about the trees at all). Or maybe protecting species from becoming extinct rather than worrying about us introducing more species. Mutation is a normal process, and if we're speeding it up a little that's fine. If anything, we probably should be doing this to replace the species that are otherwise dying out.

Re:Huh?

[Selanit]

How is that a problem?

It's a problem not because it might simply replace one existing species, but because it might replace that species and take down dozens of others with it, throwing an entire ecosystem into disarray. Take the brown snake, which was introduced to Guam in fruit shipments. They eat birds and birds' eggs. They are rapidly destroying all of the birds in Guam, because there are not enough natural hazards to keep them in check. Additionally, they crawl into transformers and short circuit them, frying themselves and disrupting power, which can be very serious in some circumstances. Also, they are poisonous. They're not especially aggressive, but have been known to bite both adults, children, and infants, who then require hospitalization.

That's just a problem of species being introduced into alien environments. Genetically modified creatures that escape could cause similar problems, perhaps exacerbated by their modifications. Mind you, a fish that glows at night is going to get eaten pretty quick. But we should be very careful about introducing GM creatures into the wild just because there could be unforeseen consequences that we wouldn't like.

. . . it's simply an ethical consideration about making a species that is doomed without us.

Well, that's one ethical consideration that doesn't strike me as particular pressing; we've done it before, why not again? There are plenty of species that would almost certainly die out if we did: seedless grapes, maize, several forms of wheat, possibly cows. Personally I would be more worried about species dying because we kill them than species dying because we create them.

Danger! Danger Wil Robinson!

[coupland]

Sounds pretty neat to me, after all people have been genetically modifying animals for tens of thousands of years, except the tool has been breeding rather than genetics. It's called domestication. We didn't hear any of these hypocrites moaning about the evils of genetics when they invented Clamato, did we???

Re:Bah!

[oenone01]

I'd rather have a pressurized tank with naturally bioluminescent deep-sea species...

How would you clean it? That is without killing the fish when you depressurized it.

I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering

[PhysicsGenius]

for things like improving rice or wheat. These are clearly important, life-sustaining purposes that warrant taking on a little extra risk. But glow in the dark fish? Is that really worth the possibility that the fish will escape and reek havoc in the ecosystem?

Also, many fish, such as goldfish, are just slightly different breeds of wild fish, such as carp. If an "engineered" fish escapes and breeds with a fish that's in our food chain and then we eat it, that could have important health implications. We need to be absolutely sure that genetically engineered products, such as grains, don't reach human mouths.

I wonder how long these would survive in the wild?

[el-spectre]

'bout 2 minutes, I expect.

Re:How about this?

[Monkey-Man2000]

We need a Moderation for +1/-1 Disgusting!

You need to do better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering for things like improving rice or wheat. These are clearly important, life-sustaining purposes that warrant taking on a little extra risk.... We need to be absolutely sure that genetically engineered products, such as grains, don't reach human mouths.

I expect better trolling out of you, sir.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[Anonymous Coward]

history of torturing animal genes

Something tells me that genes don't feel pain and therefore can't be tortured. Maybe it is that lack of a nervous system.

From an ethical point of view I have no problem with this. My only concern would be letting something like this loose in nature and therefore messing with ecology.

Whaaa!!!!!

[oiuyt]

But the prospect of GM pets has outraged pet dealers. The nation's aquarium industry last week said it had backballed the Night Pearl. 'This is the thin end of the wedge,' said Keith Davenport, chief executive of the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association. 'You could put all sorts of different genes in animals and do all sorts of damage.'

Boohoo. I'd buy one of these fish. Be interesting to see how much this blackballing affects local availability.

Re:GM Pets

[Lispy]

Maybe I'm way too naive but isn't a GM Pet just a mutation? If you release it in the wild it competes with the other species out there. The GM-Pet might be superiour and extinct other species but most likely it is not since all his mutations are just pleasing the human eye. So I don't see a real danger in here. Personally I trust evolution and competition. This will all be taken care of by natures forces.

I doubt it in this case

[Benm78]

The risk you mention is an obvious one, but with most genetically modified organisms its unlikely they would be superior competitors for the wild type.

I doubt that glowing in the dark would benefit a zebrafish. Its very unlikely they'd be more attractive to the opposite sex here, zebrafish are not used to looking for glowing mates. Also, glowing in the dark could be quite a disadvantage if any predators are near.

In case of GM'd crops (resistance to pests etc.) the modified organism could well be superior to the wildtype.

But even if an advantage is introduced, its still questionable if replacing the wild type with the improved version is a bad thing.

What does humanity lose when all soybean plants become roundup-resistant? Would the world be a worse planet to live on if all zebrafish glowed in the dark?

Re:I doubt it in this case

[BigBadBri]

What does humanity lose when all soybean plants become roundup-resistant?

Nothing, unless hatred of Monsanto is a human good.

What really would be a pisser, though, is if all the weeds in the soybean fields ended up roundup resistant.

Re:I doubt it in this case

[Azghoul]

The idea that nature, left untouched by man, is in some sort of "equilibrium state" is naive. Perhaps you didn't mean that, but that's what it sounds like.

Also, organic farms are not necessarily "better" for the environment than any other farm. They produce less per square acre (feeding fewer people), and that "natural fertilizer" isn't all that great either.

I could continue poking holes here, but what's the use.

Re:I doubt it in this case

[Punchcardz]

Not quite. You have seed you buy from Monsanto. This plant is incapable of producing viable seed, regardless of pollenation source. It produces almost normal seed (which is usually the comercialy interesting part, think canola, soy etc), except that it doesn't have the ability to germinate. So from a female perspective, the plant is sterile. You were correct that the plant still produces pollen which can go out and fertilize normal plants. The resulting seed has normal maternal genes and terminator paternal genes. Thus this seed will develop and look normal, except lack the ability to germinate. Thus the plant is also effectively paternaly sterile too, though a generation of seed is produced afterwards, at which point there is no more passing of genes. So the only real problem is if you are a farmer growing seed next door to a terminator field and want to harvest and replant some of your seed next year. The cross pollenation from the terminator field will hurt your yeild.

Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson!

[Scrameustache]

Sounds pretty neat to me, after all people have been genetically modifying animals for tens of thousands of years, except the tool has been breeding rather than genetics.

Yes, and people have been using cars for tens of thousands of years, it was called running.

Jeez, breeding for particular traits is NOT at all the same as inserting genes from other species.

Re:GM pets

[TheSync]

Well, if Transgenic Pets releases an allergy free dog, the benefit to the dog is that I'd provide it a loving home...

Re:"Finally...

[Cruciform]

Don't forget, he's his "own best friend." :)

The FUD never ceases to amaze

[drinkypoo]

But the prospect of GM pets has outraged pet dealers. The nation's aquarium industry last week said it had backballed the Night Pearl. 'This is the thin end of the wedge,' said Keith Davenport, chief executive of the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association. 'You could put all sorts of different genes in animals and do all sorts of damage.'

Yeah, you could really hurt the bottom line of pet stores that don't carry GM fish.

And that is the scenario that worries British aquarium enthusiasts. 'One idea being explored is to add genes - taken from cold water fish - that will allow tropical fish to live in unheated aquarium,' said Derek Lambert, editor of Today's Fishkeeper. 'Just imagine what would happen if they got released. You could end up with strange coloured GM tropical fish in our waters.'

Oh my god! Not strange colored GM tropical fish in our waters! It'll be anarchy! Dogs and cats living together...

Look, while some GM pets might be an issue in this respect - more successful breeds crowding out the less successful - that's how nature works anyway. If you improve on nature, well, you've helped nature along. However, some glowing fish are just going to be easier targets. They'll be lunch before you can say "cyalume".

As for, say, pets engineered to not drop dander all over the place, it's likely that the dander is useful to them from a survival standpoint somehow, and they won't really be able to live in the wild. Proliferation of genes problem solved. Of course, if they are MORE successful, then it's an adaptation they would have developed eventually anyway. Since they haven't by this time (presumably they've had a while to make that advance) it will probably make them less successful.

Now I know I'm taking a rather simplistic view here but someone has to take this stance, and it might as well be me. Those of you who are afraid of everything GM just because it's GM, and who want to stop GM research, are only holding us back. Everything we learn from GM plants and animals applies to our future, it teaches us something about the way genecodes work. Stop trying to keep us from our birthright, and let us learn. Thank you.

I have to wonder about the people aginst this

[dissy]

So, this is an honest question here.

Most people seem to believe that if these 'engineered' creatures get out, it would be doom somehow.

The only difference between 'genetically engineered' and not that is if WE do it intentionally or nature does it at random.

Because of the fact nature can introduce a new random change in genes to create something that does exist, is that reason to stop nature?
Not at all.

I aggree that if these things got out there would be changes. But no more than any other evolutionary change. Both are equally unpredictable.

If this was to happen at random in nature, it would be amazing and wonderful, but if we caused it due to a desire, its evil bad and distructive, for the same exact reason, because we (Humans) dont know what it will do.

Why is the reaction different?

Lets just pretend for a second here that we can control whatever is needed to cause humans to grow gills. Granted that type of thing is exponentially complex, and it has almost no chances of happening at random, or really of us creating that atleast for a long long time.. but stick with this for a sec.

Now, if we could do that to ourselfs, the same 'oh no its bad!' reaction would happen.
But if it was a natural mutation.. for the same thing.. What then?
Would it be bad then too?
Would it be ok?
Why?

So lets look at small changes.
GM grains. They are evil because, why again? They compete with life like everything else and happen to be better than the things they kill off?

What about if we could genetically change a human to not be allergic to something (Say, milk) is that as equally as bad if these changed humans get out and reproduce?

Right now we have both types of humans, the 'older' strains that are allergic to cows milk, and the 'newer' strain that isnt and can drink it.
Its a small gene change but it is no different if we do it or it 'just happens'.

A fish is a larger change. But its the same example, whats the differce if it just naturally happened? And who are we to say it never would?

Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?

As just one more lifeform on this planet that came into being due to natures random gene changes, I cant see why ANY human is aginst changing genes, because your basically aginst your own existance.

And if it really is nothing more than a difference between 'nature did it at random' and 'we caused it ourself' then wearing glasses, getting braces, having a tooth pulled, having any medial operation, all of those are non natural changes to our design that you should be aginst too (Yet rarely are, never in my experence with others aginst genetic research so far.)

I'm not looking to change anyones mind, I'm looking for someone to try and change mine, in a way that makes sense.
Lil help?

Re:I have to wonder about the people aginst this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have anything to say that will change your mind, but is there, or has there ever been, a new technology that makes so many people uneasy? I'm not talking about morons, or people whose jobs, etc., are threatened, but otherwise disinterested observers. I believe the difference between this and, say, pesticides, is that many people are made uncomfortable even by the "beneficial" uses, and can hardly bear to think of the "evil" uses. And they know that both are coming, like it or not.

Re:I have to wonder about the people aginst this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is well taken, but I've got to go off on a tangent here:

Right now we have both types of humans, the 'older' strains that are allergic to cows milk, and the 'newer' strain that isnt and can drink it.

There are those who would argue over the use of "allergic" in this context... Actually, everyone is 'lactose intolerant.' - In humans, the production of lactase (the enzyme that breaks-down lactose) is inversely related to age. In other words, 'Milk is for babies!'

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[Xerithane]

I'll just remind /. readers about the theory that most human attributes including pigmentation were selected by sexual, not environmental selection. I.e. we look like we do largely because, like glowing fish, we find ourselves "cute".

Yes, and what is found to be cute often relies on the features necessary for best survival in any environment.

Go back a few thousand years:
In Africa, the darker the skin the more time out in the sun gathering food and hunting. The women who are larger can carry more, nurse more, hence the desire for larger, curvatious women (Go back to older African songs saying their women have bigger breasts/ass)

In Eastern Asian countries, especially Japan, a lot of time is spent fishing in bright sunlight. Darker pigmentation in the eyes, plus smaller eyes, for better visibility on the water, lean muscles for fishing -- height being a factor.

Cute is a byproduct of what the environment says will survive best.

Re:Who said anything about gene transfer?

[superdan2k]

1) Production of previously unknown toxins

It's not like developing an antitoxin is equivelent to putting a man on Mars.

2) GM organisms driving NE organisms to extinction

Why is it that ecological niches are always considered to be a binary yes-no system? Two predators can co-exist in the same area, provided that resources are abundant enough for both to survive. Also, why is it always assumed the only the NEs will die off at the pressures of the GMs? It's certainly possible that the reverse will happen.

3) Genetic monoculture susceptible to parasites and climate

And?

4) Hubristic scientists playing God calling down the wrath of Heaven

You call this a scientifically valid reason?

5) Gene transfer between similar existing species leading to any one of the above

So the first time we crossed horses and donkeys to get mules, the environment should have collapsed and God should have rained vengeful wrath down upon us, right?

Give me a break. Go read some real science, unaltered by religious dogma, and then get back to me.

Hypocrisy

[unfortunateson]

But the prospect of GM pets has outraged pet dealers

Please go look at a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound, and tell me again about genetic manipulation. And creating new breeds named Peekapoo and Labradoodle is as much an abomination as Mephisto's five-assed monkey.

Then, take a look at the problems rampant in the pet population:

• Deafness prevalent in Dalmatians
• Congenital skin conditions in numerous cat and dog breeds
• Hip displasia in a many of the larger breeds of dogs
• Cardiomyopathy in Great Danes

Who wouldn't want the genes fixed?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Colonel Blimp]

That is why I have a very old purebred breed of dog that is well protected from backyard breeders. Thus it has nearly no genetic problems. Way too many breeds of dogs have been ruined by puppy mills, backyard breeders and unscrupulus types out there. The English Bulldog has been bred with such a large head that ceaserian birth is usually the only option for the pups, as the birth canal cannot tolerate the puppies enormous heads. Own a purebred, but own a good one!

Re:More info on the fish

[Kaz Riprock]

The continuous UV is probably doing more damage to the fish's genetics than we could do a hundred times over by putting in a luminescent protein gene!

Hit him again, ma! I wants to see the fishy glow!

Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson!

[Scrameustache]

THe US FDA disagrees

Yeah, the same morons who claim that MSG is safe (I would SO like to beat their face in with a brick...safe my ass!) and that pot is as dangerous as heroin.

The US FDA does not have my respect. They clearly base their "scientific" rulings on what would most benefit certain industries rather than what is actually safe or not.

It just so happens that GMfood (sounds like an edible car...nevermind) is a big industry in the US, and what a surprise, the FDA does nothing that would stand in the way of billions of dollars of genetically modified profit (glow in the dark cash anyone?).

Re:Genetically Engineered Virus for Mice

[NeoSkandranon]

Aussies really ought to leave this alone...They already brought in (IIRC) the cane toad from the US in order to cut down on beetles, and lo and behold, the things (which are HUGE toads, btw) started eating every damn thing they could fit in their mouths, and since they are highly poisonous, multiply like rabbits.

Moral: stop fucking with your carefully balanced ecology.

Re:biggest problem

[alienw]

So, what would happen if you put genetically-engineered glowing fish out in the wild? They would get eaten, that's what.

The problem you described only occurs when you let loose WILD TYPE species -- they might actually be well-adapted for the niche. Chances are, if we don't already have glowing fish, that's not a trait which improves survival rates, and the glowing fish will die or get eaten.

I'm sure you'll..

[msimm]

Get plenty of responses. But I think your argument is a little one sided. My point would be we are all ignorant of the long term effects of rampant and unchecked use of genetic modifacation. And that alone is enough reason to consider moving carefully. Progress, sure but don't deny your own ignorance.

The consequences of a such a young (and cash hungry) industry industry could be exceptional. Thats worth questioning. Look at the pharmacuetical industry and remember that their reach is somewhat limited. I mean do you really trust the pharmaceutical industry?

Genetics as a science may be a little different as a industry.

Re:I'm sure you'll..

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to hysterical pro-GM twits such as yourself who base their "scientists can do no wrong" attitude also on what they see in the movies?

please!

The fact is, science can do wrong. This is not an anti-science stand, it is an anti-irresponsibility stand. Your attack against anyone who expresses concerns about GM foods being a high school flunkout is the kind of reaction to be expected from someone who is on the exact opposite ideological side of the argument, and brings nothing to the situation but divisiveness. In other words, you are little more than a troll.

Is the protein edible?

[msimm]

What is it did breed and managed to make a previously edible species of fish inedible?

Thats the kind of situation that I'd be curious about. They may be relatively unimportant traits and still have some far reaching effects.

monoclonal forests.. great

[garyrich]

"I really wish the so-called "environmentalists" would stick to actually doing something to help the environment, like supporting lumbering (since they will replant the trees)"

They cut down a diverse woodland. They replant with monoclonal trees that will be quick/easy to harvest next time. It's a tree farm, not a forest. It's probably better than clear cutting, but not much.

Re:GM Pets

[Dirtside]

When you boil away the hysteria, the remaining valid argument against the kind of direct genetic modification that's being done is this:

In nature, evolution happens, but it's at a slow enough pace that disruptive changes are rare. "Disruptive" in this case means a change that causes mass extinctions, change in climate, or other severe factors. Natural, slow evolution changes things a tiny bit at a time, allowing the ecosystem to adapt, so that there's no wild swings.

Direct GM, like we're doing, has the potential to make vast, sweeping changes is very short periods of time. Introducing a gene to an organism that it might never have evolved if left alone (such as giving glowing genes to fish that would not have evolved them) can, conceivably, cause problems. God knows there's enough examples of human "interference" with ecosystems wreaking havoc -- witness the rabbits in Australia. (And that was simply transplanting an organism from one area to another, not even messing with the genes.)

Where the problem comes in is that biodiversity is a good thing, for a variety of reasons I needn't go into here. Introducing potentially disruptive elements (like genetically-modified fish) can, in some cases, cause problems.

Why is it different from, say, regular breeding? Well, even regular breeding is orders of magnitude slower than genetic engineering, giving ecosystems more time to adapt. It's the rapid changes that GM can introduce that its detractors see as a problem.

Ultimately, I don't have enough information to really decide whether or to what degree GM is a good idea. I've read numerous arguments on both sides, but unfortunately, thanks to the short-sightedness of most humans, the majority of the arguments boil down to dogma.

What about the genetic code of a Human?

[eugene_t00ms]

when you say "...to contain some invisible series of DNA codes that, despite being part of this dog's very life..." i can't help but wonder...

If good ol' homo sapiens begins adopting genetic modifications and those mods are patented/copyrighted....does that mean that bio-tech companies could concievably hold patents on YOUR body?

some key issues noone has mentioned

[saul devitt]

One problem that currently exists is the destruction of coral reefs by people harvesting pet fish (via dumping cyanide? in the water). Creating a market for tank farmed fish would SAVE lots of wild species/areas.

The major problem that currently exists in nature is alien species, not GM species. GM could solve this problem by moving customers to alien species that can't survive in the wild. The problem with these fish is that they are not GM enough. Any Zebra fish (glowing or not) is a potential risk alien species invasion.

If we had a real market for GM pets, maybe they could spend more money making really really good versions, instead of fighting lawsuits etc.
ie, with GM fish, how about some options like this.

They could be engineered to require a dietary supplement that they could not get enough of in the wild. (ie delete their genes that make vitamin C?)

They could be engineered to need a really weird PH level in the water, or for the eggs to mature

Maybe the eggs could be engineered to only produce males at 1 temp extreme, females at another temp extreme (ie arctic vs tropical).

Maybe the eggs would require warm incubation (ie turtle eggs) on land.

They could be engineered to be unable/unwilling to cross with related wild species.

Hell, for all I know, you could engineer them so that males could only survive in very salty water, and females in fresh. Human would be required to get sperm from males to females (ie straining the water from one tank, then 'polluting the water in the other tank'

Think of all the species that could be saved if there was a GM cat that ate vegetarian food pellets and didn't hunt. Cats wipe out many native species

Re:Gene torture

[VendingMenace]

yes, the natural extension is that even crime is not outside of nature. We can see that this is indeed true. What is crime, other than a set of actions that is not considered appropriate by society? In most cases crimes are ways of "cheating" (ie. stealing, fruad, rape, ect.) They are ways of gaining an advantage without putting in the work. This is seen in nature too. THere are birds (i forget with ones) that will lay eggs in another birds nest, so that they can have offspring without putting in the effort. There are animals that will wait till one animal has killed its meal, and then it will steal that meat.

So you see, "crime" is all over nature, it is totally natural. However, as a society, we have decided that we do not value such actions, moreoever, that we will punish such actions. It is really a socities survival strategy, to limit the actions of others, and to punish those that act out side of these limits.

Now i am not saying that we should not have laws, i rather think that an ordered society is more fun to live in than a chaotic one. However, we need to realize that crime, as we call it, is a totally natural action, and that the only reason that it is considered bad is that society, as a collective, has adopted a survival stragegy that tries to limit those that will not work. That is all

I am not sure this is clear, but i hope it is.

As for karma, yeah there is some bad moderation, but that is just the way it goes. People don't like being forced to think, so they mod it down. :P