Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!"
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
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???
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.
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.
We need a Moderation for +1/-1 Disgusting!
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
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.
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 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?
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yeah, you could really hurt the bottom line of pet stores that don't carry GM fish.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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.
blog |
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:
Who wouldn't want the genes fixed?
Design for Use, not Construction!
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.
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.
Quack, quack.
"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.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan