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."

12 of 756 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by cmburns69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  2. Re:Bah! by oenone01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  4. Re:How about this? by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  5. Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. I doubt it in this case by Benm78 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    1. Re:I doubt it in this case by BigBadBri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  7. Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson! by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  8. The FUD never ceases to amaze by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Hypocrisy by unfortunateson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  11. I'm sure you'll.. by msimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.