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

"Finally...

[frieked]

...the world will know the glory of the five assed monkey." -Mephisto

Re:"Finally...

[rmadmin]

Screw that, I want a Mog(tm) Monkey/Dog hybrid. Its "Mans best friend with arms"(c) All rights reserved, The drunk guys at a graduation party.

Re:"Finally...

[Lazamataz]

I can't wait until they combine the genes from the Bombardier Beetle, the Firefly, and the Electric eel.

Get the freakin' thing upset, and BOOOM.... bits of insect/fish dripping down your walls....

Re:"Finally...

[jericho4.0]

Well, if I could lick my own genitals, I'd be my own best friend, too.

How about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever see the mouse with the human ear? I'd like to see a guinea pig with a human vagina. And no teeth.

Re:How about this?

[Monkey-Man2000]

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

Re:How about this?

[ScuzzyNutsThePirate]

I take it that you've never been to Kentucky?

Re:How about this?

[bmorton]

Wow. I think that's the last time I'll ever eat while perusing Slashdot.

Re:How about this?

[tsa]

Well I don't know. I think I'll keep on bonking sheep. They are easier to hold on to :-)

Bah!

[aborchers]

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

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.

Re:Bah!

[aborchers]

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

While I'm daydreaming, I may as well make it a perfectly self-sustaining biosphere that never needs cleaning, right?

Seriously, if I could afford to create such an environment and the equipment needed to get the fishes from the ocean and into it (which to the best of my knowledge noone has ever done) I would imagine I could create a cleaning system that works while the system was pressurized.

Alternately, perhaps some multi-chambered approach where the fish could be herded into a chamber that remains pressurized while the other chamber is depressurized for cleaning???

Re:Bah!

[ender-]

Seriously, if I could afford to create such an environment and the equipment needed to get the fishes from the ocean and into it (which to the best of my knowledge noone has ever done)

On the contrary, the Monterey Bay Aquarium has quite a few deep sea creatures in pressurised tanks/displays. I don't know how they clean them though.

Ender

Re:Bah!

[Lazamataz]

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

Crank your air conditioning way up high, hoping that it will pressurize your apartment?

Re:Bah!

[The_K4]

Just use really thick pressurized plastic bags to bring them home from the pet store :) he he he

Re:Bah!

[JungleBoy]

Many deep sea creatures don't actually require a pressurized environment. They can life at surface pressure. But they tend to be very sensitive to temp (need cold), light (its dark down there), and oxygen level.

Monterey Bay Aquarium: Care of deep sea animals

Re:Bah!

[b-baggins]

A well balanced aquarium doesn't need to be cleaned. In a saltwater tank, you might want to scrape brine from the walls periodically, but I've had freshwater tanks that haven't been cleaned in years. You just exchange 10% of the water every two weeks. Just make sure you have some aquatic plants and a couple of Chinese Algae eaters to keep the glass clean.

Re:Bah!

[secolactico]

While I'm daydreaming, I may as well make it a perfectly self-sustaining biosphere that never needs cleaning, right?

Here. Not luminicent, but it's a start.

Re:Bah!

[Kenshin]

But they tend to be very sensitive to temp (need cold), light (its dark down there), and oxygen level.

Well, I don't know about the oxygen thing, but it seems they'd be a perfect companion for Slashdotters.

Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[ites]

It was inevitable, and follows a long and respected history of torturing animal genes to please people. Little dogs like mice, cats with squished faces, glowing fish. Hey, what's the good of absolute power if we can't abuse it.

Before all the fuss about "messing with nature", 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".

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[WTFmonkey]

I, also a member of PETA, am wondering how these fish taste.

BTW, that's the "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals".

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.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[Master Bait]

Give us another million years and we'll breed away the hair on the muff forever.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[parkanoid]

Are you trying to say that the vast majority of the human race has the intellegence of the bugblatter beast because geeks can't get laid? ;)

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:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[b-baggins]

Yeah. Heaven forbid a gene mutation makes it into the general population. The next thing you know, evolution might start taking place.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[mattsucks]

how these fish taste. .. and whether the glow-in-the-dark effect will .. um .. pass through ...

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[AntiOrganic]

(Go back to older African songs saying their women have bigger breasts/ass)

I wouldn't consider "Baby Got Back" an older African song.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[G. Waters]

Actually, people with dark skin have kept that feature from proto homo-sapien times. It was caucasian people who adapted to the lack of sunlight in northern climes.

The skin produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. Too much pigment in a low-sunlight environment will result in rickets and other problems from lack of vitamin D. Hence, light-skinned people winning out in sexual selection in the northern geographical regions. This carries over to asiatic peoples, with lighter skinned north and darker south.

There is a reason for everything.

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[zerocool^]

One time, my friend went into petsmart and asked to buy some fish.

The lady asked him, "What size aquarium will you be putting these in?".

He replied: "Aquarium? I was just going to chuck them at passing cars in the parking lot!"

~Wx

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[MikeFM]

I don't know about everyone else but when I see things like this I first ask 'Why?'.. then 'What the fuck.. cool!' If they didn't cost to much I'd buy some of these. I can imagine the pleasure of my cats sitting in a dark room watching the swimming fish glow in the dark.

It's a shame they can't provide a drug that could be given to current pets to make them glow. (Yes, I admit it.. I'd probably dose myself.. who needs a glow in the dark condom now!) I'd feel safer letting my pets out to pee at night if they glowed. I'm sure all drivers would notice them then. Could they make just the hair glow?

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[Zirnike]

"who needs a glow in the dark condom now!"

(obligatory) Probably not you, if you start glowing...

Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys

[NDPTAL85]

Ok now that we've gotten that out of the way lets get back on topic.

There was more to the PBS special than "PBS says black people are black because of sunlight". The scientific explanation was that in parts of Africa where sunlight is most intense human skin has the least amount of trouble manufacturing vitamin D. Therefore there's an overabundance of that kind of sunlight hence the darker pigmentation to shield against it.

As humans moved further away from Africa the sunlight became less intense making vitamin D production less efficient with darker pigmentations so the skin became lighter. In nordic regions where this type of sunlight is the lowest in those parts of the world people have nearly pale skin.

There was also a "re-darkening" of the skin as people discovered new regions of the earth which also had very intense sunlight, such as Austraila.

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?

[Telastyn]

Indeed. The only way to even know is to pretty much do it, and learn from our mistakes. [and do it in such a way to mitigate the mistakes...]

IMO GM stuff is going to be alot like the industrial revolution. In the end it creates tons of bonuses, but has some negatives, and it took lots of work to realise the side-effects and to account for many of the problems it caused.

Hopefully neither will cause catastrophic problems...

Re:Huh?

[praedor]

Oh poopiedoops. A froo-froo gene like luciferase or GFP (Green Flourescent Protein) will not convey an advantage (more likely a disadvantage as it would make them visable to predators). This is innocuous and harmless to the fish.

So-called "frankenfood" is also mostly alarmist nonsense. SOME forms of GM food are a good thing(tm). For instance, if you could increase the nutritional value of a crop plant, that is good. It is likely to be somewhat costly to the plant when compared to non-altered wildtype (it takes energy to produce extra nutrients that evolution didn't set you up with). Food designed to be used for vaccination would also be good and not provide any advantage (but a cost) for the plant for similar reasons. On the other hand, creating drought-resistant plants, salt-resistant plants, or chemical agent resistant plants is NOT a likely good thing as in the evolutionary environment of a farm, this would provide a distinct evolutionary advantage to the plants, even those that pick up the trait by incidental species transfer of DNA (happens a lot...agrobacteria is one way to pass DNA around, as are certain plant viruses).

Under NORMAL circumstances (left to the wild ways of evolution), resistance to herbacide would not be of any real use and would actually be a biological burden to be selected against. But in our day with chemicals being used, it is an advantage. Thus it would be as advantageous to the desired plant as it is to the "weed" that picked up the gene by horizontal gene transfer. Bad news and ultimately self-defeating.

Thus, Greens and other knee-jerk anti-GM food people need to learn a bit and start making logical and reasonable distinctions. Altering crops for improved nutritional value or for specific use in immunization is A-OK and not harmful (What, a weed might actually pick up some extra nutritional value? Good! A new crop plant! But it wont because it is burdensome to carry). On the other hand, altering crops to produce pesticides or be herbicide resistant is a recipe for disaster.

One genetic engineering project I was involved with for a while was an attempt to improve the fungal resistance of sugarbeets. The means was to transfer chitinase into sugarbeets from fungi, an enzyme that degrades chitin, the cell-wall material in fungi (among other things). In fungi, the chitinase gene is tightly regulated and needed for proper cell growth and division. Placed into a crop plant, the hope was that if a fungal disease tried to attack the crop, the chitinase in the plant would cause the fungi to lyse (break open) and die. There are different ways this could work: have the gene turned on all the time so there is always a low level of chitinase (alien to a plant) all the time or you could tie it to a gene promotor associated with the plants stress response system so that it turns on only when the plant is under direct attack by fungi. Spiffy idea and good. Weeds are not generally devastated by fungal disease anyway so a transfer would be harmless. Besides, since there are viruses and bacteria that can transfer DNA between species of plants, and fungi can infiltrate and attack various plants, it is not unlikely that there are already wild plants out there that contain various genes from viruses, bacteria and fungi anyway already. There is nothing magic going on here.

An alternative project along the same vein was to alter yeast to overproduce chitinase on demand. The idea here was that you would spray your crop with a solution containing the modified yeast and then induce chitinase overproduction. The yeast would burst and dump their cell contents into the soil in the immediate vicinity. For some unknown period of time, active chitinase in the soil would (or so it was hoped) provide a barrier to fungi, preventing attack on the plants. I doubt this project would have worked out very well for a number of reasons but at this point I don't know the status of either project as I no longer work in that lab.

It is not automatic that any GM of crops MUST be a bad thing. Use some critical thinking before judging.

Re:Huh?

[Bombcar]

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!"

That's why we all have to buy Fords!

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.

The killer app...

[supabeast!]

The first person to patent a dog that refuses to pee in the house will be gangbusters.

Re:The killer app...

[Paradise Pete]

The first person to patent a dog that refuses to pee in the house will be gangbusters.

Why are you asking your dog to pee in the house?

Don't be stupid!

[illuminata]

They just appear to be glowing in red and green patterns, if you fucking hippies would get off of the psychedellics you'd realize that they're not glowing at all!
Oh, wait, that's Phish, my bad.

Amazing

[spakka]

I didn't even know they'd made zebrafish yet, let alone coloured ones.

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???

Ever read Dune?

[PD]

In about 10 years, La-Z-Boy is going to introduce the chair dog.

this is nothing new...

[m00by]

the scottish have been "injecting" sheep with their genetic material for ages, sadly to no avail. some day though, the noble scots will have their sheepwomen!!!!!!!!! =D

Re:this is nothing new...

[ites]

Al nae ha ye slanderin ma naebal kith an kin li' tha!! Evryane noes tha al th' sheep buggerin' Campbells went tae New Zealand in tha 1850's. Git af ma fukin barrae, ye sassanach basteid!

Back in my day...

[xluserpetex]

we had to shove christmas lights down their throats to make them glow.

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Christmas lights! Bah! You kids had it easy! In my day, if we wanted glowing fish, we had to dry them out and set them on fire!

We didn't have any o' these fancy cigarette lighters and strike-anywhere matches, mind you; if we wanted a fire, we had to start it the old-fashioned way, with elbow grease and two sticks... and we liked 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.

Re:I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering

[sabaco]

I know this is hard to imagine, but eating something doesn't somehow confer its genetic structure to you. For a long time people seem to have developed the belief that "you are what you eat" but that simply isn't true. Eating one of these fish isn't any more likely to make you glow in the dark than it is to make fins pop out of your body. Better not eat any cows unless you want 4 stomachs! Or any plants unless you want to start turning green and getting energy from the sun through your skin! or maybe you'd just start throwing down roots!

Just to clarify: you are not what you eat. Remember those nutrigrain commercials, where the guy looks at the hot woman and then realizes that her "buns" are the "sticky" variety? So instead they say "you should eat nutrigrain".... which leaves me wondering how thrilled that guy is going to be when she starts growing nutrigrain bars instead of breasts. I hardly see how that is an improvement, except possibly for cleaning. (nutrigrain is probably less messy that stickybuns) In case they had confused you, I'll let you in on the secret. It doesn't really happen. OK? So all you FUDsters can just drop this particularly silly topic.

Re:I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering

[Mogomra]

But glow in the dark fish?

Not to nitpick, but these fish don't glow in the dark (photoluminescent), they glow under ultraviolet light (fluorescent).

Is that really worth the possibility that the fish will escape and reek havoc in the ecosystem?

Check out the article, the company says that more than 90 percent have been sterlized, but I'm sure really concerned about protecting their product, rather than the environment. As to whether or not the zebra fish constitute a ecological threat like snakeheads, check out this page - looks like they prefer warmer water.

Re:I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering

[Niksie3]

Actually, aquarium fish already escape into the wild frequently to wreak havoc. I don't think the native species give a swimming fuck weather or not the exotics glow or not.

NEVER release your pets into the wild!

I wonder how long these would survive in the wild?

[el-spectre]

'bout 2 minutes, I expect.

Yeah, but...

[spumoni_fettuccini]

Can I get a frickin "laser" implanted in their heads?

Source Code

[AlgebraicSpore]

Does anyone have the source code for this so I can recompile the kernel of the zebra fish I bought the other day?

Watch out for cheap knockoffs (painted fish)

[zptdooda]

Sometimes theyâ(TM)re just injected with dye: Painted fish, which is pretty cruel.

I wonder how a buyer could tell the difference?

âas more than 90 per cent have been sterilizedâ I guess having your organs glow is a bit of a downside here too. Must make the remaining 10% glow relatively brighter.

Sometimes itâ(TM)s best to go low-tech, like Gibson says. (I hope you know where â¦)

And Iâ(TM)m sure the dolphin with the SQUID would agree.

selective breeding

[Brown Eggs]

I totally agree - it is certainly not a bad thing. This is only a more extreme form of the kind of "genetic engineering" that has been going on for thousands of years with cats, dogs, cattle, and other species that have close relationships with humans (either as food or pets). By selectively breeding pets, they enhance certain traits. Granted, this technology introduces genese that are not present in any form (most likley) in the host - I think that as long as there is no serious adverse effect to the organism then great. And if for some reason it does get into the wild, and decides to overrun the natural population - even better. It means that the gene that was introduced gave the new species a selective advantage over its predecessors. And isn't that what evolution (in any form, by any mechanism) is all about?

Grass

[the eric conspiracy]

What I want is a genetically engineered lawn - the blades of grass never grow to 3" and stop, and there is built-in resistance to Round-Up.

Re:Grass

[RumpRoast]

Also, some bushes (and houseplants) that don't die when you pee on them would be nice. Thanks!

A dyslexics nightmare...

[Daeslin]

Playing God with Dog. Or was that the other way around...

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.

GM pets

[MrLint]

NPR had an interview with a guy from Transgenic Pets, about allergy free cats. What was funny was that the interviewer asked the guy repeatedly what was the benefit to the animal and all he could say was that 'it didn't hurt the animal at all'

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

[SEWilco]

Also, glowing in the dark could be quite a disadvantage if any predators are near.

Just what I was thinking. The glowing fish would be the first thing eaten, so their genes would not last long in the wild.

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

[aborchers]

The entire point behind the "Terminator" technology is that it can't make little terminator plants, so in fact, they are sterile.

I assume you read my previous disclaimer, so bear with me.

My understanding was that terminated plants produce nonviable seeds. Do they also not produce pollen? Is it certain (I took special note of your "effectively", which is often informal shorthand for "almost certain", but perhaps you meant it differently) that pollen from a terminated plant could not be introduced into a species that is viable and pass that gene to its offspring?

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.

Not the first..

[xchino]

I read somewhere about a french artist who worked with a bioengineering company to produce a rabbit that glowed green (using jellyfish genes as well). There was some sort of scandal about him not getting to take it home to film it interacting as a family pet which was what the whole project was about in the first place.

I'd like to see a pic of these fish though, or some video. I have no problem with a genetically modified pet. In the future, maybe we can have tigers that get no bigger than house cats, or something cool like that. Or photosynthetic pets that you don't have to feed! Just stick them outside for a few hours!

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...

You can get it today

[hpulley]

It's called AstroTurf (TM).

Geeks and Bugblatters

[ites]

Nah, geeks get laid, it just takes them a while. The jocks get laid young, but they also die young in car accidents and gym showers. Yuck. We geeks invest in our brains, and kernel-hacking skills, then we get all the cute girls on the rebound. It's a strategy, like any other.

Re:Geeks and Bugblatters

[Grishnakh]

That's what I was thinking.

The real truth is: the jocks hook up with the hot chicks early on, and get them pregnant. Then the jocks either die out due to stupid auto accidents, or they reform and become decent people. The wives of the dead ones now have a bunch of kids, and have gotten fat, so not only can they not find a new husband (not even the geeks want them), but that's that many women now out of the pool of available ones. The women that are left have their pick of all the players at the clubs, and hook up with them in a similar cycle. By the time the geeks are done with their education and are established in a career, and have finally figured out how to be more appealing to women, it's too late. They're all either taken, have gotten fat and ugly, or have kids.

What's the answer to this situation? Well, to bring this back on topic, genetic engineering!! We need to get into biotech, and figure out how to clone hot-looking women, the way it was done in "The 6th Day". The reason for this is that we certainly don't want to wait 25 years for them to grow up. Additionally, we need to work on brainwashing, so we can convince these hot clones that we're the kind of guys they want.

Kinda sucks that we have to resort to such extreme measures to find mates, but obviously the human race is badly flawed when you look at the kinds of guys that women pick these days, so we need to modify our genetics to fix this.

Business Plan

[nadsley]

1)Crossbread tomato with tobacco
2)Produce "tomacco"
3)...
4)Profit!

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.

Re:The FUD never ceases to amaze

[Kafka_Canada]

> They'll be lunch before you can say "cyalume".

Yes, but that gives them a helluva long time. Sigh-a-loom... key-a-loom... cha-loom-ee... uhh.....

Now you really _can_ tune a fish!

[Tumbleweed]

"Nutritious and delicious, tastes just like chicken!"

Hey, maybe now we can have a live action Charlie Tuna!

Comparing the taste of these fish to natural fish is like comparing apples and oranges. Oh, wait, now we can have both at the same time!

So what colour synthahol goes with synthetic fish?

Will you have to do a blush response test to find out if your fish is a replicant or not? Calling Chef Harrison Ford!

Maybe now they can genegineer some fish that, even when uncooked, taste like cooked fish. Sushi for the not-so-discriminating palate.

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'm looking for someone to try and change mine, in a way that makes sense.

can i ask the anti-gm people a question?

[circletimessquare]

i see all this "implant a gene from another creature and it will wreak havoc on the ecosystem and stuff" comments

hello? do you know how stupid you sound?

look: there is informed, intelligent whistleblowing and alarmism, and then there is false, hysterical, fear of the unknown alarmism

i think "frankenfood" is a good term to use for gm food another parallel to the frankenstein legend: remember the stupid peasants who wanted to burn frankenstein in their fear of something that, essentially, in the story as written by mary shelley, was actually HELPING them?

do you not see how your uneducated fear of the unknown holds us back?

are you going to stop the part of human nature that is curious and tinkers and is basically what has gotten us as far as it has in civilization?

please.

Re:can i ask the anti-gm people a question?

[bobobobo]

There already has been an incident where GM corn cross pollinated with a bunch of weeds, in an adjacent field.

Basically the weeds inherited the modified traits from the corn, making themselves just about impossible to get rid of. As the GM corn is obviously much hardier than regular corn.

Re:can i ask the anti-gm people a question?

[Moofie]

Okay.

Monsanto is suing farmers for having the audacity to re-plant seeds from plants they grew. Apparently, you're supposed to keep paying Monsanto year after year for your seed stock.

Note: Many farmers actually do buy new seed every year, as commercially available seed is of a higher and more consistent quality compared to harvested seed from the field. However, Monsanto is trying to take this choice away from farmers, and force them to keep paying.

So just don't buy Monsanto seed, right?

Wrong.

Monsanto is also suing farmers for patent infringement, because they had the audacity to have their plants have sex with the plants from the next farm over's field. Therefore, Monsanto's patented genes are present in that sneaky farmer's field, even though he didn't pay for it.

Re:Gene torture

[VendingMenace]

The little bugger's WILL to reproduce?

Since when are chemicals considered to have wills? If they don't they can't be frustrated in the way that you are claiming, and as such your argument that they are not being tortured.

They are, however, being altered from their "natural" course. Or are they? Aren't humans part of nature? If we are, if we are a product of nature, how can we ever do anything that is outside of what is natural? Then us playing with genes is just anohter part of nature, albeit a new aspect of nature.

patents/breeding?

[mcc]

So, to drag out and beat he proveribal Slashdot Glowing Dead horse..

I assume these glowing genes are patented by somebody?

Does this mean that if you buy these fish, breeding them will be illegal?

Do you think that once, rather than this just being something that affects farmers (in faraway states) and computer programmers (who the average person has to learn an entire new vocabulary just to understand what the programmers are talking about), once the whole you-can-patent-anything thing starts to affect "the average person" in a very clear, noticeable way-- "Here are some dogs, that you paid money for. But you're banned from letting them breed, because they happen to contain some invisible series of DNA codes that, despite being part of this dog's very life, is the intellectual property of some random corporation."-- do you think once we reach that point, maybe we'll finally start to see public backlash against how far the u.s. patent paradigm has gone?

Of course, if the people selling these fish want to keep their patents safe, they'd probably just make all the fish infertile. But then if all the fish are infertile, why are the environmentalists worried? Is it because they've seen "Jurassic park"? And what happens if some of the un-neutered versions somehow leak out on the black market (ebay)? Could they stop that? Is spaying a DMCA-applicable "method that effectively controls access to intellectual property"?

Re:patents/breeding?

[calethix]

""Here are some dogs, that you paid money for. But you're banned from letting them breed, "

My gf recently bought a puppy from a breeder. She had to sign a contract saying that she would have it neutered as soon as it was old enough or they can take it back. She's not suppose to breed it or enter it in dog shows. So I would say the answer to your question is yes.
Incidentally, the humane society has a policy like this as well but I can see their argument for it a lot more than a breeder since they're doing it for the good of the animals vs. the good of their business/opportunity to make money.

This is so Cool!!

[shadowpuppy]

For personal aquariums and the like I think this is an awsome idea. I think would be quite entertaining to turn of the lights and have glowing fish in the tank.

And in this case I think the likely hood of an escaped glowing fish having an advantage over natural fish somewhat unlikely. I would think the glow would tend to be a big sign saying "Food Here!"

I tend to take a fairly relaxed view of gentetic engineering. I think our chances of stopping it and our chances of stopping genetically modified species from populating the wild are both slim to none. Therefore the best course of action, I can see, is to figure out how to mitigate the detrimental impact.

Re:more than cool

[the_consumer]

I would sure like an allergen-free kitten.

Easy! Just remove the skin.

MyFish.com presents: "2Fish2Furious"

[Tumbleweed]

Okay, so now that it's possible, I want a neon orange fish with a big ass wing on the back, and 'VTEC' printed on the scales. Aww, yeah.

And Nitrous boost! Give those dolphins & sharks something to talk about at the water cooler on Monday.

Re:MyFish.com presents: "2Fish2Furious"

[Tumbleweed]

2Fish2Furious, a McG Film starring:

Don Knotts
Daryl Hannah
& Gilbert Gottfried

Get your 2Fish2Furious collectors cups at Long John Silver's!

pictures here...

[moodswung]

Did some googling found pictures and more information here : http://www.mongabay.com/external/glowing_fish.htm

More info on the fish

[TheSync]

The Taikong Corporation has info on the fish on their Azoo site. Unfortunately, it appears to only be in Chinese, but you can get the idea from the pictures.

Here are several stories and pictures of the fish.

The pictures (and other sites such as this one) imply that they are "fluorescent" fish, i.e., they glow when bathed in UV light, as opposed to fish that glow without a UV light source.

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!

Genetically Engineered Virus for Mice

[aspeer]

On the ABC (*Australian* Broadcasting Corporation) tonight was a piece about how Australian scientists may release a gentically engineered virus (possible a world first for this type of release) into the wild.

The virus is a genetically engineered strain of the herpes virus from a mouse, and has been modified to induce an immune reaction in female mice around the egg, causing them to become infertile for around 6 months.

Obviously this virus is targeted at mice only, and is aimed at reducing (if not eliminating) the frequency and severity of mice plagues in Australia.

If successful it would remove the need for the literal tonnes of highly poisinous rodenticides that are now applied around farms, grain silos etc. Not to mention the economic benefit from an increase grain harvest quantity and quality.

The results of an unsuccessful trial are left to the imagination of the reader ..

They are now nearly at the stage where a permit is to be applied for that would allow for field trials of this virus.

Of note is that last time similar field trials were undertaken (of a Calaci (sp?) virus) for rabbits, the virus escaped from the control area and rapidly spread across the entire continent. Luckily it appears to have had no adverse affects on native wildlife, although several childen lost pet rabbits to the virus (a vaccine is now available to protect the "Fluffys" of this world).

You can read more about the virus in this transcript from a local Science show.

Should make for interesting debate when/if the permit application becomes reality.

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.

Well thats just great!

[st0rmshad0w]

Here I spend all this time perfecting my sychophant technique in preparation for our robot masters and it will more than likely be rendered moot when we're all killed off by mutant housepets gone wrong.

Why do I even bother.....

Bonsai Kittens

[kni52]

Finally maybe there will be a cheaper mainstream version of the Bonsai Kitten! I can't wait to get mine.

Heres a pic of the fish

[towaz]

http://www.mongabay.com/external/glowing_fish.htm

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 than cool

[cens0r]

actually, you're allergic to the saliva. Which builds up on the skin and hair.

Re:GM pets

[Elwood P Dowd]

The obvious benefit to the allergy free cat is that it won't have to sneeze all the time.

Ah...

[Jaegs]

One fish
two fish
red fish
blue fish

Black fish
blue fish
old fish
new glow-in-the-dark zebra fish(tm)

Copyright Dr. Seuss 1960

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?).

Yeah,

[dupper]

I know we're probably supposed to be against this, but this is just really cool. Imagine: four, five, even six-assed monkeys!

here are my requests/ideas for GE pets...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) 2-foot elephant
2) "Pocket Grisly" (TM)[yeah, i know...you've got my pocket grisly right there]
3) Giant Gambian Rat (oops...nevermind...we already have those)
4) "Tabletop Tiger" (TM)
5) My First Mammoth (from Galoob)

Ethics aside

[waterhouse]

Does anyone know where you can order one, now? I'm highly interested in acquiring one as a status symbol.

Yes, I know, I am terrible person. This will ruin fish for all future generations. Someday bioluminescent fish will be our overlords, but for the time being, anyone have a url?

"During the winter, I'll just stand outside with an aerosol can. *pssshhhhhhhhhhh* Where's this global warming I keep hearing about? Fuck the grandkids, I'm cold now!"

Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson!

[Remik]

Go back and reread the first 2 Chapters of Darwin's treatise on Natural Selection. It is all about humans as the major force in natural selection through domestication.

As someone who has taken several courses on Genetic Engineering with scientists deeply involved in the field, I can say that there is little consensus on what exactly 'Genetic Engineer' means, as a term.

There are natural processes by which genes from one organism get inserted into genomes of another. Are you saying that this is not GE? Does it have to occur in a test tube to be GE? How can the location where the transgenetic meeting occurs determine the risk to the ecosystem?

-R

Skin color

[reptilicus]

Wow are you wrong about pigmentation.

"most human attributes including pigmentation were selected by sexual, not environmental selection"

No. Skin pigmentation is due to 1) the amount of UV exposure in a given environment. UV is needed to synthesize vitamin D (this comes from Farnsworth Loomis' work at Brandeis in 1967). Humans in areas with less sunlight needed less pigmentation in order to get enough Vitamin D. 2) in 2000, Nina Jablonski and George Chapliln of the California Academy of Sciences added to this the idea that melainin protects the body's stores of the B vitamin Folate. Folate deficiencies during pregnancy lead to birth defects. So humans living in high UV locations evolved higher amounts of pigmentation to protect their Folate.

This is all detailed in a Scientific American article (Jablonski and Chaplin 2002. Skin Deep, Sci Am 287: 74-81) and discussed in the book DNA Science by David Micklos and Greg Freyer.

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.

Re:How do you know YOU have a will?

[VendingMenace]

"We are also "chemicals" as you nicely put it. The human will is a conceit of the human mind. Actually, even the human "mind" is a conceit. All you are doing is defining a model for life and then saying that since genes do not follow your model, they do not live. This is a meaningless argument."

This is not meaningless, this is how all arguments are carried out. You define what you mean by something and then see if that definition works. But that is off topic...

Genes are not just dumb chemicals, eh? Why? You must give a reason for this acertion, if i am to belive it. Are all chemicals "alive" and have a will. Do chemicals have a "will" to react with others? Perhaps Nitrogen prefers to be N2 other than in NH4? What of rocks? Is there will to sit around and eventually reach the bottom of the graitational well? Perhaps this seems like a stupid argument. But this is what i am trying to ask; what, in your mind, differnetiats that with life from that without life?

As for genes ruling the universe....what about protiens? Perhaps they are the true rules of the universe.

In a word, No

[reptilicus]

" 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."

These fish are carrying GFP (green fluorescent protein), a naturally occuring protein found in a wide variety of jellyfish (which are eaten in some cultures) and other sea creatures. It has no known toxic effects.

Furthermore, Zebrafish are tiny little bony things. We don't eat them. They are not able to mate with fish from different species (hence the definition of species), so your fears in this case are unwarranted.

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.

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.

No more kittens?

[randomErr]

So, does this mean I will no longer be able to buy my Bonsai Kitten's anymore?

Re:No more kittens?

[No Such Agency]

No, and I suspect it won't hinder your ability to grab the latest Playboy and "kill them" either...

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.

MMM...glowing sushi

[Ayandia]

In a few years when this catches on, we'll hear about a high-price sushi restaurant with nothing but blacklights and glowing fish.

Mmm...carcinolicious...

not quite like seedless grapes, but..

[calethix]

How about a poopless puppy?

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