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."
...the world will know the glory of the five assed monkey." -Mephisto
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
Ever see the mouse with the human ear? I'd like to see a guinea pig with a human vagina. And no teeth.
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".
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
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!
The first person to patent a dog that refuses to pee in the house will be gangbusters.
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.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
I didn't even know they'd made zebrafish yet, let alone coloured ones.
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???
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
we had to shove christmas lights down their throats to make them glow.
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.
Can I get a frickin "laser" implanted in their heads?
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
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?
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.
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 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...
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!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
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???
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
It's called AstroTurf (TM).
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
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.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
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
Nothing to see here
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 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.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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"?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Did some googling found pictures and more information here : http://www.mongabay.com/external/glowing_fish.htm
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
"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.
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