California Bans Genegineered Fish

Cheeko writes "California regulators have announced that they are blocking the sale of genetically engineered fish. The arguments of the regulators seem to echo some of those discussed earlier here."

Comments

Blocking breeding is key.

[Thinkit3]

Going beyond the knee-jerk reactions against anything genetically engineered, the key to making these safe is to make sure they can't breed. There was a controversy over engineered trees that make better paper. The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[pizza_milkshake]

i read jurassic park, the fish would just spontaneously switch sex. come to think of it, so would i, if i were genetically modified.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[pi eater]

Switch sex? Are you crazy?

I love my penis... (and I want others to love it too)

webmaster shirts and more

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Isldeur]

Going beyond the knee-jerk reactions against anything genetically engineered, the key to making these safe is to make sure they can't breed. There was a controversy over engineered trees that make better paper. The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.


Man - this sounds so "Jurassic Park"!! :)

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens with the sterile genetic material gets incorporated into a virus? Then as (normal) trees become infected with this virus, they also become sterile?

Not trolling, just asking.

I worry that the whole problem with releasing genetically engineered into the wild is that we're just not smart enough to forsee all the consequences. Kinda like releasing rabbits into Austrailia to solve one problem, then the rabbits turn out to be an even bigger problem.

When the genie cannot be returned to the bottle, there is no shame in moving slowly.

Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really--it just replaces one problem with another.

You know how they control Mediterranean Fruit Flies in California? They capture and breed some of the flies, breed them until they've got a nice big population, then they sterilize and release them into the wild. Since reproduction requires a fertile male AND female, they've just reduced the probability or reproduction by introducing a large number of neutered flies.

That's really not a lot different than making neutered GM lifeforms. They are by their very nature produced in large numbers (how else would it be profitable?), and all it takes is a large "break" to get them into the general population.

"Breaks" are easier than you would think. GM plants escape all the time right now, and they don't even have legs. Some farmed animal populations (salmon) have to be released into the wild as part of their natural lifecycle. And if this happens, the reproductive capacity of that species is reduced due to the increase in neutered members.

And all that's assuming the neutering is always 100% effective with no errors. That's not exactly something I'd want to count on either.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[worm eater]

I think it may be possible to introduce these traits in ways that are not inheritable. However, genes are of course incredibly complex, and it is probably not worth the risk of seriously fucking up the environment just for some glowing fish. If anyone knows whether this really is a possiblity, or if I just dreamed it up, I'd love to hear about it.

GM crops are significantly less clear cut area, with the possible risks being high, but little research to show whether the risks are real. On the other hand, the benefits are quite high (feeding starving children in 3rd world countries). There is a great article on GM corn over at the Public Library of Science.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[gantrep]

Please, act like you got some sense.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[The Green Skeleton]

Well I dont think it needs to be so much that they cant breed at all, as then creating them for sale would be difficult, what we need to do is make sure they can only breed with other glowfish, to prevent spreading the GM genes to native fish.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[tuxlove]

Going beyond the knee-jerk reactions against anything genetically engineered, the key to making these safe is to make sure they can't breed. There was a controversy over engineered trees that make better paper. The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.

Man has no clue how to manage species in a way that is consistent with keeping balance in the environment. Every time we try to manipulate something there are unexpected consequences. (Well, okay, not every time. I am aware of two incidences where we successfully introduced a species to control another and it worked as planned. But our track record is 10000:1 against.)

You are clearly unaware that species considered pests, and in particular insects, are commonly controlled through the introduction of sterile individuals to interfere with the breeding of the larger population. Who is to say that if a hundred of these glowfish made sterile were dumped into a creek that it wouldn't cause population problems? What if indigenous females of some species found the glowfish males irresistible and didn't breed with fertile males for several seasons? You NEVER know what will happen when you introduce an animal to a place it's never been. Never.

We have a horrible track record with manipulating nature and have no fundamental understanding of how our changes affect other things. Do a little reading on some of our countless failures, especially in the area of genetic engineering, and maybe you'll begin to understand why the more informed people are concerned. There are ENDLESS examples of our failures and a handful of success stories. Having done a little learning on this topic myself, I fully agree with and support California's ban on these things. They serve no useful purpose other than being eye candy, so I hardly see why anyone would consider the risk worth taking.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the socializing tuna (article posted right before this one) scared them...and they decided to stop the selling of genetically socialized tuna.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Evil Pete]

I don't really see the problem here.

I mean just think about if for a second. Glowing fish. Now how long do you think you're going to survive if you're glowing like a neon sign saying "Eat Me" (this is where Slashdot should support the blink tag :). Bioluminescent fish do exist yes, but they can turn it off at times of danger (from what I remember) ... these fish can't ... they are evolutionary mistakes. Selection of the fittest will take care of it. Mind you I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse ... but that's almost another issue.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[blackmonday]

You, my friend, obviously don't remember your Jurassic Park.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[CharterTerminal]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you glow-in-the-dark zebra fish fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of an aquarium (a 40 gallon with 10 glow-in-the-dark zebra fish) for about 20 minutes now while the glow-in-the-dark zebra fish attempts to swim from one side of the aquarium to the other. 20 minutes. At home, in my 10 gallon aquarium with angelfish, which by all standards should be a lot slower than danios, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that. In addition, during this swim, the fish are not glowing. And all the other fish have ground to a halt. Even their gills are straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various glow-in-the-dark zebra fish, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is that I've never seen a glow-in-the-dark zebra fish that has swum faster than its non-glow-in-the-dark counterpart, despite the glow-in-the-dark zebra fish's flashier genetic architecture. My betta with its long, trailing fins swims faster than this glow-in-the-dark zebra fish at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that glow-in-the-dark danios are a "superior" fish.

Glow-in-the-dark fish addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a glow-in-the-dark fish over other faster, cheaper, more stable fish.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[MySt1k]

The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on. But what kind of effect should we expect on our ecosystem with tose practice? Can locals make any difference between a sterile glowfish a normal fish? this could bring bad effects on the overall ecosystem if they can't make the difference. Could this bring a downsize in the population if when they tried to breed a glowfish they stop their breeding process ?

Doh !

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[sysopd]

the key to making these safe is to make sure they can't breed

This could lead to more problems than it solves, there are many examples:

non-100% genetic neutering, where if the organism is introduced into nature the gene could become spread as a recessive one and lower the overall fitness of a species.

how does the genetic neutering affect other aspects of an organism, such as its food value for predators

how will this affect micro-organisms depending on a certain property of the organism's original makeup.

There are a host of other questions and problems with GE in general. If we cannot answer some of the questions surrounding genetic engineering, and our solution to this is genetic neutering, how can we have any faith in genetic neutering at all as a viable solution?

If the genetic community says on one hand that biotech is viable and safe and on the other that they have prevented possible problems through genetic neutering, how does the first statement have any validity?

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[junkgoof]

Blocking breeding is fairly relevant. Testing is key. Gene engineering is trial and error, as no one knows what effect the gene modifications will have. A notable failure was a toxic potato that made it pretty close to the grocery store. No one expected it to be toxic, they'd just modified the thing...

Here in Canada 88% of people want genetically modified food labelled, but it isn't. Many people in the US think that genetically modified food is labelled, and that they have not eaten it, but they are wrong on the first point and almost certainly wrong on the second. Genetically modified foods are very common, and definitely unlabeled.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Mundocani]

The fish don't really glow (they're not luminescent), they're flourescent which means that they only light up when ultraviolet light hits them. Flourescent fish can survive just fine and I don't think they're especially easy targets. I'd be willing to bet that some predators would even be turned off by the color.

As a Californian, I'm glad we won't have them here. Let them experiment on the ecosystem somewhere else and then, in ten or twenty years, allow them in if there hasven't been any problems. There have just been way too many environmental disasters caused by introducing species (engineered or not) into new environments. If you want colorful fish, buy some Neon Tetras or a Jack Dempsey or just go saltwater where there are plenty of flourescent fish to choose from.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[hdparm]

So what happens with the sterile genetic material gets incorporated into a virus? Then as (normal) trees become infected with this virus, they also become sterile?

No. We'll install Linux for them.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had breasts, I'd never leave the house.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[pi eater]

I can't.

As I've pointed out, I've got a penis.

webmaster shirts and more

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[mAineAc]

If just 1/3 of the cattle grazing ground were switched to producing vegetable crops, such as soybeans, starvation in the world would be wiped out. there is no need to genetically alter anything. People just need to be less reliant on an unecessary food source.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[d34thm0nk3y]

If just 1/3 of the cattle grazing ground were switched to producing vegetable crops, such as soybeans, starvation in the world would be wiped out. there is no need to genetically alter anything. People just need to be less reliant on an unecessary food source.

eesh, give me a break. I always hear this argument. The problem is NOT the amount of food in the world. The problem is distribution. There is enough food on this planet to feed everyone, there have been plenty of studies on that. The problem is getting all this food to every part of the world, and still making a profit (no money => no food).

I didn't even read this whole article, it was just the first one that I googled... http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number19.htm

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[tomstdenis]

"The problem is getting all this food to every part of the world, and still making a profit (no money => no food)."

The point is quite a bit of money is sunk into raising life stock. It costs quite a bit less to grow plants [re: takes less energy overall] which means you can sell more bulk [re: more food for people] and still make money.

The problem is american society is always a "quarter pounder away from a heart attack". If McDonalds [et al.] sold "combo meals" that had way less meat and way more say salads or whatever [baked potatos?] then the consumed meat in American could probably drop by quite a bit.

But who wants to goto a fast food place and eat healthy? Pish posh, eat 2000 calories per meal and thigh master it off later! That's the american way!

Tom

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[the argonaut]

NIMBYism at it's finest. "Test it out somewhere else, and if it doesn't screw anything up, then I'm OK with it." That's not exactly very principled: if you're not willing to accept the risks you shouldn't expect anybody else to.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[halowolf]

I am not apposed to genetically engineered animals/plants etc, hell we have been doing such things for a long long time.

However with the current approaches being used I am gravely concerned that the research into the enviromental impact of these new breeds may have is not been properly determined. I am concerned that the chase for big profits NOW is outweighing the proper environmental studies into what the true effect of introducing these genetically modified creations into the environment will have. Once released into the environment, they will be hard to remove from the environment.

I'm not a raving environmentalist, just a concerned citizen.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[rworne]

Good idea. They DID irradiate the males to prevent breeding. You know what happened one time they released the flies?

They found out the files were net sterile after all and made a bad situation even worse. But that was just a one-time cock-up.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[SurgeonGeneral]

I'm very wary of importing fish etc because what seems like a harmless thing can end up in your rivers as a self reproducing curse ... but that's almost another issue.

Not at all, that is the entire issue - BALANCE.

Our ecosystem has evolved to the point where it is very much in balance at all times. If you want an example of one that is not in balance, have a look at the Middle East. Many thousands of years ago it was the most habitible place on Earth. If you think some cosmic event like the ice age made it into a desert you would be wrong. Deforestation did. How did the forests get deforested? Humans.

Now that said, its very important for us to maintain the balance of our current ecosystem or we risk turning our homes into inhostible places. Genetically modified plants and animals present the opportunity for the balance to be thrown of by spurring some kind of self propagating "curse", as you call it, or alternatively by eliminating some necessary self-propagating entity. Hence the reason why this thread was created (read the title of our posts.)

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[binarybum]

This and making them dependent on a certain dietary suplement to prevent any more immediate disturbances outside of a controlled environment. It seems that niether of these steps were taken which is extremely surprising since both would benefit the company by making consumers dependent on them for fish and fish food.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Mundocani]

Actually, I'd rather they didn't try it anywhere -- not my backyard or somebody else's. But so many people seem to feel that California is just being stupid and having "knee-jerk" reactions about this that I feel like "fuck it - let them destroy their property." Maybe they'll be right and nothing bad will happen, so in ten years I'll be satisfied and think that the fish are ok. Or maybe the fish will cause the demise of their precious Bass or Bluegill or some whatever population and I'll be glad that California restricted their sale. The problem with this whole issue is that nobody really knows what will happen. Maybe nothing, maybe something terrible. Is it worth the risk just to have some stupid flourescent fish?

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[obeythefist]

We allready produce more food than the world needs. The problem isn't in crop planning, it's in distribution. Why would a farmer want to *spend* money transporting grain to starving people who can't afford to even pay for it? It's cheaper for farmers to store/destroy excess crops.

The world isn't a united place. In genereal, it's every man for himself.

That's why genetically engineered animals and crops exist in the first place. There's a financial driver. The convenience of gennies outweighs the risk to the financial dead-space that is nature.

I'm not saying it's right. It just happens to be the way things work.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

We offer lots and lots of grain to African countires, but many of them actually refuse because American agriculture is based around GM plants, and preasure from European political groups convince these starving people that the grain, the same stuff hundreds of millions of Americans eat every day, is poisonous.

It's not animal husbandry that's preventing people from eating.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that if all farmers were only growing plants, there would magically be an incentive to distribute food to people on the other side of the world who can't pay for it? Not a chance. The problem has nothing to do with American diets or livestock.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[JK Master-Slave]

As a Californian, I'm glad we won't have them here.

Are hamsters and gerbils still illegal in California? I can remember when they were, not long ago. Haven't checked on it in awhile.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[JK Master-Slave]

Or maybe the fish will cause the demise of their precious Bass or Bluegill or some whatever population

How can you be so ignorant? These are tropical fish, and have been tropical fish that people have kept in aquariums for years. They're not some looming new danger, nor do most Bass or Bluegills that you seem to think of being 'at risk' live in Tropical Fish aquariums.

I can't believe that the Fish and Wildlife guy quoted in the article is such a loon. He right out says his ban is a 'just because' ban.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[tomstdenis]

You don't think land on the other side of the world isn't being wasted to grow livestock, make nike shoes and what have not?

Oh totally, cuz whitey doesn't exploit any other land on earth for their own profit while leaving the indigeneous people without enough ownership of their land to say, grow, farm, etc.

Totally. Love em' nikes!

Tom

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

You may laugh at that but it does happen. There was this guy who went to the computer club at school who i knew. Well one semester he was a Sean. This semester he's "Lisa" with 2 missing parts.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

look at his name for cryin out loud, he is without a doubt a heterosexual male, and raging.

makes perfect sense based on his persona, even though it ruins a good joke and its juvenile

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Anonymous Coward]

If McDonalds [et al.] sold "combo meals" that had way less meat

What are you talking about? They already serve zero meat.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[alexdewaal]

First, what do you mean by "offer"?

Most seeds (also non-GM) are made sterile so the farmers must buy new seeds every year. Otherwise the farmer could save a part of his crop to use as seeds the next time.

And no, many GMOs are not poisenous, they are just engineerded in such a way that you'll need less (or no) insecticide/herbicide/fungicide, wich seems good...until you find out the plant is designed to produce the X-icides on its own.

And many consumer interest organisations in Europe hold the view that IF you allow GM food, that the consumer should be able to READ it on the label. But the manufacturers don't want that even though they claim the food is perfectly safe...
The American GM industry (and it's disciple, the USA Government) want the Europeans not only to accept GM food but also not to know when they eat it.

A free market can only exist when buyers can make fully informed choices.

Believing the results from a commercial IQ test isn't very smart...

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[tomstdenis]

Hahahha funny, ok we know their food is not nutrious [or have the time good tasting....damn advertising and being prevalent!!!] but there is a lot of meat wasted there. I think Invader Zim makes fun of this well with McMeaties [through some good old hyperbole].

Tom

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[danila]

Let them experiment on the ecosystem somewhere else and then, in ten or twenty years, allow them in if there hasven't been any problems.
That's just stupid. In twenty years people will be GMed. New organs will be grown and transplanted. People will be connected to computers via direct interfaces. Nanotechnology will be maturing. And you will be excited by the glowing fish? Duh! What Christmas gifts do you explain this year? A cool and trendy lava lamp?

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Zeriel]

Actually, many genetically engineered crops are designed to be hardier so you can use MORE pesticide/weed killer on the fields for a greater chance of killing everything but your damn canola crop or whatever. =P

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Zeriel]

Possible conjunctions:

Biotech is viable and safe because they have prevented possible problems through genetic neutering.

Just one of many possible solutions to this fun and exciting word game you've proposed. =P

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[sysopd]

Genetic neutering is not a solution, merely an attempt to cover one's ass. Its like wearing a bullet-proof vest over another one. Wow that shows a lot of faith in the first vest!

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Zeriel]

Either:
A) Shows you have little faith in the first vest
-or-
B) Shows you're concerned about REALLY not getting shot even if it means taking a few extra inconvenient precautions.

Re:Blocking breeding is key.

[Mundocani]

How can you be so arrogant? These are modified tropical fish, not ordinary tropical fish. I don't have anything in particular against genetic engineering, but I think it's foolish to use the technology carelessly and especially for something so trite as an aquarium pet. Our history is littered with examples of species being released into new environments, either deliberately or accidentally, and screwing up the ecosystem in that area. What's so ignorant about believing that letting engineered species run loose in the wild might be foolish? And make no mistake -- they *will* find their way into the wild, though whether or not they'll survive remains to be seen. Maybe most of them will die, but the problem is that you just don't know what's going to happen. I favor genetic engineering, but I also favor tight controls over how engineered species are kept, and letting some snot-nosed kid play with them as pets and then dump them into rivers and lakes is something I think borders on stupidity.

Power, government, and fish

[ScottCanto]

Need I say more?

Re:Power, government, and fish

[Anonymous Coward]

??

Apparently, yes...

Re:Power, government, and fish

[ScottCanto]

California suffered from insufficient energy, a few problems with electing their governor, and now they go after the fish. It seems like their priorities are not quite right.

Re:Power, government, and fish

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that! :P

Re:Power, government, and fish

[Stargoat]

This is the same state that banned pet ferrets, an animal domesticated for well over two thousand years, on the fears that it might to feral. That this has never happened is something which no one seems to care about.*

The odd thing is that cats, which do go feral, all the time, are perfectly legal. Additionally, they have caused the deaths of several native species, and a cat parasite is erradicating otters.

This is just another example of government justifying its existance by passing worthless laws.

*Wild stouts were purposefully released into New Zealand. They bred with domesticated ferrets and due to a completely lack of predators (not a problem in California) have entered the environment quite successfully.

Re:Power, government, and fish

[leerpm]

Yeah, something smells fishy.

Re:Power, government, and fish

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are we feeding the homeless pets to?

Re:Power, government, and fish

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing California banned was common sense, and they've been going downhill ever since.

Re:Power, government, and fish

[ChrisMaple]

Yes, you need to say "I welcome our new Icthyan overlords."

But that's only Cali

[IANAL(BIAILS)]

Is there anything stopping California residents from taking a quick trip out of state, buying the little fishys, and then bringing them back home? I can't see how this ban will do much good with today's interstate commerce...

Re:But that's only Cali

[bhtooefr]

Actually, that's what they suggested on the evening news when I saw this last night.

Re:But that's only Cali

[pi eater]

Somwhow I don't see a big cross-state market for illegal genetically modified fish.. then again what do I know about fish

webmaster shirts and more

Re:But that's only Cali

[panaceaa]

Most of Californians live near the coast. I'm in Northern California, and it takes me 5-6 hours to get out of the state (Reno, NV). It takes people in Los Angeles 4 hours to get out (Las Vegas, NV). I guess it's possible for people in San Diego to buy them in Mexico, but then they have to go through customs which would confiscate them.

Californians will have the option of buying them out-of-state, but it's way too much of a hassle IMHO just to have a few glowing fish.

Re:But that's only Cali

[MrLint]

I think that CA is legislating via the 'Nemo' Principle. That is they think fish survive after being flushed down the toilet.

Re:But that's only Cali

[catbutt]

Well I live in San Francisco, and now I REALLY want some GloFish. Before they were controversial, now they are illegal.... how cool!

Yeah I guess its a hassle, but having them be contaband makes it all the more worth it.

Re:But that's only Cali

[aggieben]

I can't see how this ban will do much good with today's interstate commerce...

I can't see how this ban will do any good at all, regardless of interstate commerce. It seems like a completely kneejerk reaction intended to pacify certain special interests.

Re:But that's only Cali

[MysticGlyph]

sorry but californians going out of state to buy these fish is probably not going to happen, at least not succesfully. Unless those who do so have a portable generator to run their aquarium pumps on the five to six hour drive there, and five hours back ...the fishys will ALL DIE! I've had fish die on the half hour trip home from the mall ...they really dont like temperature changes and such :(

Re:But that's only Cali

[fastidious edward]

Another idea is to have naturally glowing fish. No, don't take them all the way to mile-island!, just buy a pressurized tank and get some deep water fish... all natural glow and perfectly natural.

Re:But that's only Cali

[mclem]

Nothing beyond being honest, probably. When I first moved to CA, I was somewhat surprised to find that I wasn't allowed to bring any of my houseplants in-state (presumably to avoid non-native critters, since I've since replaced the plants.)

Nothing stopping me from driving a whole vanload in, though, really.

Re:But that's only Cali

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep! Nothing to stop someone from buying out of state, either in person or online. I know a dozen-odd aquarium fanatics in SF Bay area who have had these fish already for a good two months. The barn door was already open long enough to make it a useless ban. Supposedly Zebras are native to tropical freshwater in Indian, have no native, breedable cousins and don't survive well in temperate water.

Re:But that's only Cali

[ShadowBlasko]

Ask any ferret breeder or vet in Oregon or Nevada.

You might be suprised.

(For those of you who do not know, IIRC, ferrets are still illegal in Cali)

Several years ago I read a rather intersting story on the Fugutive Ferret Underground in California.

Re:But that's only Cali

[Mundocani]

I think you're subscribing to the 'flushing' principle which believe that all fish are discarded via the sewers. Sometimes stupid little kids (or their parents) put them into ponds or streams where they can "be free".

Re:But that's only Cali

[nvrrobx]

Not at all.

It's illegal to possess a ferret as a pet in California. This does not stop people from going to Nevada and bringing one home.

Re:But that's only Cali

[stefanlasiewski]

Well I live in San Francisco, and now I REALLY want some GloFish.

Wait, I'm confused. Can you smoke them or something?

Re:But that's only Cali

[adrianbaugh]

You can always try 8-}

Me, I'm waiting for normally-invisible tattoos that glow when you drink a luciferase solution :-) Ideal for the wild partygoer with a job where you're not allowed visible tattoos.

Re:But that's only Cali

[d34thm0nk3y]

Californians will have the option of buying them out-of-state, but it's way too much of a hassle IMHO just to have a few glowing fish.

I heard of this really cool thing called the internet. It's great, you can go to websites and order stuff, and they ship it right to your house!

Re:But that's only Cali

[JK Master-Slave]

I remember as a kid when we traveled to California (in the 60's) that there were notices warning people that it was illegal to bring hamsters into California? Have they gotten over that particular fear yet?

Re:But that's only Cali

[axxackall]

I guess it's possible for people in San Diego to buy them in Mexico, but then they have to go through customs which would confiscate them.

No need to go there - it will swim eventually itself as no borders in the open deep blue.

I wonder if Arnold will decide to nuke the ocean (or Mexica?) just to make sure no GM in Cali :)

That's okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetically engineered actors and actresses will be all the rage in a few years. The pets will be nothing in comparison.

Re:That's okay

[Malicious]

Then the actors become politicians, and throw the law back out again.
They shalt call it the Hollywood life cycle.

Re:That's okay

[cgranade]

That means that Natelie Portman won't just glow, she'll glow, right? I'm all for it...

Re:That's okay

[sharkey]

Gotta be better than wooden ones.

Re:That's okay

[nametaken]

And they'll run for governor in California, of all places.

wrecking the world one piece at a time

[pizza_milkshake]

i for one welcome our genetically modified pet fish overlords.

Re:wrecking the world one piece at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about Blinky, the superfish?

Re:wrecking the world one piece at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia (around Chernobyl especially), the fish make you glow!

Re:wrecking the world one piece at a time

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell modded the parent up? Geez, I haven't seen that joke before.

Oh well. I suppose it's best that anyone dumb enough to mod up a post like that lose their points as quickly as possible.

Evolution...

[esaglam]

Damn! evolution stopped in CA...

Re:Evolution...

[Torinaga-Sama]

That happened years ago.

Re:Evolution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody should tell the HIV virus that it should stop mutating. Doesn't it know it's breaking California law?!!?

A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God, that someone has seen the light and banned this genetic monsters. I think it's wrong to genetically alter any living being since it is not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Hentai]

Then please, explain the Pomeranian. Or the Chihuaha. WHAT RIGHT DID WE HAVE TO CREATE THESE CREATURES!? They're more of an afront to God and nature than any GM species, and we didn't need anything more than a few hundred years of breeding to create such abominations.

- Paid for by the SPBYD (Society to Prevent the Breeding of Yippy Dogs)

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Spl0it]

Thank God, that someone has seen the light and banned this genetic monsters. I think it's wrong to genetically alter any living being since it is not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do.

My serious opinion.
I'm not very religious, but I have ethics and beliefs that I follow. Now why don't we have the right? this is after all Plant Earth, humantiy is the dominant speicies!
Religion is a poor excuse for anything, I think its the cause of more harm in the world then good. Look at all the wars now.. whats the underlying cause?.

my $0.02

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[pi eater]

God? What does god have to do with any of this?

Your implication that god is responsible for the creation of life on this planet offends my atheist point of view.

webmaster shirts and more

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Then you wont have a problem staying out of the human gene pool.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[tgibbs]

Thank God, that someone has seen the light and banned this genetic monsters. I think it's wrong to genetically alter any living being since it is not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do.

I hope that you are already boycotting other "genetic monsters" created by older methods of genetic engineering (selective breeding of spontaneous mutants that would normally die or fail to reproduce). These include corn, lima beans, bananas and plantains, virtually all identified breeds of dogs and cats, many ornamental fish, milk from dairy cows, most grains, etc., etc.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[MysticGlyph]

If it's not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do than why do we have the intelectual and technological ability to do it? By your logic we should'nt travel in airplanes because we were'nt meant to fly ...HOGWASH I SAY!

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[shepd]

>You mean like morals and ethics and "Thou shalt not murder" ? Excuse me, but I think you've arrived at a conclusion without bothering to do any investigation.

Good point.

But what about morals and ethics like "Kill all the gays" or "Kill all Kafirs?"

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[cfuse]

Then please, explain the Pomeranian. Or the Chihuaha.

mutant n.

1. Slang. One that is suggestive of a genetic mutant, as in bizarre appearance or inaptitude.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not have a right to not be offended. Enjoy.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[CracktownHts]

Selective breeding has limits that could arguably be called 'natural'. Ex: you can't breed a lima bean with a dairy cow, yet you could splice genes between the two organisms. Selective breeding and direct manipulation of DNA are not the same thing at all.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Megahurts]

Thank God, that someone has seen the light and banned this genetic monsters. I think it's wrong to genetically alter any living being since it is not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do.

Frankly, I disagree with your opinion. Quoting Galileo, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use."

Furthermore, I don't believe morality can be legislated. I would not force my own beliefs upon another and I am appalled that others would applaud successful attempts by the state to do so.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

given enough time and desire you could indeed breed a cow and lima bean, just maybe a slightly longer time than it takes to make a new breed of dog or cat.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[tgibbs]

Selective breeding has limits that could arguably be called 'natural'. Ex: you can't breed a lima bean with a dairy cow, yet you could splice genes between the two organisms. Selective breeding and direct manipulation of DNA are not the same thing at all.

That might make some kind of sense if genes never moved across species without human intervention, but that is not true at all. After all, "genetic engineering" was invented by viruses long before people got around to doing it. Even naked DNA can be infectious under certain circumstances.

There is nothing magical about moving genes from one species to another. Most genes in one species have near counterparts in other species, anyway. Genes are almost never invented by large, long-generation time organisms like beans and cows--we all inherited them from short-generation ancestors like bacteria and viruses, so there is a lot of commonality in the genetic heritage of all creatures. There is no reason to expect that a gene derived from a different species by modern techniques will be more "alien" or unnatural in its effects than one that arises through mutation or that crosses species lines by natural mechanisms such as hybridization or viral infection. Modern genetic engineering has yet to come up with anything as bizarre and unnatural as a banana or an ear of corn. Or any food as dangerously allergenic as a peanut.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the USA and you have no buisness projecting you concept of morality to the rest of us. How is the existance of glowing fish going to affect your inaliable rights?
If you weren't a hypocrit then you wouldn't say: "it is not our place to decide what a species should or shouldn't do". Humans, afterall, are a species, and who are you to decide what we should or shouldnt do when it has no effect on you.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll offend you all we want. You have no right not to be offended.

Oh, God is offended by your remark. Wait and see . . .

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[the argonaut]

Part of using one's "senses, reason, and intellect" might imply that one should also use them to think out the consequences of one's actions and therefore choose not to explore or pursue particular ends. In shorthand, think before you act.

Morality is legislated everyday. The simplest example: :Thou shalt not kill" and statutes that implement it. One can argue whether or not it's effective to legislate morality though.

Furthermore, although it might not apply to GE fish as pets, I (and others) fully have the right and I would argue duty to force my beliefs upon another when it can be legitimately argued that your actions are infringing upon my own rights. The problem of course is how do you define "legitimately" and how to deal with the fact that every decision one makes impacts others in some way, and part of living in a society with others is the inevitability that everybody is going to have to compromise and give up something.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[adrianbaugh]

I'm not quite sure why this has been modded funny. Insightful, more like... Some dogs [bulldogs, for example] have been bred to the extent they're so deformed they can barely breathe. I think they're beginning to tighten up laws on this now, but it's a huge area of cruelty that no-one ever mentions much.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say homosexuals are either a genetic screwup or the mother natures way of instilling outsiders/outside perspective of the general population. I lean more towards genetice screwup, but just like we don't kill everyone with a gimp leg, we don't kill everyone whose gay.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[rossz]

If it's small enough to drop-kick, then it isn't a proper dog (or should I say "dawg").

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[JK Master-Slave]

And if it's big enough that it's head is right the same height (or higher!) than your plate of food on the table, it isn't a proper dog either. We have a brute like that here, and it can be annoying.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Furthermore, I don't believe morality can be
> legislated.

You don't believe that it /can/ be, or that it /should/ be?

Isn't the stance that you shouldn't impose your beliefs upon another a belief that you're imposing on others?

The only reason that beliefs shouldn't be imposed on others is that they're false and dangerous beliefs. The problem is that there is no /generally recognised/ authority to say which beliefs are right, and which aren't.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Hentai]

This is the essence of conservatism - anything new is evil for no better reason than because it is new, and anything old is good because we are accustomed to it.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Lord Kano]

Your implication that god is responsible for the creation of life on this planet offends my atheist point of view.

That's OK. God loves you anyway.

LK

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[fucksl4shd0t]

if it's big enough that it's head is right the same height (or higher!) than your plate of food on the table

If you don't want your dog to be a diner, make him dinner.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[fucksl4shd0t]

Morality is legislated everyday. The simplest example: :Thou shalt not kill" and statutes that implement it.

Hmmm, that's a straw man. There is evidence that allowing people to kill one another more or less wantonly is harmful to the whole group in the long run. There is a difference between legislating morality (homosexual marriage is illegal) and legislating practical laws to prevent problems before they happen (marriage is a state-recognized institution, however crappy it may be currently implemented).

When you legislate your morality, you will inevitably infringe upon another's own morality. When you legislate to prevent behaviors that are damaging to society, you might infringe another's own morality, but they have the option to leave anytime. :) (one way or another)

The problem is always "What is the line between morality and 'damaging to society'?" Many say that immorality is damaging to society (again, homosexuality is frequently cited as an example).

Personally, I prefer as few laws as possible. I think that restricting and preventing violence is a Good Thing, but not at the loss of a people's ability to defend themselves against outside forces. It's a fine line, and I don't think the problem will ever be completely solved.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[nametaken]

I don't care, I'm still blaming god for the platypus. What the hell was he thinking? -Go Keven (no, not that Mitnick pud)

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that you are already boycotting other "genetic monsters" created by older methods of genetic engineering (selective breeding of spontaneous mutants that would normally die or fail to reproduce). These include corn, lima beans, bananas and plantains, virtually all identified breeds of dogs and cats, many ornamental fish, milk from dairy cows, most grains, etc., etc.

Why do people persist in trying to lump breeding and GM together under the same "genetic engineering" umbrella? Repeat this until you understand it: Genetic traits that are expressed through breeding are utterly unlike genetic modifications that are only possible through human manipulation of a biological product's DNA.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[jasenj1]

Paid for by the SPBYD (Society to Prevent the Breeding of Yippy Dogs)

Do you have a T-shirt? Or a membership form?

- Jasen.

Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere!

[tgibbs]

Why do people persist in trying to lump breeding and GM together under the same "genetic engineering" umbrella? Repeat this until you understand it: Genetic traits that are expressed through breeding are utterly unlike genetic modifications that are only possible through human manipulation of a biological product's DNA.

However, this simply isn't true. They aren't "utterly unlike." In fact, they are generally very similar. Ultimately, they all come down to sequence changes. And even if it is easier to pull a gene out of another species, there is in most cases a good chance that it would be possible to achieve a similar end by selecting for modifications of existing genes. The difference is that a transgene is far less likely to lead to "runaway" organisms than is a modification of an existing gene. A transgene is typically expressed by some strong promoter, with little regulation, so it places a metabolic burden on the organism that will almost certainly be deleterious in the wild. In contrast, a mutational modification of an existing gene that has a sophisticated regulatory promoter that has evolved in the species is far more likely to survive, and possibly create problems, in the wild.

Genetic engineering goes back centuries.

[djh101010]

...it's called "selective breeding". Traits that are useful are reinforced by breeding those who show it, and culling those who don't. OK, so they're getting genes from a jellyfish or whatever to get the glow, rather than from something inside the species. If someone wants to get upset about it, they should center on it being cross-species, rather than complaining about someone applying engineering to genetics.

Re:Genetic engineering goes back centuries.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's genetic engineering for humans, natural selection for everything else? :-)
No, I'm not being serious.

Re:Genetic engineering goes back centuries.

[cgranade]

I'd love to see you make a glowing dog with selective breeding alone.

Re:Genetic engineering goes back centuries.

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to selectively breed with a jellyfish once.. Mr. Winkle is still not the same..

Re:Genetic engineering goes back centuries.

[danudwary]

Actually, if I'm allowed to do gene sequencing of each generation of dog, I'll bet it could be done in less than 10 generations. The protein motifs for GFP (green fluorescent protein) are very well-understood now. I know you said selective breeding *alone*, but gene sequencing the puppies is only monitoring, not making direct changes...

bugged

[KReilly]

I am a little bit bothered about the general responce to genetically modifying anything. I mean, people just need to get off the possible negative side effects and realise the potential we are holding in our hands.
I mean, lets talk about better living through chemistry breaking to a whole new level.

Re:bugged

[Anonymous Coward]

What a coincidence! I'm bugged by people who embrace every new technological development without even examining possible downsides, with a blind faith that any problems caused will be correctably by hitherto unknown scientific discoveries in the future!

Listen--I know there's a lot a fruity clueless people who think GM is either a sign of the Biblical apocalyse or the corporate takeover of the planet. But for every knee-jerk reaction (on both sides!), there are also informed people making valid arguments.

Genetics is messier than your high school textbooks told you. Genes do not stop where humans have declared there to be a species boundary. Traits from GM corn have made it into closely-related weeds. We are not just making pest-resistant crops--we are making pest-resistant weeds too.

Genes also do not stop where humans have put a fence between domestic and wild creatures. GM corn genes have already found their way into every corn-growing corner of the world. So when someone says "If you don't want to grow GM crops, that's your choice" they are lying. If your neighbor grows GM corn, sooner or later, you will too.

Yes, people have been messing with genetics through selective breeding for millenia. That's a straw man argument, nobody cares or disagrees about that. All traits bred into species prior to GM existed in that species naturally--we were just increasing the frequency of that trait. What GM is is introducing a trait that has never existed in a species before. The potential for unanticipates consequences is HUGE. So you're just going to have to learn to deal with being bugged.

Re:bugged

[KReilly]

Uhhh, no. When people do selective breeding, what they are doing is giving favoritism to a mutation. Mutation is random. They are taking the naturual process of survival of the fittest out of the equation. Thus, the process is no longer naturual.

And this is the arguement that bothers me. You are ignoring what the benfits are and complaining that it is breeding with naturually growing crops. If that gene gets released in the wild, yes, it is possible for it to have a detrimental side effect, but there is no proof of this. You are grasping in the dark on this one.

Finally, When you pass legislation like this, what you are doing is turning a blind eye to it in hope it will disapear. Do you think the rest of the world will ignore it too just in an effort to be like us? No. What will happen is that all the favorable research will be being conducted in other countries. And 20 years down the road, we will be paying them royalties and trying to catch up. And when everyone is asking why we are behind, I do hope you will raise your hand and say it was all based on your hunch.

BTW, I do understand just a little bit about genetics since I am a biology major at TAMU.

Re:bugged

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you so-called biology major. Re-read my post before you launch into more straw-man arguments.

I did not declare that selective breeding was natural. I declared that selective breeding dealt with TRAITS that occur naturally in the species. See the difference? English skills are important in any profession. Genetic engineering is introducing traits that did not exist before in a species. Selective breeding is increasing the frequency of a RANDOM NATURAL genetic mutation. Please re-read these sentences as many times as you need until you understand them.

So you agree that if a gene gets released into the wild "there could be a bad side effect". Yet you're against a stringent set of testing standards to find this information out ahead of time?? I would hate to see what safety regulations you would propose for cars! "Well, certainly broken glass in the airbag COULD have problems, but let's go ahead and make the things and then apologize later if it causes problems."

Your argument about royalties, is silly. If the US doesn't recognize patents on life forms, this problem is solved. You know, the way Canada has already solved this problem. You're right in that we'd miss out on the profits, though. And if GM life forms end up going terribly wrong, we'll pay that price whether we're on board with it or not. So I guess since we can't count on anyone else doing a proper safety testing cycle, we have to run right on over the cliff with everyone else, in hopes of a non-glass-filled airbag at the bottom?

And how about I add on another reasonable concern since you haven't refuted any yet? GM crops are by their nature a monoculture. They have much less genetic diversity than natural organisms (if they have any diversity at all!), which by any even borderline competent biologist would agree makes them more vulnerable to pandemic. That's a great thing to do to our food supply! Where can we sign up?

Re:bugged

[KReilly]

First off, personal attacks are obnoxious, if you doubt I am a biology major, fine. It makes you look ignorant, and not me to accuse me otherwise. Now that we recognize that you need to readdress how you respond to people, I will continue.

There is NO difference between a random mutation and that of one engineered. You seem to believe that because a mutation appears in nature that it is benevolant, this is simply not true. Cancer is caused by a random mutation that occurs often. Your examples are rediculous, and in no way link to what we are talking about.

The only relevant question that you raised is that of the poor reliability of crops. Your stance is short sighted. Crops have fallen under pandemics naturally for years, IE potato famin and the current fungus that infects bannana trees. Both engineered and natural crops can fall victim to this. Imagine if we have the technology to engineer new plants that can resist these infections. If we did not have this technology, then we would have to entrust our food supply to the chance that a mutation would occur that counteracts this parasite. Furthermore, current crops have been selectively bred to such an extent that they are not very geneticly diverese between specimens already!

Re:bugged

[kingk0ng]

Yes, let's realise the potential we are holding in our hands - especially the medical potential. Let's not waste research effort, and the real risks of unforeseen ecological side-effects, on novelty pets. Or pointlessly sweeter strawberries, come to think of it, or food that ripens more slowly so it's easier to grow further away where labor is cheaper, and pesticide restrictions more lax.

If it's disingenuous to declare all genetic engineering Frankenstein science, how much more so for biotech companies to say "Yes, but you'd be closing off future benefits to mankind!" - and then use the techniques predominantly as a marketing strategy to lock farmers into their own pesticides. Or foist fluorescent fish upon an indifferent world.

How is this "better living through chemistry"? Take each case as it comes, but remember market forces are such that they maximise profit, not human progress.

Petaluma

[The_Rippa]

There's already enough glowing fish in the Petaluma river...if you want on so bad just bring a net and a bio-hazard suit.

Re:Petaluma

[JJPeloquin]

I know [i]people[/i] still glowing from that river. :/

Re:Petaluma

[Anonymous Coward]

I know [i]people[/i] still glowing from that river. :/

Wow, you're a fucking retard! Nice broken tags!

Re:Petaluma

[Kris Magnusson]

ha ha . . . i live in sonoma and used to live in petaluma . . . i know exactly what you're talking about. ......... kris

Simpsons Already Did It!

[Dlugar]

Obligatory Simpsons Reference

Dlugar

Reasons

[CaptBubba]

Like everything else, the fish were likely found to cause cancer in the state of California.

Yes...

[JoeLinux]

By all means...before you know it, Indians will be cross-breeding types of corn to make better corn...oh...wait....they did.

(Pssst..genetic manipulation has been going on for a LONG time. we're only making more dramatic changes, not inventing it.)

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

corn != animal

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, fire has been going on for a long time too. So you want to hand out nuclear weapons one per household?

Sometimes its the scale of the changes you make that cause concern.

Re:Yes...

[gl4ss]

* corn != animal *

but a cow is.. yet it wouldn't exist without human intervention..
and dogs..
and cats..

Re:Yes...

[stefanlasiewski]

Nobody is arguing that it is bad to crossbreed corn with corn.

At no point did the Indians crossbreed corn with jellyfish. How can you even compare the two?

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a convienient rhetorical argument, and results in an automatic "+5, Insightful" from the dumbass Slashdot moderators, that's why!

Re:Yes...

[femto]

The difference is with selective breeding over many generations the changes are gradual. This minimises the chances of any 'suprises'.

If you get a 'suprise result' with gene technology there is a fair chance that the organism has come in contact with wild populations by the time the 'suprise' is evident. At this point there is no turning back as the rogue gene is out there breeding.

Here's an example. What if the glow fish turn out to be poisonous to a substantial fish species in location XYZ, also a native habitat of the unmodified fish? California didn't test the effects on this fish as location XYZ is nowhere near California. Also there was pressure from the 'glow fish manufacturer' to keep the costs of the testing program to a minimum. Grandma, on a visit from location XYZ to Californis, buys her grandchild one of those neat glow fish not even aware that it is gene modified. The child isn't interested in fish but isn't into killing cute fish either, so the glow fish is dumped in a local river. The glow fish breeds with local poopulations. The fish which eat the glow fish die. From there the effects ripple through out location XYZ. Effects include disruption of the ecosystem, death for the local fishing industry and the collapse of the local tourism industry, which depended on recreational fishing and diving to view marine life. This scenario is not far fetched at all. (Just consider a place like the Great Barrier Reef and its northern counterparts.)

Re:Yes...

[tgibbs]

By all means...before you know it, Indians will be cross-breeding types of corn to make better corn...oh...wait....they did.

Actually, it's more than that. Corn does not exist at all in the wild; it is entirely the product of early genetic modification, and could never survive without human cultivation. It's closest relative is a wild grass, teosinte, which doesn't look at all like corn. Indeed, corn differs far more drastically from its closest natural relative than any product of modern genetic engineering.

Re:Yes...

[Hentai]

And has very little genetic diversity throughout the species. Result? All it takes is one virus....

-Hentai's girlfriend

Increases market value.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now they are cool rebellious black market items. Instead of stupid glowing fish. Yay.

Re:Increases market value.

[dheltzel]

Your right. I'm a fish hobbyist (actually a breeder) and have dozens of non-GM zebrafish in my tanks right now (actually, they are a rarer species, but look and act much the same). You can't tell these from normal zebras in normal light. So how are the border inspectors (the United Republic of Cali does have closed borders, right?) going to detect them. What if I put 1 in a bag with 50 normal zebras?

This will never stop them. It would be like banning alcohol, and we know how well that worked. Actually alcohol is a lot easier to detect because it sometimes makes the owner act stupid, which I doubt will happen to the people trading in illicit GM fish (unless they drink the water from the bag, but in that case I'd say they are genetically pre-disposed to stupidity).

Re:Increases market value.

[ocelotbob]

the United Republic of Cali does have closed borders, right?

As a matter of fact, california does have "closed" borders. You drive in from Nevada or from Arizona -- can't say for certain about Oregon -- you'll stop and have to ask the agricultural inspectors if you're bringing in any fruits or vegetables. I imagine that they'll simply add a query about genetically modified pisceans. I imagine these zebrafish will probably simply become much like ferrets; "illegal" but no one pays much heed unless the owner is an asshat.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that we're not using nearly enough genetic manipulation unless I can have/become one of these ;3.

California regulators read slashdot!

[macshune]

"The arguments of the regulators seem to echo some of those discussed earlier here."

Now if only the read Your Rights Online...

Consistency

[mcpkaaos]

It makes sense, we just banned another genetically modified fish not two months ago.

Re:Consistency

[MysticGlyph]

Great post with the Grey Davis pic, I laughed, I cried, I moved on

Fish

[jay42]

What do you mean .. they banned tuna ?

I'm sure the RIAA is behind this

Breeding is only one part

[blunte]

I'm no eco-head, nor am I trolling here, but everything will impact the ecosystem in one or more ways.

In the case of genetically engineered trees, how does one such tree (parts, stuff, etc.) biodegrading affect the environment? Will that spur some fun new super-efficient/robust termite evolution? :)

But a more important question (and more on topic), how many of these fish does a cat need to ingest to get the cat to glow?

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

I'd wager this won't have much more or less effect on the environment than other random events, like for instance pissing in the wind.

Let's not forget, it's not like nature is an ordered and delicately balanced thing like some eco-freaks try to make out. Instead it's a random conglomeration of random mutations. When one of natures random mutations lives and breeds we call it evolution. We call the wiping out of other plants, animals and creatures, and the ecological shifts "natural".

When we do the same thing in intelligently guided ways (and a rats intelligence is more than what is behind natures random changes)it's called ecological disaster or pollution. Why is that?

Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[flatt]

You hit the nail on the head: you assumed all people believe in evolution. Genetics are far more natural than people want to believe- engineered or otherwise. This is simply evolution at its best because man has evolved to the point of being able to control evolution itself.

Many cannot deal with this thought for various reasons. Usually because their religion doesn't allow it. Religion vs. Science- nothing new here.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[the argonaut]

While on it's face your argument may appear to make some sense, the reality unfortunately is quite different.

1. The randomness of "natural" evolution in the end produces a balance that mimics an intelligently designed system. Or if you happen to be a creationist, then you would argue that there is an intelligence behind it. Maybe the first statement is what leads people to believe the second.
2. Despite the supposed superiority of human intellect, in all of our brief history we have failed to create an equally balanced system through our intervention. In the end, in order to maintain the system we have to continuously intervene to keep it from collapsing. As an example, the number one cause of civilization collapse throughout history has been exhausting local resources, i.e., "ecological disaster". Creating situations where once vibrant ecosystems can no longer support and perpetuate themselves (or even human life for those who don't care about the cute and fuzzy bunnies) I would think would qualify as such a disaster.

Calling what we do as a natural result of that mutation is not on its face a true statement. It is a potential (and in fact the actual) result of that mutation, but to call it natural is to discard the fact that it was the result of certain decisions made. In fact there are still societies that "live lightly" on the land in ways that are not environmentally degrading, who are not living marginal existences (and in those cases where they are, it is most often due to external influence of other societies). These societies represent that road not taken.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

Regardless of your belief about the ORIGIN of life it's pretty hard to debunk evolution anymore.

For one thing, there are pretty serious indications the human species has evolved and continues to do so at a rapidly accelerating rate. Each generation is more intelligent than the last. Methods of education haven't significantly changed between generations. The information on standardized tests has been readily available as long as the standardized tests have been around, eliminating the internet as the culprit. Yet despite constant updating of standardized tests to make them more difficult, each generation yields more perfect scores than the last, and the average scores have raised... and believe me kids haven't all the sudden spontaneously started loving tests or school.

On another note, adaptation can certainly no longer be denied... many species have adapted in quite noticable ways in short periods of time, to that I don't think I need to list examples or provide any proofs, I think it's common knowledge. If species adapt over a short term, it's hard to debate that they adapt over the long term (Evolution).

And last but certainly not least, we have deciphered much of the code that makes a living thing (DNA of course) and we've found that code to be reused over and over again in different species, and also found equivelent code that was not the same in other species.

Now this could be interpreted a few different ways. I have trouble believing at least that an omnipotent creator would have any reason whatsoever or anything to gain from writting common libraries. If he did so, an omnipotent being could effortlessly do it with unqiue implementations, and interpret them effortlessly, therefore the only excuse would be to make it so someone else could eventually interpret them more easily... like us. Now if you think we were designed by more intelligent alien lifeforms, then perhaps the common libs would make more sense. Or the option I can think of, is that our current codes evolved from less numerous common bases and therefore share code that has not yet evolved (at least not evolved and survived).

So, our current knowledge of genetics indicates that (take your pick):

A. We were designed by an omnipotent God who gave us the intellect and intentionally made things easier for us to unravel and manipulate genetics.

B. We were designed by an alien lifeform that used common libraries in our design, and may or may not have intended for us to eventually unravel it.

C. We EVOLVE, and that various species have come from common root species.

D. Either A or B, in combination with C.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

"environmentally degrading"

That would depend on what you consider environmentally degrading. I would argue that evolution is self balancing. Evolution has destroyed ecosystems or parts thereof just as readily as we have.

What keeps it going is continuing to produce more randomness until eventually another mutation survives, either causing a change in the existing environment or learning to survive within it. Over time both happens, the changing elements cause the co-existing elements to fade away if they do not (by random chance) produce the right random evolution capable of coping with the change rapidly enough. Other changing elements appear and this happens over and over again.

Now of course individual creatures evolve and adapt differently (even within a single species, sometimes becoming different enough we'd call them another). Some of those individuals within the human species have adapted as (mostly) co-existing elements (of course it's not really true, even those "co-existing" actually change the environment a great deal, just more subtly). Some have adapted as changing elements, these may well expend the resources they and some of the other species depend on. Exactly how do you determine that the changing elements are somehow less natural than the co-existing ones? Even if we evolve ourselves out of existance and eliminate the resources we depend on, not everything depends on those resources. Even if we eliminate all life as we know it including ourselves (an unlikely scenerio, there are lifeforms on earth that could survive a climate change of pretty much any type we could foresee, freezing cold, or hot as lava, even extreme radiation.) Evolution and nature are not limited to our planet, they span the Universe.

George Carlin was cracking jokes of course when he said it, but he made a good point saying "Who the fuck are we to think we can save the planet?". The planet will likely be around long after us and any other species or even all life on it. And certainly any claim that our actions have significant impact on a Universal scale is absurd.

So how about we stop playing games pretending the terms "natural" and "unnatural" as they are actually commonly used (not as I've used them above) mean anything more or less or with less impact than "not done by man" and "done by man". In terms of being part of grand scheme and it's actions being "natural" then everything we do is certainly quite natural. If you accept that, then you also accept that your attempts prevent the demise of a species or certain eco system you prefer are every bit as "unnatural" as the actions you believe would destroy them. Either way, please don't fool yourself into genuinely believing that your actions can make or break the greater scheme of the Universe.

Think about what I've said and please realize the "balances" you speak of are merely temporary snapshots and that evolution WILL introduce a changing element and change (or destroy in view) in what to it is a brief period whether we are that element or not. All eco-systems are eventually broken and changed. That IS nature.

Who are we to kill off the fuzzy bunnies? We are evolutions archangel of death, it's the purpose for our existance as much as anything else we do.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

Each generation is more intelligent than the last.

hahahahahahahahaha

Re:Breeding is only one part

[rtaylor]

That said, being idiots and making our own lives difficult isn't very bright.

What I find quite funny is the number of people who simply don't realize that virtually nothing we eat is natural. Even animals that aren't genetically engineered have been in breeding programs for years.

I dare you to find bush of 1cm blueberries in the wild, or a wild cow that produces milk like a typical barnyard Holstein.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[erice]

Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.

We know that nature can handle "natural" disasters because it was handeling them long before we existed. Some natural disasters may even be necessary to keep the system operating. It isn't so clear with man made changes. There is a severe shortage of precident

Then there is the issue of biodiversity. Every extinction we cause means a species, a habitat, an ecosystem will no longer exist for us to study. All those solved problems that we will never know. Oh, nature is resiliant. It is almost certain that no matter how badly we fuck things up, nature and it's biodiversity will recover eventually. But nature is also slow. Many of us would rather not wait the millions of years that nature would take to recover from our abuses.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

> Many cannot deal with this thought for various
> reasons. Usually because their religion doesn't
> allow it. Religion vs. Science- nothing new here.

That's a pretty strange religion, then.
True religion, and true science mix perfectly.
(They complement each other)

Either way, aren't you looking for the truth?

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's it. That great big Godly state we call California is worried about what God thinks of glow-in-the-dark fish. It has nothing to do with ecologists.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply evolution at its best because man has evolved to the point of being able to control evolution itself.

Unfortunately man has a history of thinking that he knows more than he does when it comes to messing with nature, as illustrated by what has happened with many purposefully introduced non-native species. With GM you have the opportunity to create a species that is not native to anywhere on earth! Sure we won't "destroy" the earth, but we may make it less enjoyable to live upon.

Many cannot deal with this thought for various reasons. Usually because their religion doesn't allow it. Religion vs. Science- nothing new here

I don't really buy that as far as GM goes. Resistance to GM has been greatest in Europe, which seems to have less problem with other "moral" issues, e.g. abortion, drug use, etc. The more radical enviro groups don't seem to have any religious basis either.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[pardonne]

It's not a matter of nature does it v.s. we do it.
People are hesitant because it is new, and it is not clear that all genetically modified products are manufactured in "intelligently guided ways".

As more people learn about this stuff we will collectively know more, establish regulations, and you will be able to get your bloody fish from 7-11.

Pardonne

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Steeltoe]

The problem is that with genetical engineering we're in a downwards spiral. As the food gets worse and worse, it's already losing its minerals and vitamins at an alarming rate, so will we. "You become what you eat" is not just a phrase, after seven years most of the molecules that you would call 'you' are gone. People are already docile, engaging in stupid activities and destroying their own bodies.

Then there's no way to stop the madness and stupidity. Do you think you can outsmart evolution/God/whatever you want to call it? You don't even know WHO you really are, how can you control evolution? Tuning nature into serving our own selfish goals will only lead to our own destruction.

I just saw a site the other day: http://www.alternativescience.com. It may contain some interesting thoughts for you.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature.

It's because we are far more powerful than anything else. In other words, it is the our view that we are more intelligent than anything else on earth. What this means is that we can cause massive damage. For instance, it would be very difficult for nature or some other animal to kill off 90% of all 4-legged creatures on earth. Humans, in contrast, should be able to do that easily if we wanted to. Nature will take a long time to eliminate all vegetation in an area. We can do the same thing with a few nukes in a small amount of time. And so on. Human pollution is bad, not because we are the only ones doing it, but because it is far greater. If you plot things like sulfur emissions, or carbon dioxide, or toxic waste produced, and so on, you'll find that OUR actions have a noticeable effect. The graph will literally rise when humans started doing something (eg. you can see the industrial revolution as a big blip).

Anyway, all of this comes down to one assume hypothesis. It all boils down to whether you believe this or not. The thesis is, human survivability depends on OUR actions. If you believe that then we should watch OUR actions (because we are powerful and intelligent and can wipe ourselves out). If you don't believe it, then you can just assume that we are just animals and our actions are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Breeding is only one part

[fucksl4shd0t]

First, the jokes. :)

Each generation is more intelligent than the last.

Aha! So I am smarter than my parents. I thought so.

we've found that code to be reused over and over again

Aha! So God invented OOP, not Stroustrop as we previously thought.

Ok, more seriously:

You left out a significant possibility. Assume, for the moment, that the closer a group of people is to the source of all life on earth, the more likely they are to know the truth. Considering that omnipotent monotheism is actually a fairly new concept, and you insist on giving it some form of credibility, then we must give way to the idea that earlier civilizations might have a better chance at knowing the truth of matters.

First, it's pretty common knowledge that Greek and Roman mythology are parallel to one another. It's generally assumed that the first Romans were in fact Minoans or Myceneaens fleeing the Trojan Wars, or possibly Myceneaens who emigrated west during the Greek dark ages. Why then, are Greek and Egyptian mythology so similar? Not to mention that the Babylonians had a pantheon similar to both Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Furthermore, the other civilizations in the area shared similar pantheons, and when you go farther east you only find more of the same.

My point is, the possibility you haven't allowed for is the idea that very powerful, but not omnipotent, gods could have created all life on earth, in which case the use of statically-linked libraries would make a lot more sense. They'd start with their own genetics, if they had any, or they'd create genetics based on their own forms, and then proceed to start building. It's a process that could easily have taken millions of years before they achieved a sentient humanoid life form which would easily appear to be evolution to modern scientists.

After their apparent destruction (during the time of Legends, referenced by both well-known sources of mythological data as Time Bandits and Ultima II), the life took on its own form, and in order to survive, finally began to evolve as we know evolution to be.

Not that I endorse this possibility, but it's at least as credible as one omnipotent being creating the heavens and the earth and crap. Fiction is, after all, fiction. ;)

Re:Breeding is only one part

[fucksl4shd0t]

I think the problem is a bit deeper. The basic problem involves the idea that the "laws of physics" and the "laws of nature" are different sets of laws. They are, in fact, one and the same. You canna change the laws of physics, Cap'n. No matter what else we do, we can't break the laws of nature. That is the only thing that is impossible. We can break what we know to be the laws of nature, but that only means we didn't know the law (no excuse, of course, goto jail: anyway).

I have a hard time believe that my truck is "unnatural", because if it really and truly were "unnatural", it wouldn't run. It wouldn't work at all. How many inventions don't work? More than do, I'm afraid. :) Those that don't tried to break nature's law, and those that do work with nature's law.

Therefore, the only possible use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" can be to distinguish between "things man hasn't done" and "things man has done". But that's not good enough. What about reproduction? Every time you get laid, there's at least a small chance that you'll produce offspring who will affect the world. Is it unnatural for you to get laid? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. ;)

Take beavers as an excellent example. They build the big dam (yes, it's a God dam) and affect the environment more than any other animal on the planet (except for man, of course). Is that "natural"? It is something they do consciously. Is it natural or unnatural?

The meaning of the words "natural" and "unnatural" actually stem from religion. In more recent times, natural meant "in accordance with God's will" and unnatural went "work of the Devil".

If we throw off religion (generally a good idea anyway), then we're left with "natural" and "unnatural" having no practical meaning. Therefore, they fail as arguments against cloning, stem cell research (still the best place to find a cure for cancer), genetic engineering, and so forth. Fact is, if we genetically engineer a life-form that is unnatural, it'll just be another failed invention.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[antiMStroll]

Simple, man is able to transend the limitations of natural procreation. Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits. There's be less worry if you demonstrated the offspring of jellyfish humping tomato plants in the wild.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget, it's not like nature is an ordered and delicately balanced thing like some eco-freaks try to make out. ... When we do the same thing in intelligently guided ways it's called ecological disaster or pollution. Why is that? ... Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.

One only has to look down from 30,000 feet over any moderately populated (with people) area to see that humans are a natural, but cancerous, mutation.

Sorry buddy, but that's what we are as far as the planet Earth is concerned. We can't even stop our own growth.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[williwilli]

While I think you make a valuable point, one that many people would do well to seriously consider, I think it also worth mentioning that most creatures we are aware of do not build supercolliders. Our understanding of the Universe is perhaps minimal at best, and while physicists may believe the possibility of creating a universe-destroying effect as a result of supercollider experimentation to be small, there are of course numerous examples throughout history of scientists being surprised and astounded at experiment results that they considered 'unlikely'. I'm not necessarily suggesting stopping all supercollider experimentation. But perhaps it is just as naive to believe that we _cannot_ affect the entire universe, as it is to believe it's likely that we can do so.

free music downloads, games, discussion, recipes, and a lot of other crap at earth2willi.com

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

We are evolutions archangel of death, it's the purpose for our existance as much as anything else we do.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. We have evolved to where we can remove entire continental rainforests, use nukes to eliminate coral reefs, and spray U238 particles over vast areas of land to reduce animal populations, and that's what we should do. If we shouldn't do that, then we wouldn't be able to. If planes shouldn't be flown into skyscrapers, it wouldn't have been possible to build them. It's all just nature.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

"Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits."

Where on earth did you get that idea? Natural mutations are as random as the randomly mutated ability to mutate.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[bogado]

You forget that the impact that we humans have in nature is not in any measure mild. The number of species that have disapeared since we measured this stuff is very high. We have an effect in almost all the eco-systems existent in the world.

Off course we are in fact a random event in nature, but since we can measure our attitudes, why not try to co-operate with nature, instead of simply kill every eco-system we see?

Re:Breeding is only one part

[hesiod]

> Sure we won't "destroy" the earth, but we may make it less enjoyable to live upon.

And conversely, we may make it MORE enjoyable. The automatic fear of the unknown is usually unjustified, and there's (theoretically) a 50/50 split on whether any given action would be good or bad.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[hesiod]

> > "Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits."
> Where on earth did you get that idea?

Well, compared to infinite possibilities, nature is pretty tightly determined. For instance, the chance that a fish will grow a foot containing a 3-foot wide eyeball that shoots Pez candies from the center is unlikely -- I would even venture to say statistically impossible. It IS, however, within the realm of infinite possibilities (the !NULL set?) for that to happen.
With infinite possibilities, every action has an equal chance to occur as any other action. On Earth, that is not so. Certain things simply cannot be.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Zeriel]

Radical Environmentalism is just as faith-based as any other religion, regardless of whether it's monotheistic or even has gods at all.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Zeriel]

The more radical environmental groups ARE religions. Consider: They ignore facts and debate over facts (irradiated food dangers), despise anything that might help that isn't in their narrow band of solutions (nuclear vs. coal power, vs. solar or wind for one), have subjective beliefs as facts ("nature", whatever that is, is more important and seperate from humans), have creeds that may or may not be based in reality (human engineering is always stupider than nature, even if nature is random)...

Just because they're not theistic doesn't mean they're not a religion.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[hesiod]

> We can't even stop our own growth.

Is that why the population has started declining in some areas? Such as parts of Europe?

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Planesdragon]

This is simply evolution at its best because man has evolved to the point of being able to control evolution itself.

Control? Really. Wow. And here I thought we were just making a few specific alterations that we hoped would influenced organisms. Nope, we're controlling evolution now--so, when do we all become beautiful tolerate persons will full heads of hair and optimum body fat?

Many cannot deal with this thought for various reasons. Usually because their religion doesn't allow it. Religion vs. Science- nothing new here.

Bullocks.

Newton was tried as a heretic because he was--above and beyond saying that the sun is the center of the universe.

Furthermore, a very good case can be made that the Age of Reason was kindled and sparked by religion, not in spite of it.

On a more personal note: I have no theological objections whatsoever to man altering the DNA of any of God's creatures, or even man himself. We've been doing the same thing for generations anyway; this is just more direct and far-reaching.

That said, I do think that a bit of caution over the legal and biological consequences of genetic engineering is warranted. The last thing anyone wants is some freak bio-engineered corn or rice strain propogating and infecting the entire world's crop with a product that can't be sold without a "frankenfood" label and a royalty to a chem lab somewhere.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

Apparently you missed the point. Killing every eco-system we see is cooperating with nature every bit as much as not. By supporting one form of life you kill another, or another potential life. There is NO right answer, no action is better or worse than another from natures perspective. Nature does not prefer green grass to desert wasteland.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

Kind of like the odds of a beetle that shoots fire out his arse eh?

What seems likely to us is that which is close to the possiblities which HAVE resulted from this random grinder, had different results occured and lived for us to discover we'd have completely different ideas. If the fish with a 3 foot wide eyeball shooting pez were something that existed it would be the beetle shooting fire out it's arse we'd argue was statistically impossible.

For all we know such a fish could have occured somewhere within the galaxy, but it wouldn't be likely to survive.

Granted the laws of physics apply, but the laws of physics really don't limit much. Everytime we find something to be impossible physically, we find out there is another way that IS valid within the laws of physics that would make the task possible.

For instance we though nobody could travel faster than light, the truth is, nobody can accelerate to a speed greater than that of light, but thanks to quantum teleportation we know physics does not bar something from going from one place to another and getting there before light would have been able to traverse the distance. Physics isn't much of a limitation at all. Nothing truely defies physics (even if it defies physics as we understand them, it's very existance changes physics as we understand them).

However the possiblities that exist without violating the laws of physics are so innumerable as to be practically infinate. And physics itself could be argued to be merely the universal produce of evolution.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[bogado]

Nature, if you like that, does not, but certainly life prefers the earth to venus. Much of the life we know and love need some kind of balance, I do think that to tip this balance is required an enormous effort, but humanity is taking this effort.

Even if we kill all humans, life can go on. Even if we kill all living creatures in the earth, nature will go on. Is that what we want???

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Slime-dogg]

I doubt that it's a religious issue. Many people attach an emotional argument to the situation, then extrapolate it to the extreme. They're worried that we're going to try genetically engineering humans next, and whatever.

My religion, Christianity, doesn't really define anything in this realm. It's pretty explicit in the Bible that man has dominion over the animals. Of course, there's the problem of some wacko thinking that he's God because he can inject a gene into a cell, but that's a personal issue, not societal.

If history is brought up with examples of religion vs. science, the best thing to do is to point to the "religion" and ask whether or not what the leaders are saying is actually founded in their theology, if it's founded in their fears, or if it's founded in their complete departure from their theology. The greatest heretics of all time were probably leaders of the church.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Slime-dogg]

You have to ask yourself whether it matters or not. If there's one less species to study, big deal. The species is gone, and we're not going to learn much about how it's going to interact with nature in the future.

Mankind has done far less to this world than natural disasters have. There have been floods which have wiped out 98% of all life on this planet. Temperatures have risen at various times, ice ages have formed, etc.

There's nothing that we can do, save nuking everything on the face of the Earth, which can not be corrected in time. Hell, even if we did nuke everything on Earth, there'd probably be some strain of something that manages to survive and thrive.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Syrrh]

(-1, trolled)
How exactly is this gengineered food 'worse'? How is the molecular structure of something changed just because it went through some spooky unnatural process? I fail to see the dilemma in normal chemistry that results from you eating something, processing it, and then discarding it after its usefulness is depleted so that something else can use the components.

Do you think you can outsmart evolution/God/whatever you want to call it?
NO. Jesus. (oops...)
It's like building a sports car, just with different materials involved. Is steel manufacturing blasphemous because it interferes with the planet's naturally occuring iron ore? The only modification is that you're messing with living things that have to directly deal with the consequences of your actions. Don't bitch because we made glowing fish, but if it turns out they develop horrible tumors or halved lifespans or severe mental distress at the awful colors, then there's a valid moral conflict.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[shaitand]

I'm not exactly advocating mass nuclear war destroying all life on earth here. What I'm saying is that we will destroy eco-systems on various levels and other species if we choose various aspects of them protect, every bit as much as if we don't and go on with our lives. There is a difference between not walking on eggshells and exterminating life on earth.

Re:Breeding is only one part

[Anonymous Coward]

the only way religion and science can mix is if you're selectively objective, believing and disbelieving what helps you sleep better at night. religion is just a way of coping with unanswered questions and emotional insecurities that weak-minded people have invented, metaphorically pulling a blanket over their heads. understandably (but pathetically so), they get upset when science tries to pull off the blanket and make them smell the roses. needless to say i hate weak and stupid people, i.e. the large majority of people.

So long, and thanks for all the (glowing) fish...

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for my plan to use fish as a night light.

OMFG FISH ON TEH SPOKE!!!!!!11111

[Anonymous Coward]

EXCLAMATION POINT

Alternativly

[rf0]

Catch your fish from near the Springfield nuclear power plant and they have 3 eyes. Surely very good for you :)

Rus

When glowfish are outlawed,

[djh101010]

...only outlaws will have glowfish.

All the more for me

[howlatthemoon]

I was just looking for a place to buy some for the tank in my lab. We have zebrafish researchers down the hall how thought the idea was silly. Since they would not make them for me, I need to go buy them...bastards.

Other applications of this technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not much of a fish lover. However, I'd really like to have snow-white glow-in-the-dark poodle. Deep down, I'm basically dog lover. Seems within a year or two it could be doable.

Genegineered?

[Anonymous Coward]

I shall now proceed to caffeineer myself. Thank you.

Grammar nazi.

Re:Genegineered?

[smack_attack]

Google, please define: genegineer.

Beep boop boop bip boop... beep.

"I'm sorry Dave, you're just making shit up."

Many varieties of fish fluoresce naturally

[Mouth of Sauron]

But I think some Fluorescent Mice would be neat-o keen!

Re:Many varieties of fish fluoresce naturally

[pi eater]

Why stop there? How about glow-in-the-dark humans???

Would make walking around at night a hell of a lot safer

webmaster shirts and more

Isn't all corn genitically modified?

[dmonkey]

I thought the only non-engineered corn on the planet existed in Mayan tombs. I know we do a ton of genetic engineering to make most of our modern day veggies so what's the big deal? Technophobia, running amok...

Re:Isn't all corn genitically modified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. There is a big difference between genetically engineered and engineered.

Re:Isn't all corn genitically modified?

[teamhasnoi]

Corn and many other genetically modified vegatables do not breed true, IIRC. Which means that GM corn, if left to its own devices will lose its GM traits over time and be a *weaker* plant as a result.

Sure, doesn't matter now, but a breakdown in civilization could lead to loss of the knowledge to create our 'new and improved' corn and eventually end in widespread starvation, as native plants are 'contaminated'.

IIRC, /. had a article on this about 8-10 months ago - how even the Mayan corn (grown locally for thousands of years) has been contaminated with Starlink genes.

This is very off the top of my head, so forgive me if I am in error.

Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for yet another typo in a /. headline! I really enjoy your editing capabilities.

Banning the sale, sure...

[arashiakari]

But what about the /donation/ of genetically modified fish?

What about internet sales, isn't that interstate commerce?

Oh Me! Me!

[blunte]

More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[crawling_chaos]

More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)

Get pregnant?

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[d3faultus3r]

Considering the majority of /. readers are male, chances are you'd need to do quite a bit of modification(though not necessarily genetic).

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[JesseL]

Have sex with Shannen Doherty in an elevator?

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[Feztaa]

Considering the majority of /. readers are male, chances are you'd need to do quite a bit of modification

It's been done.

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[limekiller4]

Blunte writes:
"More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)"

Get laid? =)

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[ocelotbob]

I'm too lazy to google right now, but apparently from what I understand, it's actually medically possible right now for a male to get pregnant. All you would really need to do is to carefully administer the hormones to approximate a pregnant woman, but such hormonal modifications have been done for decades now. It would be dangerous, and would definitely need to be delivered by a caesarian section, but google for extra-uterine pregnancies and you'll see that female parts aren't needed, though it is definitely a good idea to have the girly bits in place, because otherwise the pregnancies become pretty dangerous.

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[SimianOverlord]

Virus vector, luciferase enzyme, repeated doses. For best results, pick a vector that infects the cells of blood vessels - hey presto, glow in the dark veins.

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to, but how does it make ya glow..? :)

Re:Oh Me! Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived near TMI (Three Mile Island) all my life. I can attest to the fact that:

a) What happened was not lethal

b) I can use my hand at night as a low-power flashlight

Also great during blackouts!

They're wrong

[cephyn]

They blocked it on the basis of a moral argument. It is not the Dept of Fish and Game Commission's job to block the sale of genetically modified fish on a moral argument. They completely disregarded all scientific facts surrounding the situation.

As a CA resident and fish hobbyist, I wrote them a letter expressing my displeasure. No matter how I feel about genetically modified fish, it simply wasn't right to make their decision the way they did.

Re:They're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

They completely disregarded all scientific facts surrounding the situation.

That has never stopped governments before!

Re:They're wrong

[baileytal]

They blocked it on the basis of a moral argument. It is not the Dept of Fish and Game Commission's job to block the sale of genetically modified fish on a moral argument. They completely disregarded all scientific facts surrounding the situation.

And why is it not the Commission's "job" to block the sale on a moral argument? Do the legislation or regulations specifically preclude moral considerations, i.e. "The Commission shall not consider any argument not directly related to scientific data?" Usually, these decisions are based on questions like "do the regulations prohibit this", "does this pose an unreasonable threat to the status quo" or "is this in the public interest?" Sure, Commissioners might have found moral arguments persuasive, but they probably have the jurisdiction to be persuaded. If decisions were made solely on numbers, then there would be no power of discretion, and no reason for any sort of decision-making process (i.e. the numbers would make the decision).

Re:They're wrong

[cephyn]

Their Mission Statement:
The Mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

The Department of Fish and Game maintains native fish, wildlife, plant species and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and their benefits to people. This includes habitat protection and maintenance in a sufficient amount and quality to ensure the survival of all species and natural communities. The department is also responsible for the diversified use of fish and wildlife including recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses.

Nope, morality control is not their job. This fish has been demonstrated to NOT be a threat to the CA wildlife, is perfectly safe for 49 other states and the Federal Government. This fish is the first (that I know of) publicly available GM pet. I see that has having EXTENSIVE positive recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses.

But the commission is apparently too squeamish to see that, and said no. Even though they could use this fish's existence to further the ideals in their mission statement. It's sad, really.

Re:They're wrong

[baileytal]

OK. I am missing something here. Where is the issue of the morality of the decision relevant to the discharge of the responsibilities you listed? Perhaps you're reading their mandate from the wrong direction. There is no argument of morality necessary to prohibit something. They simply have to justify the decision in the terms of their enabling legislation -- in this case the safety of the environment and resources. It may be pretty anomolous in the face of the other jurisdictions, but that's the way it goes when you have 50 independent jurisdictions. Maybe those other jusrisdictions have different laws. Maybe the pro-glowfish folks there made better arguments. Maybe the environment is mostly unregulated in some of those jurisdictions. If you want glowing animals to be legal in California, the easiest way to ensure it is to have a law passed that permits them. You're going to have to address the "morality" argument at some point, though, so being dismissive of it is just asking to be beaten by it again and again.

Re:They're wrong

[Jeffery McGrew]

Oh yeah, but they were dead-on about those Ferrets. Yup. Bound to get loose, breed like crazy, and cause untold disaster. Yup. They would, uhhh, eat the freeways. or something.

It's not like the Fish and Game department is really an example of a shining beacon of intelligence. There are more Ferret owners in California than in most places, even though they are illegal here. Heck Petco has a whole isle devoted to the little bastards. You can get food, toys, cages, medicine... oh but you can't own a Ferret. It's like being in a Head shop amougst the bongs.

Anyways, if 'untold disaster' would have happened if they got loose, it would have happened by now, yet Ferrets are still illegal. Even people trying to overturn the law try every year and fail every year. Just means that they are smuggled into the state, sometimes treated inhumanely, encourages improper breeding (ala puppyfarming), have a hard time getting to a vet, and just makes the Ferrets, the state, and the Ferret owners more misrable because a state agency is unable to admin it's completely wrong.

Not like Drugs, Tho. Those just ain't in California, for it's illegal. Cause untold disaster. Yup.

Re:They're wrong

[JK Master-Slave]

If you want glowing animals to be legal in California, the easiest way to ensure it is to have a law passed that permits them.

You've got things backwards.

Legislation is never needed to make something 'legal.' Generally legislation is used to make something illegal. By default, all acts of citizens in a free state are permitted. To set a trend otherwise, i.e. to say 'unless the state gives explicit permission, it is forbidden to do so-and-so' runs against the entire political culture of the United States.

Re:They're wrong

[baileytal]

So what do you now that glowing animals are not permitted? The Commission didn't pass any laws -- they just declined to give permission. Where does that power come from? Is this decision by the state government ultra vires?

It looks like a permit scheme to me.

Re:They're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, havin' them black folk on busses with white people just ain't right! Now I know there ain't any scientific reasoning making us any diff'rent from black folk, but this kind of thing just ain't somethin' I'm gonna decide on today, no sir. I do have my own set of morals at work here, ya see? And I figger most honest Californians also share them morals too. So you can pack yer "logic" and "reas'ning" and take 'em back to Nevada where they're nuttin but depraved heathens over there, ya hear? In my guv'ment, we ain't gonna have no black folk sharin' busses with white folk, it's just a case of simple morals.

Re:This is stupid

[Vedanti]

Do you mean Gropanator ... ?

So how do I get these on the Internet?

[unassimilatible]

Of course we Californians can can always buy these on the Net, but these fish are tropical, in need of a certain temp and oxygenated water. How the hell do they ship these things? I want some of these for the new year.

This bodes very ill for my hopes for a glow-in-the-dark cat.

So... let me get this straight

[Oriumpor]

You just can't BUY them in california. It doesn't say that posession of them is illegal. So I guess for any entrepeneur in nevada/oregon who sell tax free cigarrettes they will now also have tax free glowfish.

how is this so wrong?

[d3faultus3r]

Throughout human history, we've modified the appearance and behavior of living things through less drastic methods. Since the beginning of civilization we've done that through selective breeding of livestock and plants. There is nothing innately wrong with genetic modification, though, like all technologies, it can be misused.

To condemn a technology on the claim it is tampering with life is a flimsy stance. We've been tampering with life forever and no one has complained. It's just that now it's more readily apparent.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[centauri]

We've been tampering with life forever and no one has complained.

Perhaps this is because those who would most like to complain have already been stung to death by swarms of human-bred killer bees.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[bigmouth_strikes]

> There is nothing innately wrong with genetic modification, though, like all technologies, it can be misused.

> To condemn a technology on the claim it is tampering with life is a flimsy stance

They are not stopping, banning or condemning the technology. They're stopping the results from using the technology, which is quite common if you think about it.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[myc]

from a moral standpoint I agree with you. However, technologically, there is a aignificant difference between cross-breeding and introducing heterologous transgenes from different species. With cross-breeding, the parental species are similar enough that the hybrid progeny are not really THAT different, and obstensibly present far less risk, environmentally or ecologically (although the risk still exists). Transgenic animals, on the other hand, are an unknown, because the transgene is being put into a context that is completely foreign. It's analogous to, say, "contaminating" Mars with Earth microbes on space probes. Can we reasonably conclude that earth microbes will not have an effect on the Mars environment, given that there isn't much environment on Mars to start out with? Probably. But we still play it safe and don't land properly quarantined spacecraft on Mars. One would think that we'd be more careful with releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment that we actually inhabit.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throughout human history, we've blown things up through less drastic methods. Since the beginning of civilization we've done that through gunpowder. There is nothing innately wrong with nuclear weapons, though, like all technologies, they can be misused.

To condemn a technology on the claim it is potentially dangerous is a flimsy stance. We've blowing things up forever and no one has complained. It's just that now it's more readily apparent.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[tommy_teardrop]

Perhaps a better example would be the introduction of non-native animals into the 'new' world. By transporting creatures like Rabbits, Rats, Horses, Dogs and Camels, the colonial visitors have managed to devestate the large majority of life native to places like Austrailia. Now, I'm not saying there is a direct analogue between that and genetic modification, but it is definately something that we should be worried about. It's not Ludditism, but anti-radical colonism.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[(void*)]

I agree, but I don't like your claim that there is nothing innately wrong with genetic modification, that what is wrong is how it is used.

We don't seem to have formulated any ethical principles or guidelines AT ALL in judging genetic research. We have reactionary people pulling "rules" out of their asses like "No stem cell research" and "no human cloning" without considering the political realities and context. I am frightened by THAT. I am also frightened by genetic engineering and what it can do, but my fear of the former (which have turned out to be true) overrides the latter.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[shaitand]

The only thing that confuses me, is WHY DO WE CARE IF WE ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT OF MARS??? Is our goal to be the first product of nature that doesn't leave a lasting impact (for better or worse) as is perfectly natural (and arguably, if there were a purpose, it would probably be the purpose of) for any of natures completely random mutations?

Re:how is this so wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia seriously needs to import something that will do away with all those venomous snakes.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[Squiffy]

We want to be sure that if we find life on Mars, *we* weren't the ones who put it there in the first place.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[the argonaut]

One person's reactionary is another person's visionary.

The reality is that the rules being "pulled out of their asses" are all about the political realities and context.

The problem I think is that most researchers (and their corporate overlords) who are pursuing genetic research are not being guided by any ethical principles other than "can we do this?" (researchers) or "can we make money off of this?" (the corporate overlords). I would argue that most of those pushing for no human cloning or no stem cell research have far more of an ethical principle for why they are opposing these practices (although I don't agree with their principles, most of it being biblically or otherwise religiously based).

The primary ethical consideration should be "what are the consequences of doing this?", and economic considerations should either be disregarded or at least de-emphasized to allow other impacts (environmental, sociological, etc.) to be fully considered. As an aside, this is what I think the main point of "Jurassic Park" was, something that seems to be lost on most people (especially those who just saw the movie) or disregarded by most of the geek demographic.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[echucker]

Throughout human history, we've modified the appearance and behavior of living things through less drastic methods.

Hmm.... Silicone, saline, and botox immediately come to mind... especially in California. But that's OK. Go figure.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[shaitand]

Why? I mean seriously, what difference does it make? If there are primative lifeforms on Mars I don't really see how it makes a difference in the greater scheme of things. It's statistically impossible that there be no other life of some sort in the Universe. Hell it's statistically impossible that there be no other INTELLIGENT life in the Universe.

Wouldn't it be of more real significance to find out whether or not primative life CAN live on mars than whether or not it's already there? If we find out whether or something CAN live there, we know if we should ask WHAT and HOW. Possibly gaining insight into how we might accomplish it or use it to our advantage.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Perhaps this is because those who would most like to complain have already been stung to death by swarms of human-bred killer bees.

yeah, but apparently they generated this page for me so I guess it is OK.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[Squiffy]

Good point. I don't know for sure how to answer that.

I have an idea, though. Scientists are of course very interested in knowing whether or in what form life exists out there. However, even intelligent guesswork is nearly impossible because we have only one example a life-bearing planet. If we find life on Mars, it would shed a lot of light on the question. However, if we affected the Martian biosphere in some important way, we'd lose a very precious thing: an ecology that developed independently of Earth. All the value gained by studying the similarities and differences between the two biospheres, of being able to study those lifeforms as they existed before our intervention, would be lost forever. We couldn't ever get it back.

On the other hand, if we leave it alone, we can always reproduce the Martian environment in the laboratory. It wouldn't be perfect but we could make it just about as close as we like.

I think the argument of the powers that be is basically that we need to gather knowledge about the place before we go stomping around over there. History is full of examples to support that philosophy.

Re:how is this so wrong?

[(void*)]

One person's reactionary is another person's visionary.

The reality is that the rules being "pulled out of their asses" are all about the political realities and context.

You see, you seem to be caught in a bind here. Either you think the laws are badly thought out, or they are farsighted. You can't have it both ways.

Evidently, you don't think much about the reasons reasoned from religious POV. I agree with your first two proposed ethical principles: "What are the consequences" and "pecuniary considerations are secondary". There are more. And those guys making the rules should be taught how to reason so.

Just the first

[DaytonCIM]

Get used to it folks. We're going to see many, many more genetically engineered pets in the very near future. And many of the /. audience will clamor to own the first and strangest.

Re:Just the first

[pi eater]

Pets? Man..

I want a genetically engineered *girlfriend*. When can science give me one of those?

webmaster shirts and more

Re:Just the first

[promethean_spark]

And CA won't be able to ban them. The whole genetically engineered fish law was brought about to prevent genetically modified salmon being farmed off the coast, where they might escape and crossbreed with wild salmon.

Choosing to enforce this law on tropical fish is silly since there are no wild zebrafish in CA for them to pollute the genes of.

But appearantly the law applies only to FISH, so glowing hamsters, geckos, llamas and interns are all still kosher. Possibly when faced with the glowing llamas, some bureaucrat will pull his head from hit butt.

BTW, CA bans several tropical fish due to the danger of them becoming invasive. Remember the snakehead fiasco in the southeast last year?

Re:Just the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush co. needs to come up with a war equivalent for the retards that would clamor for such things so that they can become 'heroes'(aka die).

Re:Just the first

[benzapp]

I just hope I get a nice genetically engineered human substitute female sex slave, who can't speak but can follow orders.

Re:Just the first

[ElektroHolunder]

But will it be called Petmodding or Warbreeding?

And why not?

[r_j_prahad]

Hell, don't they already have a genetically engineered governor?

Re:And why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

genetically engineered or cybernetically enhanced? :D

Re:And why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod this up

Re:And why not?

[bandy]

Nah, just a result of better breeding during the mid-20th century and better steroid therapy during the latter half of the last century.

Re:This is stupid

[gl4ss]

yeah but didn't you watch '6th day'???

clearly arnold just wants to protect himself from that horrible scenario!

or maybe it's the twins..
.

maybe it's just because i watched the arnold clone movie mad tv clip.

Pinhead luddite fish commissioner

[Anonymous Coward]

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

Says it all.

Re:Pinhead luddite fish commissioner

[Anonymous Coward]

S'okay, we won't let him breed either.

IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be less worried about whether or not you can genetically modify a fish and more concerned about the ambiguity behind:

"Federal agencies have decided they have no jurisdiction over a bio-engineered household pet that is not intended for consumption."

I'm no PETA member, far from it -- I love a good steak -- but this could open up into a serious mess. What's going to happen when genetically modified cats, dogs, birds, fruit bats, orangutans, ad naseum, become the new trend?

Re:IMO

[Kevitt]

What's going to happen when genetically modified cats, dogs, birds, fruit bats, orangutans, ad naseum, become the new trend?

We'll have some fun for a change?

Re:IMO

[Celandro]

They already are. Its not like my miniature pincure is a big bad hyena now is it? And your tabby sure aint no tiger (or whatever the hell they started with).

I really dont see what the big deal is with glowing fish. Worst case you have to make sure the trout you eat doesnt glow in the dark before you cook it ;)

Re:IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's going to happen when genetically modified cats, dogs, birds, fruit bats, orangutans, ad naseum, become the new trend?"

uh. they ALREADY ARE.

cats, dogs, birds, etc have been heavily genetically engineered through selective breeding. go to any pet show -- youll see genetically engineered freaks you'd never see in nature. but nobody complains about "frankenpets" there.

so why should there be a difference when it's performed in a laboratory?

Re:IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

"And your tabby sure aint no tiger".... but it will be

Re:IMO

[NSash]

I'm no PETA member, far from it -- I love a good steak -- but this could open up into a serious mess. What's going to happen when genetically modified cats, dogs, birds, fruit bats, orangutans, ad naseum, become the new trend?

More imporantly, who cares? Seriously, that is the most trivial reservation about genetic engineering that I've heard -- and I've heard some pretty silly ones.

Re:IMO

[ifwm]

"Its not like my miniature pincure"

Ok I have a nitpick. It's "pinscher" and, it's really a chihuahua that you got overcharged for.

Thank God it's not about science

[mungtor]

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

I'm nearly at a loss for words. It stupidity that oozes from that sentence is frightening.

"I have no idea what this is about, by my knee-jerk response is no" would have been a more succinct way of putting it.

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[cephyn]

I totally agree...It's shocking that the commission only hours before approved of genetic research, but then outlaws a practical application of said research basically because "doggone, thats creepy!"

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[djtack]

It stupidity that oozes from that sentence is frightening.

I don't necessarily disagree with their decision to ban the glowfish, but that is a horribly stupid non-reason. I could accept something more like "The glowfish pose an unknown, potentially serious risk to the environment, and I think taking such risks for something frivalous and ornamental is wrong." But saying it's not about science... is just absurd. I'd tolerate that kind of statement from the pope, but not a fish and game commisioner.

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[Avumede]

That's a strange way of interpreting what he said, He said "it's not a question of science", but you interpret this as "I have no idea what this is about". It sounds like you are the one having a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[foniksonik]

What if it was a 20 legged dog? or a cat with two heads? Although given the state of genetic engineering in our livestock I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on... as far as values go.

I think his reason is the best reason possible... to approve this would be setting a precedent for genetically engineered pets. Where does it stop?

he's still a hypocrite though. "Oh yeah it's fine for the animals we eat but you better not do anything to poor defenseless pet animals.."

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[mungtor]

Since the only way the potential threat value of the fish could be evaluated is through science, banning the fish and stating that "it's not a question of science" shows that he doesn't even understand what the problems could be. That leads me to believe that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

It's almost as if somebody in the FDA decided to ban penicillin because man was interfering with God's plan or something. Would you think that was an elightened and informed decision?

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[Avumede]

But he was clear that he was making a decision based on moral, not scientific principles. A moral decision is always the correct one - and that moral decision can take into account science. Morality is a question of weighing the good and the bad. Banning penicillin would have a lot of downside and not much upside. Banning these fish has no serious downside - that's why it's possible to base a decision on abstract ideals such as not interfering with nature.

Re:Thank God it's not about science

[mungtor]

Good point. I guess I want to think more in terms of "It's OK if it isn't bad" than in "It's only OK if it's good".

Re:This is stupid

[happyfrogcow]

Ein State. Ein Hummer. Ein Arnold.

i'm pretty sure he received more than one "hummer" in his life... "ein" does mean "one", right? and hummer does mean b.j., right? ;)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Boy oh boy!

[musingmelpomene]

Those "agricultural checkpoints" as you cross the state line into California just got more fun.

"Do you have any fruits or vegetables or seeds?"

"No."

"Well, how about genetically engineered fish?"

"Aw, crap...I mean, NO!"

"We're going to have to search your car. Please get out of the vehicle."

Ethics? What ethical problem is there.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different than breeding dogs, cats, koi, or geraniums? We have beeen doing this for centuries. Or decades if you are an idiot creationist. It is still just artificial manipulation of a species for the benefit of man! Duh.

Anyway, the fish are pretty cool looking.

Dude, you're getting a Beowolf

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine a beowolf cluster of Californias!!!

Re:Dude, you're getting a Beowolf

[falcon5768]

eh California is one big jump on the bandwagon of the month Beowolf cluster... Like so many on /. have said before, Maynard said it best!!!! "I sure could use a vacation from this bullshit three ring circus sideshow of Freaks here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA The only way to fix it is to flush it all away. Any fucking time. Any fucking day. Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay."

Psst...

[temojen]

"Indians" were cross breeding corn with corn. Transgenic canola cross-breeds canola with fish. The transgenic canola is patented. Canola, whether transgenic or not has airborne pollen. So neighbours of farmers with transgenic crops have been sued for patent violation for planting their own seed.

Re:Psst...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear God! You Mean These Fish Can Go Airborne?!?

Re:Psst...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and they're breeding with the corn!

Re:Psst...

[addaon]

Canola. What a great name. Like chilean sea bass.

(Hint: They're both marketing names. Why did the marketroids think we'd not buy rapeseed, and argentinian toothfish?)

Re:Psst...

[replicant108]

IMHO, the IP contamination issue is similar in many ways to the threat posed by software patents to OSS.

I'm surprised more Slashdotters don't see the parallel.

Re:Psst...

[adrianbaugh]

In the latter case, because the Argentinian toothfish is under threat from severe overfishing. Don't eat it!

Re:Psst...

[mohaine]

Now I'm confused. Does this mean we should ban open source?

Re:Psst...

[kfg]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but you couldn't market it for shit.

A computer mouse doesn't look like a mouse. It looks like a rat.

The one that gets me are "scallops" that are actually punched out of skate wings. That isn't just marketing speak, it's fradulant.

KFG

California border patrol

[NomadRaven]

They already have people at the state borders searching cars for illegal, out-of-state fruit and vegetables. Maybe they'll just outlaw out-of-state fish unless it's brought in on a commercial vehicle and certified.

Especially the Master and Slave fish.

[Alcimedes]

Because you just can't be too careful, no Master and Slave fish either!!!

Re:Especially the Master and Slave fish.

[JK Master-Slave]

I choose to flip-flop on that issue, dude.

Re:Especially the Master and Slave fish.

[kid-noodle]

You bastard! Now somebody will see this and start marketing GM fish which have leather instead of scales and a teeny whip...

Think of the children! (Who will all want them for Christmas)

hold your horses everyone

[webtre]

California blocks sales of 'Glofish' pets

Thursday, December 4, 2003 Posted: 10:13 AM EST (1513 GMT)

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Citing ethical concerns, state regulators Wednesday refused to allow sales of the first bio-engineered household pet, a zebra fish that glows fluorescent. GloFish are expected to go on sale everywhere else next month.

California is the only state with a ban on genetically engineered species, and the Fish and Game Commission said it would not exempt the zebra fish from the law even if escaped fish would not pose a threat to the state's waterways.

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

The 3-1 vote came moments after commissioners approved the state's 14th license for research into genetically modified fish. But commissioners drew the line on permitting widespread sales of a biotech fish for pure visual pleasure.

The normally black-and-silver zebra fish were inserted with genes from sea anemones or jellyfish to turn them red or green, and glow under black or ultraviolet lights.

Federal agencies have decided they have no jurisdiction over a bio-engineered household pet that is not intended for consumption.

Given California's extensive review, proponents had looked to its approval to dampen any concerns from other states or consumers that the fish might be harmful to the environment or if consumed by wayward pets or children.
'An abuse of the power we have over life'

Opponents view the decision as precedent-setting as they lobby for regulation on the national level.

Yorktown Technologies of Texas, which has the license to market the fish, and the state of Florida, in which the fish are grown, argued before the commission that the altered fish tolerate cold less than natural zebra fish, and they could not survive in California waters.

Environmental and public interest groups and commercial fishermen argued that the fish have been found to survive outside their native waters.

California residents buy 25 million ornamental fish a year, an eighth of the 200 million sold across the nation, Yorktown President Alan Blake said. He estimated that Californians might have bought two million of the genetically altered fish each year.

California adopted its regulations for fear genetically modified farmed fish, such as salmon, could get loose and devastate the state's wild populations.

Commissioners balked Wednesday even after acknowledging Californians could readily buy the fish in any neighboring state and bring them home.

"Welcome to the future. Here we are, playing around with the genetic bases of life," Schumchat said. "At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet.

"To me, this seems like an abuse of the power we have over life, and I'm not prepared to go there today."

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Science need not apply

[ehollas]

The telling quote is right at the top of the article:

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

So we see the naked core of the environmentalists. This is not about science, it's about imposing their values on the rest of us. Even though 99% of earth creatures have died in past extinctions, the one's living now are the right ones. Why is it that nature can alter her specie mix, but man cannot do the same? Environmentalists must really believe in the intrinsic value of the earth. Most holy wars have been fought over irreconcilable intrinsic values.

Re:Science need not apply

[cgranade]

To be sure this is a great candidate for a -1, Flamebait, but I just have to respond.
Wonderful. Choose one choice quote and use it to bash an entire spectrum of political activists. I mean, who died and made this commisioner mouthpiece for all environmentalists? Plus, he has a point, even if it is worded horribly. By that I mean that there is, above and beyond the scientific concern a base fear of the potential for this shit to hit the fan. Just like Einstein's opposition to the A-Bomb wasn't purely for scientific reasons.

Re:Science need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein was not a scientist! He was an eco-terrorist like all the rest of you.

Darwin, "Jesus Fish", and genetic engineering....

[flinxmeister]

There's gotta be a joke in there somewhere.

More importantly

[commodoresloat]

Will this fish help me socialize with my mp3 player?

Re:More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, that was funny ...

Re:More importantly

[Hooded One]

Only if it plays Ogg Vorbis as well.

Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[i_r_sensitive]

I mean unless you want to neuter a billion fish...

Sure, the geneticists can claim that they could "turn on" sterility in the target animal/plant genome. But that begs the conundrum:

If one modification can have unintended consequences than all of them can. If neither can have unintended consequences, why bother with the safeguard?

Okay, it's an oversimplification of a vastly complex subject, but I think the proposition is oversimplified as well. It is all well and good to cite genetic sterility as a safeguard when making other genetic modifications, but what are the unintended consequneces of genetically inducing sterility? More importantly, the unintended consequnces of the two in combination. After all, at one point, adding an extra Y chromosome might have looked like a viable way to block breeding, but now we know that would have resulted in billions of sociopathic fish (but sterile).

Power corupts, but absolute power is kinda neat... at least until your three hundred pound, opposable thumbed, parthenogenic guppies decide that they are entitled to the six pack of Weinhards in the fridge...

We simply don't know enough to know what we have to do to minimize the impact of mistakes, malice and general human stupidity.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[Biffer4810]

Sure, the geneticists can claim that they could "turn on" sterility in the target animal/plant genome.

So you're saying sterility is hereditary then? :)

[note to the anal: I know I just oversimplified genetics].

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[zangdesign]

We simply don't know enough to know what we have to do to minimize the impact of mistakes, malice and general human stupidity.

And I would argue that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Caution is definitely a good thing, but without taking some risks we cannot advance. Mistakes, malice and stupidity are something we are stuck with regardless of any advance planning.

The psychotic four-year-old in me says "let's make everything as dangerous as possible!" That way a mistake, malicious or stupid act will only occur once on the part of any given individual.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[yourmom16]

Sure, the geneticists can claim that they could "turn on" sterility in the target animal/plant genome.

It's easy; Find the gene that makes people be geeks, and put it in the animal/plant. Then no other member of the species will want to breed with it.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[fucksl4shd0t]

It's easy; Find the gene that makes people be geeks, and put it in the animal/plant. Then no other member of the species will want to breed with it.

Do you really want super-smart fish swimming in your lake? I read Animal Farm...

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[GMontag451]

So you're saying sterility is hereditary then? :)

Well, yeah. If your parents didn't have any kids, then the chances are that you won't either.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[i_r_sensitive]

No, that would be an oxymoron, nice try though. But their are genetic conditions which include sterility as part of the symptoms. There are other 'genetic' tricks too, artificially creating freemartins for example. I presume geneticists would first think DNA, then hormonal regulation, never mind the inherent impossibility of performing large scale neutering...

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[i_r_sensitive]

Except for one little thing. The pan you are making this omelette in contains every last egg in existence. And, the eggs are so situated that there are ways of breaking one, which will ensure breaking them all.

Just one thing to consider, retro-viruses. These babies are capable of entering a cell and re-writing the DNA therein. To date medical science has never found a reliable cure for a viral disease. Not one, and especially not retro-viruses. Given our inability to deal with a naturally occuring organism, what makes us so sure we could undo what we've done?

Another quick mitigator, We hammered the hell out of those diseases with a bacterial vector by the use of antibiotics. Only a very few saw the potential for anti-biotic resistant bacteria, despite the fact that out own medical science had been using the technique since we started playing with vaccines.

In view of the hundreds of anecdotes about unintended consequences, and the folly of humanity in specfifc and general, I think we can afford to be a little cautious with things like genetics which have the ability to radically alter the form, function, and ability to survive of life on earth.

Evolution in Action is all well and good, so long as the individual evolving isn't playing with a flu virus and cancer genes, knowwhatImean...

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[bergee]

That was the point... I think you might have missed the joke.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[i_r_sensitive]

No, I got it.

But, I've also come down with a condition, which I affectionately call /.syndrome.

The main symptom is the pathological inability to give the benefit of the doubt to my fellow man. Other symptoms include, pedantic ranting, repitition, teaching everyone's grandmother to suck eggs, over-explanation, over-simplification, intolerance, and repitition.

Re:Blocking breeding isn't feasible

[yourmom16]

Point taken

Nice followon

[avkillick]

Perhaps not a coincidence that an article about TunA is followed by one about fish.

No more possibility of a 3 eyed fish?

[BenjiTheGreat98]

And I was so looking forward to eating one some day....

Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! This is the first truly funny "In Soviet Russia" joke in a really long time. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!?! Besides, somebody upstream got a "3" for a silly "glowfish overlords" joke.

it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[myc]

expressing a fluorescent protein in zebrafish may sound harmless, but I think restricting such things for now is prudent. It's completely unclear what environmental effects it might have. Ever hear of prions? These are proteins that are misfolded, but also cause similar proteins in normal cells to also misfold. The misfolded proteins can cause diseases, such as mad cow disease. The scary thing about prions is that they are resistant to digestive enzymes in your digestive tract. Thus, diseases like mad cow disease may propagate indefinitely.

While there is no evidence that fluorescent proteins have prion-like properties, I bring this example up because prions have only been accepted doctrine among biochemists within the past decade. In the 80's if you proposed that there was an epigenetic disease-causing agent consisting of misfolded protein, people would have laughed in your face. There is just not enough information as to what may happen. IN addition, I can think of other, simpler, more plausible scenarios regarding glowing fish. Green fluorescing fish may affect native algae populations, which would certainly affect aquatic ecosystems. Also, in introducing the transgene, there are probably also antibiotic drug resistance genes used during the cloning process that are present in the organism. Introducing these genes into the wild is not a good idea for obvious reasons.

The truth of the matter is, we know very little about how heterologous proteins and transgenes will behave in the wild. I myself am a molecular geneticist, and I'm all for promoting biotechnology, but I think it's not a bad idea to keep this kind of technology out of the hands of your average "well the kids are bored of the fish, let's flush it down the toilet" type of consumers. Having genetically modified agriculture is pretty scary in and of itself, although I do believe that the benefits outweigh the risks in that case. Certainly, more studies on environmental and ecosystem impact may be prudent.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[0x0d0a]

expressing a fluorescent protein in zebrafish may sound harmless, but I think restricting such things for now is prudent.

I have to disagree. I think few people would disagree that biotech is a phenomenally influential tool.

However, I don't think that it's all that efficient to put a hold on biotech work and try to do research out of the hands of the public.

If a zebrafish escapes, it has a gene that is potentially very damaging -- it's easy for predators to see. It's unlikely to do very well. Glowing zebrafish will probably die out in the wild quickly, leaving only regular zebrafish. Nature is pretty robust.

On the other hand, there are a few things that we might want to avoid. One is introducing poisonous variants of nondomesticated edible fish. As long as it isn't too expensive to be poisonous, there's a pretty clear evolutionary advantage to an animal in being poisonous. A poisonous, say, tuna could take over and beat out the nonpoisonous tuna -- and then we wouldn't be able to just catch and eat tuna any more.

As long as we do our best to avoid things that clearly could have very negative side effects (such as the poisonous tuna above), I think we'll be okay. Dragging feet on technology has never worked. We're better off working with biotechnology and understanding it, and learning to deal with it. And enjoying its fruits.

Think of fire. Fire is can have *phenomenal* destructive value. You can literally wipe out thousands of acres of life with a flick of your fingers and the aid of fire. Many people have died from and been hurt by fire (and still are). However, we adopted fire, and learned to work with it, and would never dream of going back.

I agree that we will probably muck up some of the existing state of things. We'll probably wipe out some species and muck up some ecosystems. We've been doing that for a long, long time, though.

Good comment, though I disagree with some of it.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Alzheimer's is also strongly suspected of being a prion-borne disease. Its a whole new class of disease and we know next to nothing about how to stop its propagation.

I think its a point worth considering. A single mistake in a GE experiment gone wrong could have disastrous consequences for humanity.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Cyno]

I agree. The seas still have at least 20% of the large fish in them. This will last us at least another 10 years. So we have plenty of time to look at the pros and cons of our actions and decisions reguarding change and progress. No need to hurry.

Same goes for petrol, global warming and any other large scale problems. I just hope when we do finally decide to take action that we didn't just sit around smoking dope the whole time, but actually did the research and QA necessary to release a healthy product.

I'm just glad I have no authority over these matters. I care too much to care.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[CustomDesigned]

If a zebrafish escapes, it has a gene that is potentially very damaging -- it's easy for predators to see. It's unlikely to do very well. Glowing zebrafish will probably die out in the wild quickly, leaving only regular zebrafish. Nature is pretty robust.

There was a very interesting article in Science News a few issues back about studies of GM plants. There were several solid conclusions:

1. The gene *will* escape into the wild. In every single case studied, it escaped despite all precautions in production settings. Lab settings were more successful in keeping the lid on.
2. Whether the escaped gene propagates widely beyond the escape point depends on its survival advantage.
3. Survival advantages are not easy to guess. Setting up test ecosystems was fairly successful in determing survival advantage. The results were often quite surprising.
4. Bt corn has a high survival advantage, and has escaped whereever it has been planted. It will continue to spread rapidly in the wild.
5. Problems like those with Bt can be compensated for by adding additional transgenes that convey a survival disadvantage in the wild (without comprising desired function too much). This doesn't always work, because the traits can become separated.

We won't know whether the glowing fish might have your guessed disadvantage without trying it. For instance by putting some normal and glowing fish in a tank with predators in conditions as close to natural as can be arranged without letting the glowing fish escape. These fish should not be put into the hands of consumers until it is demonstrated that they don't last long if released. As others have pointed out, large numbers of these fish can easily have unforeseen consequences. Self-reproducing unforeseen consequences are a Very Dangerous Thing.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course it's not just the gene you *want* there that's inserted. I've done genetic Engineering as part of my degree and we added antibiotic resistance genes so we could identify transformed vectors (by growing them on antibiotic laced petri-dishes).

Do you think that the multiply resistant strains of bacteria are just spontaniously appearing out of nowhere? Or could it be that the genes for AB resistance are suddenly very much more common in the wild as a result of genetically modified organisms?

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[alienw]

The gene *will* escape into the wild. In every single case studied, it escaped despite all precautions in production settings. Lab settings were more successful in keeping the lid on.

These are PLANTS we are talking about. Obviously it's much more difficult to contain plant pollen than it is to contain a zebrafish.

Furthermore, plants can reproduce much faster than zebrafish or other animals. Bt corn is an extreme case: it has been SPECIFICALLY engineered to survive better than normal corn in the wild.

Zebrafish are very fragile and an aquarium variety will not last very long in the wild. It will become sick, die, get eaten, or all of the above. I can not believe how many people forget this simple fact.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Kohath]

Self-reproducing unforeseen consequences are a Very Dangerous Thing.

This is silly. Self-reproduction is normal. Consequences of anything are almost always unforseen. Is almost every living thing "Very Dangerous" then?

Glowing fish are no more or less dangerous than anything else in the world. Self-indulgent, emotional distaste for their 'impurity' doesn't change that.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[mungtor]

Do you think that the multiply resistant strains of bacteria are just spontaniously appearing out of nowhere? Or could it be that the genes for AB resistance are suddenly very much more common in the wild as a result of genetically modified organisms?

Can you actually prove that, or are you just theorizing?

I would tend to believe that there are so many AB resistant bacteria out there due to the rediculous amounts of AB stuff that people use in their lives. They demand antibiotics every time they get the sniffles, use antibiotic hand soap, AB kitchen wipes, etc... In that kind of environment the only bacteria that will survive will be the multiply AB resistant ones, which were mutants with no real survival advantage to begin with.

So they aren't appearing out of nowhere. They have always been there but now they have the advantage and they are filling the niches left by the non-resistant ones. Then all it *may* take is another mutation to turn it into something really nasty.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Steeltoe]

Nature is pretty robust.

Don't worry about nature. There are plenty of examples that we'll make it worse for ourselves by continuing being ignorant and claiming to be backed up by science (it's NOT, science cannot back up something that is unknown and unproven).

A simple example on the back off my head: Imported rabbits in Australia: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/student.projects/rabbits/ home.html

Check out this website: http://www.alternativescience.com

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[ms1234]

On the other hand, there are a few things that we might want to avoid. One is introducing poisonous variants of nondomesticated edible fish. As long as it isn't too expensive to be poisonous, there's a pretty clear evolutionary advantage to an animal in being poisonous. A poisonous, say, tuna could take over and beat out the nonpoisonous tuna -- and then we wouldn't be able to just catch and eat tuna any more.

Oh thank god for that. Just absolutly hate that fish :-)

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[crabpeople]

"The scary thing about prions is that they are resistant to digestive enzymes in your digestive tract. Thus, diseases like mad cow disease may propagate indefinitely"

dont you think indefinitely is a little harsh? i mean your talking generations of mutant canibals eating one another.

i think it kinda finishes propagating when the host dies.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

More difficult to contain plant pollen? I don't know about that.... When's the last time you saw a zebra-fish traverse an entire contenent on a birds legs as it traveled south for the winter and survive the whole trip, or the last time you saw a zebra-fish get swept up by a nice headwind and flung literally hundreds of kilomiters riding that headwind. I think that the pollen has an advantage here.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Green fluorescing fish may affect native algae populations

How exactly would that happen? Being a biochemist myself, I don't see a plausible cause for that scenario.

there are probably also antibiotic drug resistance genes used during the cloning process

Especially for the construction of GFP transgenes, you don't have to resort to antibiotic selection. Simply transfect a cell line with a retroviral vector containing GFP and screen for positive transfections using a cell sorter with fluorescence detection (compare, for example this article). Or, to be further on the safe side, use direct DNA injection into oocytes and thereby abolish the need to use retroviruses (summarized in the same paper as above).

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[alienw]

I think that the pollen has an advantage here.

No shit, Sherlock, that's exactly what I said. "More difficult to contain" means the same as "harder to keep isolated". Learn some English before you reply.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[G00F]

About the soap.

antibiotic and antibacterial are two different things. One is a medical term, the other is a marketing hype.

Re:it's not neccessarily a bad thing

[CustomDesigned]

Is almost every living thing "Very Dangerous" then?

Absolutely. Nerve gas is deadly, but only until it gets diluted and/or degraded. If we stop making it, it will go away on its own. Ebola, sars, HIV, TB, etc. etc. will never go away. (No, smallpox has not gone away. It is still waiting around in vials waiting for another heyday.)

In between are things that don't reproduce but are persistent. Plutonium and other heavy metals, PCBs, etc. Here the problem is that they accumulate. But if we stopped throwing them around, they would eventually after a long time go away.

Zebra mussels seem like harmless mollusks. However, when accidentally released in foreign waters, they have become a plague that wipes out all native mussels.

Kudzu seemed like a good idea at the time.

A mediteranean seaweed is rapidly destroying vast regions of more diverse species.

Have you forgotten the mediteranean fruit fly? Need I go on?

Living things are very powerful. Using/playing with them requires extra care - even more so than fire (which also "reproduces" as long as there is fuel in the immediate vicinity).

Can that be done?

[schmaltz]

The question is whether sterilisation can effectively be achieved. It would be insane to assume that it's safe to release them to the environment when the research of its impact obviously can't be ascertained, because this planet has thousands of ecosystems Because of the fish's novelty, this little fish will become ubiquitous around the world. Zebra mussel anyone?

Then there's the very real and frightening specter of species jumping of genetic modifications. It has already been documented in engineered plants (corn to maize in Mexico, for example.) One of the most popular genetic modifications to corn causes it to produce a pesticide. It's gotten into the wild now.

If a block on breeding is not exactly 100% effective, then they will find their way into the wild, where they will breed with compatible locals.

Murphy's law applies.

Re:Can that be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it can be done. Make the fish look like the typical /. geek and I guarantee they won't breed. Or even get dates!

Re:Can that be done?

[JK Master-Slave]

It would be insane not to acknowledge these fish in their non-GE form, are ubiquitous around the world, and they haven't posed the great threat that you're ranting about. I mean, are you saying all tropical fish pose that sort of threat?

Re:Can that be done?

[schmaltz]

in their non-GE form

Thank you, my point from the beginning.

You do not know whether or not these fish pose any sort of trouble in their modified form. At this point we can only hope it's none, as their release to the wild is imminent. In risk-management terms, hope is a pretty shitty place to be.

After that, it's microbiology and game theory...

Predators find glowfish more easily, due to their greater-than-ambient luminosity, and glowfish don't survive that ecosystem

Glowfish don't have natural predators in a given ecosystem and thrive

Glowfish are able to dine by night thanks to built-in lighting, increasing their size and mating potential, leading to population bloom

Population bloom outstrips local species at same spot on food chain, forcing its decline

Etc.

Local ecosystem factors provide additional variables to permute gaming outcomes. Who can say how this will turn out? You can't. I can't. Therefore, introducing a new species into myriad ecosystems around the glove is a risky venture. See my other message about alien species introductions that have brought economic and ecosystem disaster.

More dramatic changes

[debilo]

More dramatic changes, as you put it, could also mean more dramatic results. In many cases, when changes (like cross-breeding types of corn) occur over a long period of time, nature has a better chance to adapt and "catch" errors before they get too drastic.

If an experiment that involves genetic engineering goes wrong, it will go wrong fast, and nobody can foresee the effects of that because there is absolutely no prior incident it could be compared to. That kind of scares me.

Re:More dramatic changes

[tgibbs]

More dramatic changes, as you put it, could also mean more dramatic results. In many cases, when changes (like cross-breeding types of corn) occur over a long period of time, nature has a better chance to adapt and "catch" errors before they get too drastic.

The notion that natural genetic changes are slow and that nature "adapts" and "catches" errors is wishful thinking, with little relationship to reality. In fact, there are numerous examples of species being wiped out because of a new disease or predator arising or invading and sweeping through a particular population.

Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[stefanlasiewski]

Fish, Jellyfish. Most people don't care. Why? Because neither animal is cute or cuddly.

I'm going to make this debate more interesting. I'm going take come cute breed of dog, and genetically modify them the face of a human baby.

Then, I'll take the cute puppy for a walk in busy shopping districts, big media events, political debates, the fancy resturants where the politicians have their fancy meals. Anywhere where many people will see it.

I'll treat it like a dog. Teach it tricks, yell at it when the dog disobeys, when it poops in the wrong place, I'll rub it's nose in it. When I go have dinner, I'll leave the poor thing in the rain.

That'll get the debate going.

Tell me, do you think people would accept this dog as "normal" and just go about their business? What do you think people will do then?

After all, what's the difference between a transgenic fish and a transgenic dog? Sure, a baby face will require more modifications to get the right bone structure, skin texture, etc. , but it's no more then what we'll be seeing in the genetically-modified pet market in a few years.

Really, this is on the level of what we'll be seeing in the genetically-modified pet market in a few years.

Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[0x0d0a]

After all, what's the difference between a transgenic fish and a transgenic dog?

People build up mental barriers to doing things that are discouraged and rarely done. Nudity, for instance, is certainly not abnormal -- we ran around in the nude for zillions upon zillions of years. However, most folks in a Western culture still get uncomfortable when faced with stripping off their clothes in front of others. Hurting or abusing humans is one of these things that people have mental barriers about. By not allowing people to, say, run around and kill people, we keep the shock and horror of killing people alive. This is (arguably) a good thing, since a person that is horrified by killing people is less likely to kill people.

This is one reason why a lot of people complain bitterly about violent video games (though they tend to couch it in more emotional terms). It hits their mental barrier, makes them uncomfortable, and they worry about it destroying the barriers of others, resulting in people that are less averse to killing.

The same thing would be true of abusing the baby's face that you mention here. So, yes, I think there is a significant social difference between a glowing fish and a dog with a baby's face. Regardless of whether I have a problem with the dog, I can understand why a number of people *would* be upset with it.

Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[Anonymous Coward]

"we keep the shock and horror of killing people alive. This is (arguably) a good thing"
arguably? arguably by who?

Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[stefanlasiewski]

Civilized people.

Would you prefer that killing people become unshocking and not horrible?

Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[pipingguy]

...when it poops in the wrong place, I'll rub it's nose in it.

That's not the proper way to toilet train a dog. Dogs need positive reinforcement, not negative. Darl, OK. But not a dog.

Re:Most people only care about cute and cuddly...

[stefanlasiewski]

Yes, you are completely right. This is cruel to a dog.

However, I see people do this to their dogs sometimes, and nobody complained.

Now, if the dog looked more like a human, I think people would care.

"I think..."

[Brian Kendig]

Look at the quotes in that article.

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science. I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong. ... At the end of the day, I just don't think it's right to produce a new organism just to be a pet. To me, this seems like an abuse of the power we have over life, and I'm not prepared to go there today."

Well, good for you. So you're not prepared to go there.

So why are you using a law to prevent anybody *else* from going there? What about the folks who *do* think it's okay to have a genetically-modified animal as a pet?

I think smoking is wrong. I think doing drugs is wrong. I think driving an SUV is wrong. But is "I think X is wrong" ever in itself a good enough reason to ban X? Should things be banned until there's a good reason to believe they're okay, or allowed until there's a good reason to believe they're not?

Re:"I think..."

[ciphertext]

Good points. I wonder if the commissioners knows that they already consume geneticly modified foodstuffs. The potato for one. Without the domestication of the potato, it would still be poisonous. Genetic engineering has been around for a long while, look at the mule. The crossing of a horse and donkey. While, the sorts of engineering you could do pre-computer age were severly limited, it was still possible to engineer crops and animals. Think of all the different breeds of dogs and cats. There are other "domesticated" vegetable stocks that one could consider engineered aside from the potato.

Re:"I think..."

[seb249]

Ummm ... whats wrong with having a normal - non genetically engineered pet !

Re:"I think..."

[Velox_SwiftFox]

I thought it was quite interesting to read the quote. Rather frightening also to realize that a Game and Fish Commission is actually willing to admit they don't care about science, and feel free to act as martinets imposing prejudices they can't support with facts on the largest state population in the United States. This is on a par with Italy's banning pet spiders for no better reason than the current head of state there having a phobia about them.

Luckily most of the rest of the United States, at least, is less tolerant of this type of crap, and people with similar views to the commissioner quoted can exercise them by not buying the fish involved - or, if they choose, not buying anything from the pet shops that carry them, picketing such shops, and so on, as is their right under the set of liberties recognized outside the bottom part of the Left Coast.

In this case pet shops can still apparently display these beautiful genengineered Zebrafish, bought from outside the state. Along with signs noting the reasons (or lack of reason) that they cannot be sold, and petition forms for recalling commissioners, for laws requiring scientific evaluations in such cases, and so on. Hint, hint.

Re:"I think..."

[Brian Kendig]

Good point. This reminds me of the fact that California still hasn't legalized owning ferrets as pets... so much for being a progressive state! :-b

Re:"I think..."

[Velox_SwiftFox]

It's the ban on pet sugar gliders that really gets me. What's do they expect to happen if a population of sugar gliders somehgow did established in the wild anyway? Their main food is the sap from incisions in the the dang eucalyptis trees from
Australia spreading all over the place here, that extremely few native CA creatures benefit from, plus invertebrates found under dead tree bark, nectar, and pollen.

Come to think of it, maybe the florescent zebra danios never really had a chance...

so...

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't california have like 50 or so initiatives every day which ppl vote on? shit like this is going through all the time whats the fuss?

Ferrets

[_Sprocket_]

California is also the only state on the continental US that still bans domestic ferrets. This ban has more to do with opinion and misinformation than fact. And it ignores an estimated 500K pet ferrets already within California's borders.

I'm not suprised the same attitude is applied to fish.

Re:Ferrets

[wembley]

I think they're just worried that people will rediscover the ancient art of ferret legging.

Re:Ferrets

[bandy]

Gerbils are banned as well. However, we seem to get along OK with mice, rats and hamsters.

Re:Ferrets

[judicar]

I had a ferret that would run directly up my pants leg when I came home from work. Nothing like having a fur covered bullet with teeth claw its way into your underwear.

All I have to say is

[popo]

"The Chicken Of the Sea" will have a drastically new meaning one day...

Re:All I have to say is

[rsadelle]

And we all thought Jessica Simpson was just stupid. It turns out she's really psychic.

This should answer some of your questions.

[JGag21]

Where do fluorescent zebra fish come from?

Fluorescent zebra fish were specially bred to help detect environmental pollutants. By adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish, scientists are able to quickly and easily determine when our waterways are contaminated. The first step in developing these pollution detecting fish was to create fish that would be fluorescent all the time. It was only recently that scientists realized the public's interest in sharing the benefits of this research. We call this the GloFish(TM) fluorescent fish.

How common is the use of fluorescent zebra fish in science?

For over a decade, fluorescent zebra fish have been relied upon by scientists worldwide to better understand important questions in genetics, molecular biology, and vertebrate development. Fluorescent zebra fish have been particularly helpful in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy.

What are the differences between fluorescent zebra fish and other zebra fish?

Aside from their brilliant color, fluorescent zebra fish are the same as other zebra fish in every way. This includes everything from general care and temperature preferences to growth rate and life expectancy.

Do fluorescent fish glow?

Fluorescent fish absorb light and then re-emit it. This creates the perception that they are glowing, particularly when shining an ultraviolet light on the fish in a dark room.

Does the fluorescence harm the fish?

No. The fish are as healthy as other zebra fish in every way. Scientists breed them by adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish eggs before they hatch. The fish is born with this unique color, and maintains the color throughout its life. The color is also passed on to their offspring.

What will happen if a fluorescent zebra fish escapes into the waterways?

Zebra fish are tropical fish and are unable to survive in non-tropical environments. They have been sold to pet owners worldwide for more than fifty years. Despite all these years of aquarium ownership, zebra fish are only found in tropical environments, such as their native India .

What if a fluorescent zebra fish is eaten?

Eating a fluorescent zebra fish is the same as eating any other zebra fish. Their fluorescence is derived from a naturally occurring gene and is completely safe for the environment. Just as eating a blue fish would not turn a predator blue, eating a fluorescent fish would not make a predator fluoresce.

Are you going to create more fluorescent fish?

Scientists all around the world are working with fluorescent fish, whether it's to help protect the environment or come up with new disease-fighting drug therapies. As more fluorescent fish become available, they may be offered for sale to the public.

How can buying these fish help in the fight against pollution?

These fish have already existed for several years and were developed to help fight pollution. By breeding these existing fish, we will allow people to have their own fluorescent fish while promoting the beneficial scientific goals behind their development. In fact, a portion of the proceeds from sales will go directly to the lab where these fish were created in order to further their research--research we hope will help to protect the environment and save lives.

Why are GloFish(TM) the only fluorescent fish that can be sold in the United States ?

Because fluorescent fish are unique, their sale is covered by a substantial number of patents and pending patent applications. The providers of GloFish(TM) fluorescent fish, 5-D Tropical and Segrest Farms, are the only distributors that have the necessary licenses to produce and market fluorescent fish within the United States . The production of fluorescent fish by any other party, or the sale of any fluorescent fish not originally distributed by 5-D Tropical or Segrest Farms, is strictly prohibited.

Environmentalists?

[handy_vandal]

So we see the naked core of the environmentalists. This is not about science, it's about imposing their values on the rest of us

I share your objection. But let's be clear about who's who: nowhere in the article is there any indication that commissioner Sam Schuchat is an environmentalist. All we really know is that he's a commissioner and a moralist.

It's entirely possible that he is morally offended for non-environmental reasons. He might be a non-environmentalist Christian who objects to man tinkering with God's works. We just don't know; and it's bad science -- blind prejudice, in fact -- to make assumptions without data.

-kgj

Ironic sig (Re:Blocking breeding is key.)

[David Gould]

The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.

...not to mention greatly reducing the risk that potential customers might steal the company's intellectual property by taking seeds from these trees and planting their own instead of buying licensed seedlings.

It's an ironic point for you to be making, given your sig: 'Abolish "intellectual property"'

Not glow-in-the-dark fish.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

By the way: If I read the article correctly the fish don't actually glow. They fluoresce.

Actually "glowing" fish would manufacutre light from food energy. "Fluorescing" fish need a light shining on them to light up (though the light might be ultraviolet and so not itself visible).

Fluorescing fish nevertheless emit more light in the band of interest than strikes them, which under the right circumstances makes them much "brighter" (in that color) than a perfect reflector.

if i had mod points, you sir would be modded!

[notque]

great comment. that's all.

Re:Darwin, "Jesus Fish", and genetic engineering..

[smack_attack]

Yeah, we are gods because we can make fish with feet. That's got to make some fundie's head spin.

Typical case of Science vs. Religion

[Turd Rippleton]

This topic has always spurred an emotional debate. I for one am for science and for genetic engineering. Science and technology are the only initiatives that are going to evolve mankind.

People need to realize that genetic engineering is here to stay; we might as well learn it because if we don't, some other country will.

The point is, by holding science back, we are holding back our own evolution. It's here; we need to deal with it.

|Turd|

Might be useful mimicry...

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Now how long do you think you're going to survive if you're glowing like a neon sign saying "Eat Me"

Depending on the chemicals that make them glow, other
fish might quickly learn to view them as neon signs
saying "I AM TOXIC" or at least "I TASTE BAD".

Speaking of Dangerous Tampering

[popo]

If we're all so morally opposed to such "dangerous tampering with the natural state of the universe" and if its truly wrong to "influence the natural order by means that were never intended".

Maybe we should ban California!

No, not the same.

[schmaltz]

Breeding and genetic engineering are two, distinct areas of science. You've bought into the propaganda, because you cannot assert that selective breeding would produce the crossing of, for example, the arctic flounder, a bacterium with a tomato plant -the Flavr-Savr tomato.

Genetic engineering allows introduction into a species of genes that express proteins (and other molecules) not available within the host species' existing gene pool.

Whether or not that's a good thing is not known, as the U.S. government does not currently require either environmental impact testing nor FDA safety-type testing. Those regulations were swept away during the Clinton administration so that biotech firms could more quicly bring products to market and thereby boost their revenues -but at what cost?

Genetic engineering is actually being tested on an enormous scale -every one of us is a subject.

Personally, I'm not against development of GE products, but believe they really need to be tested. One day there may come a product whose consequences aren't foreseen, and the impact could mean the loss of another species, or worse.

An example of this is the salmon that grows seven times faster than wild salmon. The developers of these want to raise them in netted pens off the coasts of North America, as salmon are currently farmed.

But what would the consequences be of an accidental release of those fish to the wild? A salmon that grows seven times faster than its wild relatives? C'mon, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the impact would be -the wild salmon would probably get starved out of existence, and it'd be impossible to prevent that from happening. Once in the wild, you couldn't sweep them up.

Re:No, not the same.

[Snocone]

But what would the consequences be of an accidental release of those fish to the wild? A salmon that grows seven times faster than its wild relatives? C'mon, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the impact would be -the wild salmon would probably get starved out of existence, and it'd be impossible to prevent that from happening.

Errrr ... and having more and bigger fish in the oceans is a problem to you, why exactly? Seems like a GOOD idea, I think.

Re:No, not the same.

[Kiwiscientist]

Starving isn't the problem. Salmon preferentially breed with the largest fish available. If natural (smaller) salmon breed with the the (larger) engineered salmon which are also sterile, then there will of course be no off-spring. An accidental release of sterile, fast growing genetically engineered fish into the wild would be disasterous to the original species.

Re:No, not the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a crossover, since traditional methods of selective breeding include the use of stress, chemicals, and radiation to induce mutations into the subjects genes. Such mutations mean that the genes include sequences that were not there originally and which may or may not occur elsewhere in nature. Thus, any of the dire consequences predicted for genetic engineering could occur with selective breeding, and are probably more likely since there is no planning of the changes.

Re:No, not the same.

[am 2k]

Growing quicker and bigger comes with a price. I'm sure those fish require more energy for living -- which isn't a real problem in those pens, but they won't live for long in the wild. Being bigger also means that you can be spotted quicker.

Of course, they might accidentally produce something that's dangerous to wild life, but the equation isn't *that* simple.

Re:No, not the same.

[ifwm]

"But what would the consequences be of an accidental release of those fish to the wild? A salmon that grows seven times faster than its wild relatives? C'mon, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the impact would be -the wild salmon would probably get starved out of existence, and it'd be impossible to prevent that from happening. Once in the wild, you couldn't sweep them up."

Possibly. I'm not so sure though. Another possibility is that the faster growing salmon breed so quickly that they outstrip their food supply, and die off. The slower growing salmon are around as the food supply recovers, and no longer have to compete with the faster growing salmon. I'm not sure why you think your guess is valid at all.

Re:No, not the same.

[david.given]

Genetic engineering allows introduction into a species of genes that express proteins (and other molecules) not available within the host species' existing gene pool.

And guess what --- this happens all the time.

Ignoring simple mutation, which can add new encodings to a species' gene pool that weren't there before, there's a well-established and uncontroversial mechanism that allows gene sequences to be passed from one species to another, entirely different species.

It works like this: viruses reproduce by injecting their genetic material into a host cell. The new material hijacks the host cell, which starts producing more viruses.

Sometimes this doesn't work properly, and you end up with fragmented viral genetic material in the host cell, which doesn't work. What does the host do? What it always did, largely. Except that when it reproduces, it will now reproduce the viral genetic material as well. (If the viral genetic material isn't completely disabled, this can cause really odd effects, like cancer.)

What happens if the host cell happens to be a sex cell, like in the testes? Well, the sperm produced will contain the viral genetic material, as well, which will get reproduced into every cell in the offspring, etc. So you've now transferred viral genetic material into the gene pool.

It works the other way, too --- the host cell can start producing viruses containing fragments of host genetic material. So if one of these contaminated viruses infects a sex cell in another species of creature, you've now transferred genetic material from one species to another completely different species.

Does this sound far fetched? Yes, it is. But it happens. There are sections of human DNA that have been positively identified as coming from viruses, and there are sections that show clear signs as having come from other species --- although it's a bit hard to tell.

(Embarassingly, I can't remember the technical name for this process.)

It gets even more complicated with plants, because plants don't have the single-cell-zygote bottleneck between generations. It's entirely possible for several pollen cells to fertilise a plant, and the resulting offspring will be a chimera. (This happens surprisingly frequently with humans, too.) There are also some specialised processes for incorporating foreign genetic material that I don't really understand or remember enough of to describe.

DNA's not as sacred as you think it is.

Re:No, not the same.

[originalTMAN]

Nature kinda has a delicate balance that we tend to screw up for an immediate solution to minor annorances. See cane toads vs cane beetles for an example.

Re:No, not the same.

[sillybilly]

What happens once you develop artificial intelligence, put it into a rust resistant titanium robot with diamond teeth and infrared/visible/uv/em/xray eyes, give it an oozie, plus tools to mine titanium and reproduce itself - what happens under accidental release?

Re:No, not the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who worked on the Flavr-Savr tomato, so I know more about it than most people. The flounder gene comment was said as a joke, something like "Yeah, we can inplant all kinds of genes... even FLOUNDER genes." What he meant was that the gene sequence itself could come from any organism, he was showing off.

The anti-GM groups immediatly latched onto this by saying "see, it comes from flounder, it must be toxic, so the whole tomoato must be toxic. This shows not only thier lack of reseach but also thier lack of understanding of the topic they are lobying against.

Re:No, not the same.

[the argonaut]

The offspring of the GE salmon are not as hardy as their wild counterparts. So within a few generations you would have no fish.

Re:No, not the same.

[alienw]

That's not a problem either, you dumbass. If the GE fish are sterile, they would eventually die and the problem will go away. Unless you release millions of the damn things, they aren't going to compete much with wild ones. Besides, following your logic, only the single largest fish will reproduce and the rest will not be able to. If it actually worked like that, salmon would not exist.

Re:No, not the same.

[Exiler]

I suppose we could form an alliance with the easter bunny and santa to hunt it down and kill it.

Re:No, not the same.

[JK Master-Slave]

If they're not as hardy, in a few generations you'd have the GE strain bred out of the population.

Re:No, not the same.

[ErikZ]

You forgot the power supply. So it would probably just stand there.

Re:No, not the same.

[schmaltz]

viruses reproduce by injecting their genetic material into...

DNA's not as sacred as you think it is.

Good response! For me, it's simple fear of the unknown, that we'll engineer a fuckup. Something that, lose in the wild, throws off ecosystem balance. I don't think this science is good or maybe mature enough to know if it can forecast and prevent the triggering of ecological trouble.

Engineered crops are now loose in the wild, and some have known unintended negative consequences. Once loose onto the winds of the world...

Humans are just getting started in the "god" business, creating new species variants. What we produce now will seem abacus-like fifty years from now, when we'll probably do more than just insert new sequences.

My hope is that profit not remain the primary criterion for a design, that broader research into that organism's effects on nature will be done. It's complex and probably impossible to know all ramifications.

Re:No, not the same.

[schmaltz]

That's the theory... do you really want to test that against the existence of a species? Seems to me the other possible outcome can't be ignored, you can't hope it won't happen, because it's entirely possible it will. Russian roulette with a three-chamber revolver: 1) Wild salmon die out, 2) Engineered salmon die out, 3) Wild and engineered interbreed and become something else.

Coexistence may also happen, but I don't think we should be testing that on a global scale in the wild! At worst, it should happen in an enclosed facility.... question is, will that testing ever happen? Shouldn't be left up to buncha guys in a boardroom sayin' "Yeah, there's no way we'll fuck anything up! Dudes, we'll be sellin' millions of these fish this time next year!! Woo-hoo, Vegas here I come!!!"

Re:No, not the same.

[Kiwiscientist]

Gosh, I don't know where to begin. This is clearly a flame, and I don't wish to encourage it but it's late on a Friday and I don't have the will power to just let it go...

The thing with GE releases, is that you actually have to *prove* it isn't a problem. Using the approach of releasing sterile organisms is a method already used to reduce the numbers of an exisitng population. An example is the screwfly in South America. This technique really only works where breeding is specific and occurs once a season. I believe this is the case with salmon.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. If the GE fish are sterile, *they* will die but the problem won't go away if new GE fish are continually being introduced, as would be the case with a fishery, else what would be the point of the fishery? Eh dumbass? Each generation of fish released could conceivably reduce the numbers of the wild variety. You don't have to have extinction of a species before the scenario could be considered a bad thing.

And the last point is that Salmon actually do breed this way. On average, the largest (fittest) fish will be chosen preferentially over smaller fish when mates are selected in the wild. But don't take my word for it, I get my facts directly from colleagues at Purdue University and you can check it out yourself at http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0002.Muir.troj an.html.

Despite being a geneticist myself, I believe it is very important to consider all sides of an argument before releasing GE organisms and passing the point of no return. If done thouroughly, this should convince even the most determined anti-GE opponent.

Re:No, not the same.

[schmaltz]

I'm not sure why you think your guess is valid at all.

I'm not, it's just one possible outcome. Another question is will the GE salmon reach reproductive maturity faster? I don't know the answer, but salmon have this long voyage as part of their mating process... for the ones that escaped the sterility measure, wonder how their early physical maturity would affect the journey and their reproductive timing.

From what I've read, the sterilisation step is performed on the eggs, its not engineered into the genome.

Re:No, not the same.

[the argonaut]

and taking the rest of the population with them...

Re:No, not the same.

[JK Master-Slave]

Huh? That doesn't make sense.

You have a basis for your fear-mongering? You've discovered new scientific laws where natural selection no longer functions to cull a population?

Or is this one of those 'political' discussions?

Re:No, not the same.

[Steeltoe]

DNA's not as sacred as you think it is.

When you hold nothing sacred, you are reduced to a pile of mud. You are not worth anything, besides the salesvalue of flesh, bones and meat. Of course, since you can do labour, that is worth more, so we keep you alive.

Is this the world you want to live in, where nothing is sacred?

You are right about horizontal genetransfer, but it's not done by egotistical humans and companies-out-of-control. That makes all the difference, to me at least!

Re:No, not the same.

[alienw]

Why would we just randomly release sterile organisms continuously? I agree, that is a bad idea, no matter how we look at it. Ecosystems are too complex to screw around with. However, breeding aquarium or food fish that live in a controlled environment is very different. Obviously, this precludes large numbers of them being released into the wild.

The grandparent post was talking about an accidental release that would be a single, extremely undesirable event. Clearly, unless such incidents occur very often and involve large number of fish the population won't be significantly affected.

As for the Purdue article: they did not use sterile fish. Their whole point was that the transgenic animals produced sexually favorable but weak offspring. If the animals are sterile, none of their conclusions would be applicable.

Re:No, not the same.

[jeremyp]

Humans are just getting started in the "god" business

No they haven't. I wouldn't expect the effects of introducing a genetically engineered species to be much different than say introducing rabbits to Australia or wheat to North America or any of the other cases where we have taken species from one ecosystem and introduced them to another which is something we have been doing since we learnt to traverse the oceans.

Re:No, not the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you hold nothing sacred, you are reduced to a pile of mud. You are not worth anything, besides the salesvalue of flesh, bones and meat. Of course, since you can do labour, that is worth more, so we keep you alive.

Nice strawman argument. The guy says that DNA isn't as sacred as you think and you turn it around and make it seem that he holds nothing sacred.

When you hold everything sacred, you are unable to act. Even the bacteria in the air has life in it, making the very act of breathing a literal slaughterhouse. The eating of food is another abomination -- the destruction of more sacredness. Of course, since you're sacred too, we keep you alive. Is this the kind of world you want to live in, where everything is sacred? Where nothing gets done because of the fear your actions will harm something sacred?

Oh, I love strawman arguments. They're so fun to turn the other way around.

Re:No, not the same.

[Steeltoe]

What you hold sacred is your own choice. It's plain by reading the posts here that very little is sacred anymore. I do not agree with that choice, though I respect everyone to make their own choices as long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way.

You can still hold everything sacred, live, breathe and not being fanatical. You read my words litterally: Summarizing the text in rules and logical meanings, deducting any wisdom out of it.

Every wisdom and knowledge can be turned on its head. The wise finds the wisdom, while the fool search for flaws and counter-attacks.

Re:No, not the same.

[the argonaut]

It doesn't make sense because you don't even want to consider it. Hence why you respond with such a disdainful and obstinate tone yourself.

That , and yeah, I did not substantiate my statement. Unfortunately I can't recall the specific source nor do I have time to look it up right now (stoopid final exams and all that...), but it went something like this:

1. Fast growing but poor parenting GE salmon escape into the wild.
2. Female salmon find GE salmon irresistible and all try to hook up with them, disregarding their smaller but otherwise genetically superior wild counterparts and failing to mate with them.
3. Offspring of GE and wild salmon are less likely to survive. Note less likely, not completely unlikely, and that the survivors are likely to continue to carry on their genetic weakness (as recessive traits) and pass them to future generations.
4. Repeat starting at #1 (because it's likely that GE salmon are not going to escape only one year but year after year, as demonstrated by the current fish farming industry) until...
5. No more salmon.

Re:No, not the same.

[schmaltz]

I wouldn't expect the effects of introducing a genetically engineered species to be much different than say

Than say kudzu to the Southern/Eastern U.S.? Or zebra mussel to North America's waterways? Or Japanese beetles to the forests? Or Gambian pouched rats? Or loosestrife to northeast farmlands?

All are foreign pests that have caused tremendous economic and environmental damage.

You can't predict in advance what effect releasing a new species into an ecosystem will have. Too many variables. The best you can do is either to not do it, or accept there will be unknown effects. Given the above examples, California's step is prudent.

Re:No, not the same.

[Kiwiscientist]

I think we're in general agreement that GE Salmon is a bad idea, so I won't labour the points. The technique of salmon farming may be an issue, and depends on how enclosed they are. Current fish farms most often used anchored net pens offshore and I'm unaware of any "aquarium" type fish farms that raise fish for food (and I'm betting you are too). They may exist for specialist marine life (lobster), but they certainly don't for salmon.

As you say, an aquarium type environment would preclude salmon being released into the wild, but as they don't exist, it's a moot point. And as for the future, if GE salmon had to be bred this way, I doubt whether they would be competitive with the naturally occurring variety, bred in standard fish farms. I also doubt if anyone in the anti-GE brigade would ever believe that an enclosed net dangling in the ocean is absolutely escape proof. There have been recorded incidents off the coast of Maine, when 300,000 fish escaped from an ocean pen, and in Washington State, when 115,000 escaped. This has been used as evidence in the past that there is no way to be certain that the transgenic salmon would be kept separate from native fish.

I think your concepts of "significant affect" differ from mine. It is entirely possible for "small" (single pen breach = a few hundred thousand fish?) releases that occur even very infrequently to negatively affect the a native population. Actually it would only have to occur once for a negative effect. And any negative effect is extremely undesirable, both ecologically and politically. GE science has such a bad reputation at the moment; I would prefer not to give its opponents any ammunition at all.

You are correct, the scientists at Purdue did not use sterile fish, and they only said that the larger genetically modified fish attract four times as many mates as wild salmon attract, but produce weaker offspring. I suggest that over a single generation, a sterile fish would have an even worse effect.

To give this debate some place to go, I would suggest that salmon farmers engineer the fish to grow faster, but not bigger than the standard variety (giving no breeding advantage).

Re:Darwin, "Jesus Fish", and genetic engineering..

[demonbug]

Is it okay if I have a fish with big glowing letters spelling out "Jesus" on either side? There can't possibly be a moral problem with that, so it must be legal, right?

And those Thanksgiving turkeys?

[PIPBoy3000]

Each year, the president pardons the Thanksgiving turkeys and they're sent off to some farm to live out their lives.

Unfortunately, since they're bred to be meat animals, they don't survive very long. Some last a week. The lucky ones last a year.

Virtually all of the food we eat has been genetically engineered, just using very primitive methods over long periods of time. I bet we could even breed glowing goldfish using traditional methods . . . given a few hundred million years.

Someone call hell...

[jpellino]

.. and check the weather forecast - they finally found something too weird for California.

And it was AFTER electing Ahnold as Governor.

cali

[sstory]

Dipshits.

Dumb da-dumb dumb dumb dumb!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhh, why? You buy your salmon from a fish farm...the fish from the farm might not have been genetically manipulated, but there's already a noticeable difference between salmon in the wild and salmon from a farm...what if the farm salmon get into the wild and mate with wild salmon?

Why the concern over some pet fish? This is freakin' stupid.

Good grief...

[RiffRafff]

These things aren't going to survive in the wild if released. Geez. There's a reason why albinos are rare in nature: they stick out like a sore thumb! Considering that other, bigger (predatory) fish see in color, as to oh, birds like ospreys and fish-hawks, just how many minutes do you give this "evil genetic mutant" before he's lunch?

This is a non-problem.

Luddites.

glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[falcon5768]

cause then i would probably not be able to have corn since it was genetically engeneered by early people (acourding to Good Eats food anthropoligist, gotta love that show)

see I hate the whole stigma of genetic engeneering and the media's total disregard to what genetic engeneering actually is.

Most cases your not designer gene'n the thing your engeneering but just doing whats akin to selective breeding, or forced breeding.

In the case of corn it was a cross polination mutation between different wheats that created it.

OK granted in this case we do have a fish that was changed in a lab and not cross breed or anything of that nature, BUT really whats so wrong with a aquarium kept tropical fish that glows? If you want to look at it like that then all fancy guppies and bettas should be banned cause none of them are wild specimines but actually selectively breed to create pretty colors and paterns.

Another example is one my Adviser loves to bring up, organic shit sucks. We honestly would never be able to sustain life the way we do because the yields would be so much lower people could potentially die from starvation.

Growing up in Penn he saw how non-chemically treated "non-genetically engeneered" foodstuffs where constantly low in yield and bug filled compaired to other foods, particularly in the Amish community.

In conclusion it just bugs me that genetic engeneering has this big no no stigma put on it thats just as false as the old "Concorde will give you cancer if it flies supersonic over your house" belief. "or even todays ozone layer slashdot story. Grassroots protests with not a shread of scientific fact to back them up, but plenty of publiciity

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[cranos]

Okay I'll bite, their is a big difference between selective breeding and actively mucking around at the genetic level. Try as much as you like but you can't get fish genes into plants through selective breeding but you can with GE.

Organic shit sucks? Well without the amount of preservatives people eat, I would say only about sixty to seventy percent of shit is organic anymore. Anyhoo, your advisor is talking out of his arse. If he did any research he would find that it is quite possible to produce enough food to feed the globe using organic methods, hell before the industrial revolution and the introduction of pesticides it is how the world operated.

Until you can prove to me that introducing foreign (read from another species or genus) DNA into an organism isn't going to cause problems I'll keep eating food that hasn't been spliced thanks.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[falcon5768]

actually

a) without genetic engeneering there is no way enough food could be made population growth would prevent it. Even with genetic engeneering we still have foodsotree problems and if you actually look and production to population growth genetic engeneering saved us from a horrable famine.

b genetically engeneered rice has saved millions in africa and the middle east by allowing them to get needed nutrition in a cheap foodstuff.

c) i would like you to keep half the vegitables you eat without those added peservitives, better yet I would like you to spend as much money you do now, and get the same amount. Its a fact that organic food spoil faster, cost more to produce since less food from farms make it to your table when they arn't treated, and are actually less nutritous.

you try to prove to me it would be harmful, since hundreds of studies have proven enviromentalists are full of shit when it comes to genetically engeneered foodstuffs. We know for a fact you cant transfer genes through food, so if the food proves to provide more for humans in nutriton and in abundance and has shown time and again it wont be harmful to humans or other plants then what are you afraid of.

You may not want to eat genetically engeneered food, but I do and you have no right to tell me what I'm allowed and not allowed to do to my body.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[cranos]

Ooh looks like Im going to have some fun with this one.

Listen oh yee of little knowledge, surprisingly enough people were growing enough food to support themselves without the aid of genetically engineering, they had figured out their own methods of tackling issues such as disease and environmental factors, its called Selective Breeding.

Genetic Engineering has the potential to do a hell of a lot of good in the medicine/health however in the food production area it has the potential to do a hell of a lot more harm than good. Genetic disorders can be wiped out. Food on the other hand is a different kettle of glowing fish.

You site Africa and the middle east as prime examples of the good that GE foods can do, site some examples, give us some facts, and not those as posted by GE companies like Monsanto. As I said before, prove to me that it is not dangerous. I think in this case I would rather not eat GE foods until it can be conclusively proven that introducing fish or animal genes into plants is not going to produce problems.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[falcon5768]

open up a genetics book and you would see the selective breeding IS a form of genetic engeneering albiet a much less efective method of engeneering compaired to DNA and RNA manipulation.. but Genetic engeneering all the same, hence how corn is actually a genetically engeneered plant.

Enviromental groups constantly try to say that combining rice strains and such isnt genetic engineering, and thats bull, any time you force a plant to mate with another plant, like species or not and mutate it to a new form which it wasnt before, your manipulating the genetic traits of said species. Selective breeding or gene manipulation under a microscope its the EXACT SAME THING DONE ON A DIFFERENT SCALE.

Take my example of corn, there was no such plant in early times, food anthropologists would show you that corn did not exist untill cross polination by two totally unrelated species of plants mutated a speed just right to produce corn. Here we have an example or unlike species (granted both plants) which naturally mutated into a new plant.

AKA natural genetic engineering

And as time and again anyone who sat through a biology class would know, DNA can not pass from food to the animal. We dont take on genetic traits of what we just ate. So if we are engineering these foods to yield more, be more nutritious, grow in areas that are too harsh to grow it, etc. explain to me how it will harm us? Explain what possible can happen? its genetics not chemical! I would rather eat a ganatically engineered apple than one thats been grown using chemicals. as for benifitial genetic engeneering in plants http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/6.13.96/r ice.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/1997 /04/21/story8.html http://ucbiotech.org/resources/biotech/talks/crops /ricemtgn.html http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/rice/story.htm and as for your glowing freaking fish I would like to see someone try to eat a aquarium fish, heck they can eat my tetras right now, since thats all your glowing fish are tropical aquarium fish.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[Steeltoe]

Look up on horizontal genetransfer. DNA-transfers across species do happen, which means you actually can "become what you eat". In another sense, you really ARE what you have eaten. Every seven years, most of our bodies have been replaced with new material. From where? The food we eat, it's not just passing through us you know, you ARE that genetically engineered food of yours.

I'm amazed at the ignorance here. This is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.. But he asked you to prove it's safe. Of course, that impossible as you can't prove anything. You can never satisfy him.

What could possibly go wrong you ask? Lots and lots of things have gone wrong before because of human manipulations of nature for short-sighted gains. The GM food can outgrow natural foods, stop insects from eating it, thereby killing off the birds that live on the insects. GM food might have other chemicals and traits, which over time could give more diseases or impact our bodies in unfavourable ways.

Why do we need more food? Why do we need more people? Bigger and larger, no matter the cost? Why, why, WHY???

In our ignorance we've transformed this planet into an ugly place, with cities, pollution, stress, sickness and squareness. We've lost contact with nature, with our own bodies and with joy. Nobody stops and recognize the beauty of life.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[cranos]

Im sorry, but what you describe with the corn is called evolution, not genetic engineering. One is the result of random mutations within the parent plants and the other is the deliberate modification through artificial means of the underlying genetic structure of an organism.

As for your tirade about chemicals versus natural foods, I am completely in agreement with you. There has been by far way to much reliance on chemicals in the production of our food, however the answer is not the tinker with the genetic structure of the plants themselves.

I read the article about the rice and it appears that the resultant plant that saved Asia was actually developed through traditional methods of cross breeding, not through genetic engineering.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[falcon5768]

horizontal gene transfer, can happen but can only happen with bacteria. Never know to happen with humans. I looked it up dude, and other than anti-GE sites that say it can happen in humans and animals, any education site says it can ONLY happen in bacteria.

Lots and lots of things have gone wrong before because of human manipulations of nature for short-sighted gains. Ok this is true, but many times the manipulation was because chemicals introduced by humans. I dont need to site its safe, fellow slashdot users in this reply thread have already proven that the anti-GE'rs are dead wrong and spouting the same falce facts about how the earth works that the enviromentalists have spouted for years about our ozone layer (ie re really dont have as much affect as we say we do, ozone depleation and greenhouse effect happenes alll the time which is why we have ice ages)

oh and its easy to see why we need more food... go to china, live there have your 2 or 3rd born killed because your not allowed to have them cause there is not enough food to go around, go to india, see we already HAVE the problem, you spout about human rights yet you basically saying you have no problem having these people die of famin.

We have done shit to this planet, like I said we are ignorent to think we have had any effect, since any scientific study shows this isnt the first time, and that the earth just goes ahead and purges its self, hence the shrinking of the iicecapss which floods the ocean then with a imbalence of water to land the earth grows cold shrinking the oceans into ice and causeing a

DRUM ROLL PLEASE

ICE AGE!!!!!!!

Its happen at least 5 times before

it happened as recent as 200 years ago

We survived, and the earth did to.

Read a REAL science book next time before you try to tell me humans have the cosmic effect we do, cause we dont, sure we might speed thing up a bit but the earth will always win in the end.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[falcon5768]

no it isnt evaloution when it was force on by NA's, which if you look it up is exactly what happened. the original plant was cross bred to try to make a better plant and corn was the result.

and if you look up cross breeding it IS genetic engineering. Stop saying it isnt cause it is and i will mail you evey genetics textbook in existance to prove to you it is.

CROSS BREADING = GENETIC ENGINEERING you are manipulating the genes of the plant just as selective breeding in humans is genetic engineering, yes we may have done it for thousands of years, but its genetic engineering.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, you don't "become what you eat" since your body breaks down all the proteins you digest into their composite amino acids.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[cranos]

For the last time Selective Breeding is not Genetic Engineering. Selective breeding is basically assisted evolution. Genetic Engineering involves fucking around with the genetic base of each organism directly instead of having to wait around for each generation to see what the changes are going to be.

The other thing about Selective Breeding is that almost without exception you cannot create a viable new species through selective breeding. Sure you can get mules or ligers but you can't selectively breed cats and dogs together. With Genetic Engineering you can add dna from completely different species, hell even different families and still turn out new species that are viable.

You have yet to prove to me that GE is going to be problem free in the area of food production.

Re:glad californians didnt exist 300 years ago

[cranos]

see we already HAVE the problem, you spout about human rights yet you basically saying you have no problem having these people die of famin.

You know what how about this then as a solution to world hunger, all that grain and produce the US pays its farmers not to grow, why don't you just give it to the poorer countries. Oh look a simple solution, the shock the horror.

Re:Darwin, "Jesus Fish", and genetic engineering..

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems okay, but something tells me that soon after someone will come out with an actual fish with little legs and big glowing letters spelling "Darwin" on each side.

California - Now and Then

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850?

California became a state.
The state had no electricity.
The state had no money.
Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
There were gun fights in the middle of the streets.
So, it was just like California today ...
only the women had real breasts!!!

Glow? Nah. Croon? YES!

[wembley]

They need to modify fish with Aretha Franklin's genes.

Because I want to be the first post on Slashdot when that happens (in tribute to HHGTTG):

"Holy Zarquon Singing Fish!"

And yet Kalifornians can buy a Pekingese puppy...

[RiffRafff]

...and those are no less a genetic manipulation. The only difference is that, rather than happening in a lab, these dogs were inter-bred for years and years, countless generations of inbreeding, until they, like the Persian cats, mutate to the point of having continuous sinus problems due their misshappen snouts.

If that's okay with the free-rangers and anti-fur folk, then this fish should be okay, too.

Re:This is stupid

[reignbow]

Yes, in this context, "ein" das mean "one" or "a". However, I don't remember ever seeing that quote before, especially since it doesn't make any sense. "Hummer" is a lobster, and the word "State" doesn't exist in German. So, no idea on what's meant here.

BTW, what's a "b.j."?

Hrmm, thats odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually California is the first to accept controversial methods and measures and implement them without thinking.(see: ebonics, Gov. Schwarzenegger, tripled car taxes, etc.)

Why should we?

[baileytal]

Most of the arguments here are along the lines of "how dare these ignoramuses interfere with the production of glowing fish in the fine state of California? Luddites! Facists!" etc.

Why not try turning that question on its head? You might understand the conclusion a bit more. Begin from the position that you have no right to do something that's not permitted by the law. Then ask: Why should California allow glowing pets? Is it likely to cause a huge economic boom? Perhaps it will make a noticeable impact on the crime rate? Will they alleviate starvation? Reduce the destructive seismic activity? Where is the public interest in permitting it?

Is the best answer that you can come up with "Because we can!" Or the even more credible "Because I want one?" If so, can you be surprised that the Commission decided against it? Even in the face of "complete" scientific certainty, if there's no good reason to permit it, why would they? The fact is that as much as industry biologists would like people to believe they know it all, most regulators don't believe them (unless they've been lobbied intensely). Biotechnology is in its infancy, and the honeymoon days of Science! ended in the 70's. And, the more dangerous a technology apears to be, the more reluctance the public demands from regulators.

If scientists want people to trust them, they need to refrain from climbing on their high horses, and provide more persuasive arguments. Fear is a more powerful motivator than curiousity in the general public. Maybe the Commission was motivated by fear in this case. Guess what? Fear is not illegal. It permeates the law like almost no other emotion. Ignore it, and you'll never have your glowing, talking, housecleaning fruit bat.

Re:Why should we?

[fredmosby]

ask: Why should California allow glowing pets?
This is America, the land of the free. Things shouldn't be made illegal unless regulators know they are harmful to society. In this case it was made illegal because a regulator felt that genetically modifying pets is wrong. To me that sounds that he's trying to force his moral convictions on other people, not trying to protect Californians from something that is dangerous.

Thank God for Arnold

[BitHerder]

...otherwise, think of all the money California would spend printing out drivers licenses for all these illegal fishies!

Why...

[hcetSJ]

In a press conference, the State Banning Commission reported that the fish were banned because of their insistence to refer to some genes as "masters" and others as "slaves".

This is like Salem witch trials

[Anonymous Coward]

Something comes along and is perceived to be a little weird and ceterain groups of people and especially people in power abuse such power because they are ignorant of the facts and cower away from the things they are ignorant of in hopes their puny defensive actions can completly stop something. This kind of behavior has went on for centuries. It's too bad we cannot learn from the past and learn to accept change. That is the root of the problem, some people are scared of change.

Genetic diversity

[semiazas]

Since when was genetic diversity a bad thing? If a genetically altered organism gets into the environment, the environment will adjust, one way or the other. If someone breeds the super fish, and puts humanity at risk, I doubt Darwin will be turning in his grave. Those concerned about the environment should be more concerned about the single most harmful organism on the planet, US, before they go off on a rant about flourescent fish. Take this paranoia to an extreme and we would find the governments of the world deciding who could have children based upon their genes (Gattaca but worse). Every time we procreate we're rolling the genetic dice and heaven forbid they come up snake eyes.

I had a genetically engineered fish years ago, so?

[Gldm]

What's the big deal? Back when I still had a fishtank (probably 1996 or so) I had a genetically engineered catfish. I think it came from some experiment at the university of texas or something. Some grad student crossbred two catfish species (columbian redtail and shovelnose I think) and they looked neat. A petstore here in NY had one in their exotics section. I bought it. It worked just like a regular fish, ate feeder fish, pooped, swam around. Was it evil and they forgot to tell me that part or something?

where is the line?

[AndrewR81]

It seems evident to me that a line must be drawn somewhere. For example, it's not unreasonable to predict that gene manipulation will be possible with other pets, such as say gerbils or cats. At that time, if genetically modified fish are accepted, will the argument be "fish are accepted, why not cats?"

Personally, I just hope people will think about this and decide where they place the line. If someone has decided that genetically modified pets are fine as long as there has been research into making sure they're safe for the ecosystem, or whatever, then the way I see it, at least they've thought about it.

Of course this means educating yourself and others where you can. I'm no biologist so something like bananas once having seeds bigger than apple seeds surprised me. Humans actually over time bred them selectively.. so is selective breeding OK but technological gene manipulation OK? And how safe are these things? Will they mess up the natural ecosystem if one escapes? 'guess I have some research to do :|

But, techological gene manipulation only for human pleasure (ie pets) seems a reasonable line to me..

Re:where is the line?

[im a fucking coward]

Humans actually over time bred them selectively.. so is selective breeding OK but technological gene manipulation OK?

Good line of questioning, and yes, breeding the stronger, tastier, disease resistant plants and animals is is just a common method of gene manipulation.

Of course, apparently it's only okay to unintentionally weaken the human genome through medical technology, not to use it to correct the mutations created by keeping people alive who would otherwise have died @ birth or in childhood.

At least there's a real future for doctors in the typical line of ignorance.

No way this law is going to last

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until the World Trade Organization hears about this...

Obviously prohibiting the sale of this fish violates free trade! There is no room in business to concern ourselves with 'morals' or 'ethics' -- not if the bottom line is affected.

I'm not trolling here, just presenting the facts. The WTO has the power to override ANY law in the US (or other member nations) that they consider to be in violation of free trade. The WTO is a completely undemocratic institution that is not accountable to anyone, and they wield their supreme power in closed door and secretive meetings!!!

There have been quite a few cases in which the WTO has (ab)used its power by overriding these kinds of ethical or moral local laws because they are judged to be prohibitive to trade.

Some business is going to have a hissy fit about not being able to sell their legitimate product to the consumers of California.

just watch...

Re:This is stupid

[ifwm]

I'll translate for you ein Stadt, ein "Hummer sport utility vehicle manufactured by AM General", ein Arnold.

Prions

[handy_vandal]

Ever hear of prions? These are proteins that are misfolded, but also cause similar proteins in normal cells to also misfold. The misfolded proteins can cause diseases, such as mad cow disease. The scary thing about prions is that they are resistant to digestive enzymes in your digestive tract.

Prions also resist autoclaving -- the standard hospital procedure for sterlizing surgical instruments. Cases have been identified where a scalpel was used for eye surgery, on a patient with CJD (a human prion disease); the scalpel was autoclaved, and used again; the next patient to get the scalpel contracted CJD, apparently from the scalpel.

Autoclaves use steam under pressure -- a very harsh environment which degrades normal proteins, yet somehow the prions remain infectious after autoclaving.

None of this has any immediate bearing on the glowing-fish issue, but it does point out that nature is one tough bitch.

-kgj

Re:Prions

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Minor correction - prions resist the standard autoclaving procedure, which is 121C for 20 min. Rising temperature to 136C for 60 min will inactivate prions quite efficiently. It more and more turns out that prions aren't nearly as stable as initially thought, they are even partly digested by proteases. The point is, they are stable enough that some of them can make it through the digestive tract.

Come to California

[Evets]

Out here, we'll increase your breast size and suck some fat out of you in the same session. We'll have bee's sting your lips to make them poutier. We'll put a mild form of the plague in your forehead to get rid of your wrinkles. Would you rather not sweat? We've got a cream to prevent it. Want a smaller dog? How about a toy poodle instead of a regular sized one. Bloodhound's too tall? How about a basset. Don't like your hair color? Pick up some dye. Don't like your hair texture? Have a transplant. Drink too much? Have we got a liver for you...

Want a pink fish instead of a black and white one? What are you some kind of sick-o?

Oh and by the way... we don't use Master/Slave anymore around here. It offends people. We'll provide you with a newer abridged dictionary when we can settle the debate on whether or not we can still refer to fairies as fruit.

Prions

[handy_vandal]

Ever hear of prions? These are proteins that are misfolded, but also cause similar proteins in normal cells to also misfold. The misfolded proteins can cause diseases, such as mad cow disease. The scary thing about prions is that they are resistant to digestive enzymes in your digestive tract.

Prions also resist autoclaving -- the standard hospital procedure for sterlizing surgical instruments. Cases have been identified where a scalpel was used for eye surgery, on a patient with CJD (a human prion disease); the scalpel was autoclaved, and used again; the next patient to get the scalpel contracted CJD, apparently from the contaminated scalpel.

Autoclaves use steam under pressure -- a very harsh environment which degrades normal proteins, yet somehow the prions remain infectious after autoclaving.

None of this has any immediate bearing on the glowing-fish issue, but it does underline your point that nature is one tough bitch.

-kgj

"Genegineered"?

[SamSim]

At risk of being modded into oblivion, has anyone actually tried pronouncing this word? With a straight face, I mean? The obvious shortening of "genetically engineered" - thank you Peter F. Hamilton - is "geneered" and you know it.

Re:"Genegineered"?

[Deraj DeZine]

No kidding. Where do they get these people? "Genegineered!?" WTF?

Clarification

[Kallahar]

Just to clarify, CA did not ban these fish. The fish are banned because of an existing law passed well before these fish were created. It's not knee-jerk legislation, just short sighted.

Finding Nemo

[Anonymous Coward]

time to cross a clown fish with a GPS.

Yet another

[mysterious_mark]

silly regulation from the Peoples Republic of CA. We've now beat out Florida as silliest and most backward state. M =(

Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[Jonathan]

Genetic engineering allows introduction into a species of genes that express proteins (and other molecules) not available within the host species' existing gene pool.

Where do these people get the idea that genes can't cross species? They can. Look up horizontal gene transfer in any molecular evolution text. Like Creationists, the anti-GE crowd simply ignores science when it doesn't serve their purposes.

Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[the argonaut]

Like Creationists, the anti-GE crowd simply ignores science when it doesn't serve their purposes.

Wow, they sound just like the pro-GE crowd.

Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, naturally mate a jellyfish with a tomato. I dare you.

Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[Jonathan]

Wow, they sound just like the pro-GE crowd.

Cute, but it isn't so symmetric. Simply wanting to *allow* a technology isn't the same as going out of one's way to promote it.

Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[tgibbs]

Like Creationists, the anti-GE crowd simply ignores science when it doesn't serve their purposes.

Like creationists, the anti-GE folks generally suffer from the mistaken notion that different species have very different genomes, and imagine that something drastic is likely to happen as a result of crossing species boundaries. In reality, the genes of different species are far more similar than different, because all species evolved from common ancestors. Most genes in one species have counterparts in another. Indeed, it is possible to find counterparts of most human genes in species as diverse as bacteria, yeast, and roundworms. Bizarre novel genes can just as easily (indeed, probably more easily) occur through mutations in a single species that splice one gene into another as through introducing "foreign" genes. The nightmare scenario of the expression of a transgene accidentally creating an "uber-organism" that runs wild and causes an ecological catastrophe makes about as much biological sense as the notion that being bitten by a radioactive spider will confer upon one the ability to climb walls.

Re:Yes, It is the same -- Horizontal Gene Transfer

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when I had a girlfriend, I did the horizontal gene transfer most nights. Now I'm stuck with transferring genes down the shower drain.

Especially silly

[mysterious_mark]

This is especially silly since these are tropical fish, and cannot survive in the wild in CA, too cold. MM

Reminds me of nuclear power

[James Lewis]

This reminds me of nuclear power. Done right, you can make a nuclear power plant that is incapable of having a melt down, yet people are so afraid of the nightmares of science fiction that they refuse to look at the facts. France has 59 nuclear reactors that supply 77% of the total energy to them, and you don't see a bunch of glowing frenchies now do you? Yet this stupid knee jerk reaction people have to technology has caused us to remain dependent on fossil fuels for our power, and no doubt contributed to the energy crisis in California. I'm not saying that there aren't ANY problems with nuclear power. Obviously there are, but the point is that the positive easily outweighs the negative when viewed in a rational light, and the decision not to use the technology comes from people's emotions/fears and not reason. Genetic engineering is a lot like nuclear power, with the exception of the bar to entry being a lot lower. Unlike nuclear power, all you need to do genetic research is the scientists, the money, and a few cute helpless animals. People trying to block genetic manipulation (either the sale of it or the research) are just going to force it to go underground, or to another country that lacks regulation where there is a much higher probability that something WILL go wrong. The solution is not to outlaw it, but to regulate it closely.

Re:Reminds me of nuclear power

[norkakn]

IIRC France has some pretty huge problems with disposal though.

Re:Reminds me of nuclear power

[seraph93]

France has 59 nuclear reactors that supply 77% of the total energy to them, and you don't see a bunch of glowing frenchies now do you?

No, but if I did, I would want one for a pet.

Re:Reminds me of nuclear power

[Anonymous Coward]

And we've had Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the nuclear industry. At least radiation decreases over time, whereas an escaped GMO may well increase over time and spread. Sooner or later someone is going to be irresponsible or stupid around a GMO, especially if its used for things like pets.

If only we'd stuck with...

[mpaque]

...good old fashioned radiation induced mutations. With this genetic engineering, how can one possibly take the idea of developing a race of atomic mutant supermen seriously?

When the Herlem Globetrotters reach Earth, we're doomed!

Perfect Slashdot Poster

[Anonymous Coward]

The perfect slashdot poster will be created through genetic enginnering.

24 hours a day troling on slashdot and perfect carma .
Marvelous !!!!

Moral Perspective.

[twitter]

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

Well, that one of three commissioners voted on his "values". Giving him the benifit of the doubt about there being no possible harm in the release of these fish, we can imagine the other two commissioners were moved by non-scientific arguments. I wish they could explain their moral delima, after all moral arguments should be reasonable rather than mindless emotional reactions.

I wish their position were better explained, but I'm afraid there is no reasonable basis for their objection. The rest of the article has some stuff about inapropriate exercise of human "power" over animals. If they realy felt that way, they might as well outlaw pet fish of any kind. I'm not aware of any pain or suffering that's special to these little genitically altered fish. If it's OK to breed goldfish simply to subject them to repulsive pet shop conditions and the ownership of 5 year olds, why not this new fish? We already tollerat the creation of pet dogs with gross and unhealthy deformaties through inbreeding, would there be any difference between that and altering the genes directly? How do these people jibe their "values" with California's abortion laws, which alow people to terminate tissue that would become a person if left alone? With one in three women in the US killing at least one of their babies, I don't understand handwringing about pet fish.

Weinhards? Blech, give it to the guppy!

[MichaelPenne]

Now if they want my Steelhead Pale, I'm gonna turn the heater down until they get ick!

What if

[earthforce_1]

a genetically engineered fish swims into California waters? Will it be promptly arrested and deported?

Fossil Fuels?

[Anonymous Coward]

what exactly is a fossil fuel? doesn't uraniam have to mined out of the ground similar to coal or oil or gas?

Re:Fossil Fuels?

[ioErr]

Fossil fuel, such as coal and oil, is formed from dead plants and animals. Uranium, on the other hand, is a metal. Fossil fuels contain carbon, and burning them releases it into the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. They also contain varying amounts of sulphur, which contributes to acid rain.

You are ignorant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The less drastic method is having mother nature do the actual work. Genetic modification is where humans, who don't have the prerequisite skill, take a stab at doing the modifications themselves. If you read agriculture sites or do a little bit of searching you'll find the many 'oops' that have already occured.

New Darwinism...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it's called Survival of the COOLEST. Kudos to the scientists for allowing the glow gene to be passed on because it looks good in a fish tank.

When genetically engineered fish are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

When genetically engineered fish are outlawed, only outlaws will own genetically engineered fish.

Stop the madness! ;)

Stupid hippies! Hands off my fishtank!

[Bowie J. Poag]

"Oh noes! We're PLAYING GOD! We're TOYING with the essence of LIFE! OH GOD NO WE omg LOOK at that PUPPY!! It's soooo CUTE! Look at the little puppy! Whats his name? Awwwwww!!" - Every hippy in this thread

Shut the fuck up, hippies! What the hell do you think we've been doing for the past 6000 years? You guessed it -- Genetically engineering animals to exhibit desirable traits, particularly those that amuse us, or suit a particular purpose. Everything from goldfish with big bubbly eyes to the little Maltese puppy dog in the store window. They're all genetically modified for our amusement. Every last one of em. Get over it, and shut up.

Or could it be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people don't want legal rodents running around? Also, there might be a lot of people who don't want genetically engineered stuff around, just as Europe doesn't want genetically engineered food?

The fact is, people who tout scientific power exhibit quite a large amount of hubris. We're not even close to fully understanding the complex and chaotic interactions that form a cohesive whole, which we call the biosphere. Just assuming that anything we do will be O.K. is not a great plan.

Re:Or could it be...

[qeveren]

Legal rodents? Ferrets are mustelids, not at all closely related to rodents.

Blocking viral reproduction of the DNA is the key

[penguinoid]

Do people around here know that viruses are used to insert DNA into organisms? They fix the virus so it contains the DNA they want and the virus inserts it into the cell. So even if these GM fish are sterile, their genes could potentially spread.

Crap

[dtfinch]

We can factory farm (indoor stacked pens) hundreds of millions of animals smarter than dogs (pigs) to butcher (often still alive when it starts) and eat for breakfast, but we can't keep engineered goldfish as pets?

When genetically modified fish are illegal ...

[SmokeSerpent]

... only criminals will have genetically modified fish.

One day, when a violent parolee breaks into your house waving a GM glowing fish, you'll wish to god then that you had one in your nightstand to defend your family.

Re:Super salmon

[spunktastica]

Once in the wild you do sweep them up. Farm operations keep gillnets on site so if the cage fails somehow the net is deployed. In any case cage raised salmon are very unfit for natural survival. They are conditioned to only eat pellets and stay next to the cage if they do escape mainly. Also the conditions that make them grow fast means they do not have as much energy to put into immune responses, hunting, etc so they would probably suck in the open ocean and not be able to find enough food to support all that growth anyway. Finally any GMO salmon will have induced triploidy and therefore they will not be doing any breeding if they do escape, avoid the gill net, learn to hunt, and somehow find tremendous amounts of food.

As a Tropical Fish Profesional ...

[Mooncaller]

... I have a unique prespective. I have resently found refuge from unemployment by leveraging my decades of knowledge and experience as a Tropical Fish hobbiest, to obtain a position at a Aquatics Store. What bothers me are all of the tattooed, stained, dyed ( via feeding), and obnoxiously hybridised fish. The last thing I want is to be selling GM fish. Though, the Glofish is probably a lot better then a tattooed fish ( i.e. painted glass fish). And certainly better then the Jellybean Parrot Cichlid ( the Mopyfish fish), which is first of all a most obnoxious hybrid, but is also stained. On a side note; It is realy a good idea to have other skills besides programming in these weired times.

Blinky

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Wow. That's the first time in a long time I haven't wanted to slug Michael for a snide comment on a story. He used the Simpsons reference to get on my good side.

We can have Arnie as governor, but....

[crushinghellhammer]

not glow in the dark fish??? Not fair!!!

Hehehe...sorry couldn't resist!

Ignorant Californians. Or Christians.

[axxackall]

As a Californian, I'm glad we won't have them here. Let them experiment on the ecosystem somewhere else and then, in ten or twenty years, allow them in if there hasven't been any problems.

I cannot believe there are such stupid people in California. If the glowing fish is banned for sale in California *and* it's not in Nevada *and* it's sold in Nevada *and* someone brought it California when moved... So no what? Will you run as hell from California to some more safe place?

Don't like Nevada in the example above? Want to separate California from the rest of USA and restrict the border and custom control? Consider the glowing fish flying by from Mexica. So, no what? Nuke the ocean?

All Californians, repeat after me: There is only one ecosystem - the ecosystem of Earth.

By the way, personall I don't see any problems with genetically modified plants and animals.

First, the natural evolution itself is a process of a genetical modification. Some modifications are small, while some are very drammtical. We, humans, are a product of one of the biggest genetical modifications all over the world history. First mammal with aked skin, first animal with such brain power - should I continue here?

Second, we, humans killed evolution of many species, including our own kind. Industrial genetical modification can somehow compensate it.

Third, we, humans, are a part of this nature. Therefore, whatever we produce is a part of this nature too. If we genetically modify something - it's natural.

Finally, I suspect that 90% of GM opponents are christians. 90% of repressions any churches made in a human history were done by the christian inquisition. I wonder, what's so wrong with christianity that it hates the science so much?

Re:Ignorant Californians. Or Christians.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go take a genetics or a molecular biology class. Evolution isn't a bunch of random permutations, and yet you don't have to appeal to some higher power, either.

Origins? You're on your own.

Evolution? It's not random.

A small virus can't easily kill off the entire planet. While many viruses are trans-specific, they're not virulent to all species. What about kingdoms? Enter plants. Bacteria. Fungi. One single virus isn't going to wipe the Earth to a cold, dead planet.

Your caps-lock betrays you. That alternative science website is waaaaaay out there. Sun's frozen core powered by cold fusion? ESP? Paranormal powers?

Carry on with life. Wal-Mart was built just for you.

Re:Ignorant Californians. Or Christians.

[FroMan]

Yes, yes. We all know how Christian the EU is, and they ban GM foods.

And California is so Christian, so they ban GM fish.

Um, do you see a break in logic there? Nope, cause it must be a Christian consipracy, where we are sneaking just a couple rabid anti-GM Christians into EU to make a big stink and into California.

Obvious solution

[Julian Morrison]

Engineer them to taste good.

Then not only are they quickly munched when escaping, they also make novel and intriguing party snacks.

"Two Mc GlowingFish burgers, coke and large fries, coming up sir. Welcome to the twentyfirst century!"

Wrong, oil companies have kept the us dependent.

[Anonymous Coward]

They kill off, resist, supress other other energy sources not yet in their power or not the most profitable and they have been strong arming to get and keep their market share since they came to be. If they really wanted to do nuclear, they would have pushed it down our throats like they have already done with GE food.

Damn Swarzenegger!

[Glowing Fish]

He has it in for me!

Where's the compelling reason for this?

[Jafafa Hots]

Not that I'm a fan of GMOs in any case, but at least with food plants an argument can be made that there is a REASON to take the risk - increasing the ability to feed people.

In this case, however, there is ZERO NEED for this modification. If there is ANY risk to the environment, that should always be balanced against the benefits. What are the benefits here? Some people with money to burn get a new toy, and some rich people who want more money get richer.

Why take the risk for essentially no reason whatsoever? For a damned TOY?

Should we allow plutonium powered Gameboys?

Blocking is useless

[gpmap]

The good side of globalization is that it is very difficult to keep technology know-how within one country. If things for which there can be a market are forbidden in the US, they will be done elsewhere. Note that China is pushing strong on IT, space, biotech and nanotech.

now I really have to get a gGE fish!

[oohp]

Now that GE fish are banned in CA, I will certainly buy one or two, or three..

New Fad Fear

[regem]

Every decade or so, it seems that people choose something new to fear irrationally.

Think of all the big advances...

They feared industrialization because we'd no longer be an agrarian republic (America did, at least). Nuclear Power was going to wipe us out in a series of meltdowns. A.I./Computers were going to get us all (seen Wargames or Terminator 1, 2, 3 lately?). Filesharing was going to end the information economy, etc... Fad fears. Ignorant people feel smart and important making uninformed statements about the new intellectual topic that they clearly don't understand.

Its genetic engineering's turn to feel the heat.

Where's the compelling reason against this?

[im a fucking coward]

I don't really need a fish that glows in flourescent light, but should my lack of curiousity legislate others ability to care for them as pets?

WHY?

What the hell happened to freedom in this country? These fish represent zero threat to the public or the environment. Having a neon stripe on your side makes you an attractive entre in the wilds, not a super fish destined to spawn with whales.

Or what the hell, continue to create laws which legislate which direction you can fart. When congress legislates how you're allowed to think, don't say you weren't warned, or deny your infamous responsibility. (Whoop, I think Rumsfeld beat you to it!)

Zeig heil mein fuhrer, when do we start rounding up the squirrels and burning their nuts?

Re:Where's the compelling reason against this?

[SuiteSisterMary]

1. Person buys a bunch of gene mod pretty fish.
2. Person realizes keeping fish is pretty damn hard, actually.
3. Person dumps fish in local lake, as flushing them is 'too cruel.'
4. Pretty fish breed.
5. Pretty fish are more attractive to eat to a bigger fish than the normal prey of said bigger fish.
6. The population of the normal prey of said bigger fish starts to grow unchecked, as it's not getting eaten as it should.
7. Prey fish starts over-eating, as there are too many of them, and kills of all of it's own food source.
8. Massive sudden die-off of prey fish pollutes entire lake, kills off everything.

Ooops. Introducing new species into an evironment is never a good idea; introducing genetitcally modified species doubly so.

Re:Where's the compelling reason against this?

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant, where's the reason that isn't 10^9:1 against...

"Not In My Backyard"

[aepervius]

Most of the problem France (and accessory germany with castor Transport) have is because of the not-in-my-backyard problem : exactly the same problem as open-air trash discharge. People do not want those in their region because it 1) lower tourism 2) lower property value 3) make some firm think twice before coming. None are technoligical problem but simply put "psychological" problem.

It is bad because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.

We can be responsible, therefore we can be held responsible, therefore we should be responsible.
The point is not just whether we (humanity) would be adversely affected by an engineered species but also that the species could hold us responsible for any consequences.

Of course, such accountability will not be put into effect by the goldfish itself, but how would you like it if an alien race would genetically experiment on humanity just because they can. Whether this race exists or not, the point of civilization is that being able to do something doesn't automatically give you the right to do it.

Re:It is bad because...

[shaitand]

"Of course, such accountability will not be put into effect by the goldfish itself, but how would you like it if an alien race would genetically experiment on humanity just because they can."

Why not? We do it constantly. If we could we would be experimenting on them. It's no more right or wrong than experimenting on a chimp or a rat.

Screw the glowing fish

[fucksl4shd0t]

I want a fish that can translate languages!

It's very simple. You just make a fish that feeds off of brainwaves and stick it in your ear. Then whenever someone is speaking to you, it'll absorb the meaning of the words, digest it, and then give off brain waves to you and you understand what the person said!

I can't believe no one thought to mention the Babelfish and how it was used to prove the non-existence of God....

Bah. It's not the fish...

[Greyfox]

California also banned ferrets and gerbils. Pretty much anything that might get stuffed up someone's ass for fun gets banned in California.

Pretty much all modern agriculturual products were created by genetic engineering. Take a look at Fluffy the Poodle. That came from a wolf, you know. So why is it that the god damn hippies only get worked up about it when you tweak some critter's genes while knowing what you're doing, while overlooking what we've been doing with centuries of trial and error? Because what they actually object to is that we're figuring out the building blocks of life itself. They're afraid that we'll one day prove that humanity originated through a chemical accident and that we're not really the center of the universe. Glow in the dark fish are just one more step in that direction.

Of course, science will eventually shed light on what we are. You can't stand in the way of progress after all, and theological egotism can't last, for all that it's been trying to for thousands of years. Copernicus had to deal with the same irrational fear when he proved the world wasn't flat. One day we will look the source code to humanity itself, and we will improve it. They can fear it all they want, but that day will come.

What's a gingernerd fish?

[lahi]

-Lasse

Is it possible???

[Dr. q00p]

Is it possible to "intelligently guide" a chaotic system? Well, maybe someday we will be able to, but definitely not right now...

Two examples, from the "real" world:

1. Researchers wanted to increase the starch content of potatoes. Simple, since they had the whole genome and biochemistry mapped. So, genetically, they engineered the potatoes to their needs. Strangely enought, when they measured the starch levels it was 1/6th of the original!?! Hmmm....a biochemical remapping showed unexpected results. Well, nothing that can't be fixed genetically, right? Another modification and another measurement. 1/6th, again? Damn, now they are down to 1/36th of the original levels. The leading researcher finished off the article by stating something along the lines that it is impossible to "intelligently guide" even something as simple as a potatoe.
(I think it was American Scientist that published this, but I might remember this incorrecty. I know I have a copy stashed somewhere at home though)

2. Another set of researchers wanted to genetically modify salmonds so that the color of their flesh would become "naturally" pink (ie. without food colorings). Simple thing, right? Wrong! Locating the right genes was easy, changing the genes was easy and growing them was easy. Did they become pink? No. But they did grow bigger than "normal" salmond. The leading researcher stated that this was indeed a good thing.

However, more and more researchers today realise that:
- Predictability and chaotic systems don't match
- Genes do not have a 1:1 relationship with functions. (and before you ask....no, not a 1:1 with proteins either)

So, am I saying that we shouldn't genetically modify organisms? No.
But I do think that calling it genetic engineering is misleading at best. Pretending that we know what we are doing is plain stupid...

Hm, I think I'll stop now before I go on a rant.

Question?

[Dr. q00p]

If we shouldn't do that, then we wouldn't be able to. == "We should do that, if we are able to."

Yeah!

[Dr. q00p]

Stupidity drives evolution today!

Now wait a minute

[Craig3010]

Its OK to make every Hollywood actress look like Tammy Faye blew up in her face at a silicone factory, but you make one little fish butt glow and THAT'S where they draw the line?

That's enough

[danila]

I don't live in California (in fact, I live in Russia), I don't have an aquarium (my mother does), I think having fish is stupid, etc., etc., but as soon as I can, I will buy some of these for my mother just for the sake of it.

Democracy doesn't work, because idiots vote for thieves, liars and other idiots. As a result we have this ban for GM fish. Look, are the potential extremely unlikely minor environmental problems more serious than some very real ones that Californians have? Like not having electricity and a fucked up budget? Not to mention living in a fucking desert and having a cyborg for governor (I would expect a bit more tolerance towards modern tech from Californians). :)

This is complete idiocy, plain and simple, call it "head in the ass strategy". These clowns don't know jack shit about science, about biology, about ecology, etc., they are scared about things they don't understand (pretty much everything) and so choose to listen to the anti-progress eco-freaks.

Sorry for the rant, but I just hate that sort of stupidity.

Just for the record

[Pan T. Hose]

Aha! So God invented OOP, not Stroustrop as we previously thought.

"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." -- Alan Kay, author of Smalltalk (Why Smalltalk?), Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, 1997.

Just because you make up words

[TwistedGreen]

doesn't mean you can misspell them.

*Genengineered

Glowing Goldfish down the drain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Goldfish get 'freed' or go down the drain...
it would only be a matter of time before it got out...

Power over life is not something to be 'toyed' with!

Would you eat a plate of samon if it glowed?

Clone your own gold fish, but don't make night lights out of them!

NGA Announcements

[Anonymous Coward]

(National Glowfish Association)

'I will give up my Glowfish when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it!'

'This is my Glowfish! There are many others like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my glowfish is useless. Without my Glowfish - I am useless...

(USGC prayer - with apologies to the author of Full Metal Jacket...)

Switching sex? Quite common for some fish

[N Monkey]

i read jurassic park, the fish would just spontaneously switch sex.
That's a possibility I suppose. There are several species of fish (IIRC) on the Great Barrier Reef that can do this. In some the top female will become a male and in others it's the other way around.

Breeding fish...

[Dragoness Eclectic]

You know, when the news of the genegineered glowing zebra fish first came out, I had several thoughts about it, and about the STUPID, knee-jerk panic reaction to the concept -- "OMFG, it might escape into the wild and destroy the environment!".

1) It's a zebra fish. Zebra fish have been a popular aquarium fish for nearly a century. I suspect more than a few have escaped into the wild in that time. Since it is one of the more cold-water tolerant of the popular aquarium fish species, they could have survived in southern U.S waters or milder European waters. Has the environment of either collapsed due to zebra fish infestations in the last century? Has anyone even seen zebra fish in the wild in the U.S. or Europe? I've seen a lot of green mollies and mosquito fish and killifish in southern ditches, but those are NATIVE species that have also been used as aquarium fish. Possibly zebra fish don't survive competing with the natives.

2) The fish glows, and when it doesn't glow, is an odd color. Seems rather contra-survival to me. It is less likely to survive in the wild than its unmodified ancestors, and we've seen how much threat unmodified zebra fish have been (i.e., none as far as anyone can tell)

3) What was the company that created these fish thinking? Zebra fish are the easiest egg-laying aquarium fish to breed in captivity. Any half-way serious aquarium hobbyist can do it. They won't have a monopoly for very long. And suing your customers for infringing your genetic patents would just cost them more customers than home-breeding the things would--hobbyists are accustomed to breeding fish, not be allowed to do so because some corporation claims to own the reproductive rights on a fish you bought and paid for would strike a lot of people as an idiotic, greedy attempt to usurp their rights. Treating your customers as criminals because they use your product in the manner it's traditionally been used for decades does not build customer good-will.

4) What were those idiots in California thinking? "It's a silly pet idea, but I own stock in the company that sells it, so what can we do to boost sales? I know, let's ban it! That'll make it the must-have pet of the year among the trendy!"

You know that must be the real effect of this California ban: people who had no real interest in the stupid fish will go out-of-state and buy some just because California banned it. All that the ban really does is hurt pet stores in California, because a chunk of their customers just started shopping out-of-state.

The fish itself? Someone had way too much time on their hands when they came up with that one. California? Continues to prove itself a state I never want to live in, with idiots for government officials.

In other words...

[DaveOf9thKey]

...if you hold nothing sacred, then the terrorists win.

Agricultural Checkpoint Nazis

[medscaper]

You know, you're probably joking, but those guys are SERIOUS.

I was driving a two-seater into northern CA from Oregon about 8 years ago, and was stopped at one of those stupid checkpoints. The lady was ruder than hell - making me stop and then walking away for 3 or 4 minutes, completely ignoring me as my car got hotter and hotter and I got more and more impatient, and when she asked me if I was importing any fruits, plants or vegetables into CA (like I was bringing guns or nuclear material in), I said, "Yeah, I've got 40 crates of moldy bananas under the passenger seat, and a 1/2 ton of asparagus in my tires. What do YOU think?", with a chuckle.

The bitch demanded my driver's license with her hand on her weapon while I explained it was a joke. Then, she not only pulled me over, searched ME AND MY CAR, but they actually made ME (in a suit) remove one of my tires (of their choice) to weigh it to see if it was within specs. (How the hell they knew what specs were, I don't know, but they weighed it and declared it ok.) They searched top to bottom, unpacking my car alongside the road. They ended up confiscating the trail mix in my glove box because of the raisins, dates, nuts, sunflower seeds and dried bananas.

Then they let me go OVER AN HOUR LATER with a stern warning about fucking with the border checkpoints and a warning ticket for not claiming my trail mix. Turns out the warning was nothing more than an inventory of what they'd taken, with my name on it. They hadn't even recorded my DL #.

I don't get that.

Evolution as Usual

[Vagary]

The "unforeseen consequences" are not inherintly bad or good, they're simply greater fitness. Anti-GMO groups tend to confuse inherint evil with bad for humans. Yes, genetic modification could alter (no, not "screw up") nature enough to make life more difficult for humans, but making life more difficult for all species is a totally different issue.

Yes, GMOs will almost certainly escape ("life will find a way"), but they will only take over from the original species if they are more fit. Natual selection still applies to GMOs. By modifying organisms, we are not controlling evolution, but simply being tools of it.

Chemical pollution actually does have the ability to make life more difficult for all species and industrial agricultural methods promote monoculture thereby subverting natural selection. These are the true enemies of nature, as opposed to GMOs: nature by other means. Luckily, GMOs are also the most likely solution to pesticides and monoculture. GMOs are our saviour.

Biological risk

[tgibbs]

The odd thing is that the average person's idea of relative biological hazards is almost completely backwards. Lets consider the things we can do with living organisms, from most dangerous to least dangerous.

(Most dangerous)
1. Moving a wild-type organism from one place to another (or in the case of a microorganism, from one host to another).

There is no doubt that this is a horrible risk, even though we do it all the time. There are numerous real, not theoretical, ecological disasters that have arisen this way. An organism in its natural environment is generally relatively stable (because if it wasn't, it would have long ago gone extinct). Move it somewhere else, and its natural prey and predators may be absent, and it may choose a new prey, while its numbers go unchecked because of the absence of natural predators. Similarly, most diseases and parasites are adapted to spread in ways that are not excessively destructive to their natural hosts. Move them to a new host, and the same mechanisms will not be "quite right." There are many examples of organisms that produce little or no disease in their natural host, but are destructive in a different host. Of course, when you move an organism to a new environment, you also are exposing any diseases it has to a bunch of potential new hosts.

2. Conventional domestication by selective breeding

Again, there are numerous examples of ecological disasters produced by species domesticated by ancient technology of selective breeding. Because such species are propagated by humans, they can have very "unbalanced" properties. The are also frequently maintained by human populations in large numbers. For example, dogs bred to hunt particular species become very destructive to those species when they go feral, even if they are incapable of surviving independently in the wild for long. Cats are extremely destructive of bird populations. Domestic animals and plants, often maitained in large numbers with limited genetic variability, also constitute a major reservoir of infection by microorganisms and parasites.

3. Selection of targetted mutants or selective mutagenesis.

It is possible to develop techniques of selection of spontaneous mutants that intentionally favor the development of microorganisms that are resistant to important therapeutic agents. Many agricultural and medical practices result in unintentional selection to the same effect. Targetted mutation is a somewhat more efficient way of achieving basically the same thing. Biowarfare agents developed by these methods are potentially extremely damaging if they accidentally escape into the wild. Because the genes mutated are natural genes, they are generally appropriately regulated within the organism, and do not impose a high cost on the organism, so such mutants may persist in the environment even in the absence of further selection.

(least dangerous)
4. Introduction of a foreign transgene.

This is probably the least risky of all. Transgenes generally are driven by strong, unregulated promoters, such as viral promoters, and are overexpressed at substantial cost to the organism. Because the organism has not evolved to accomodate such genes, they may have deleterious physiological effects. As such, trangenic organisms typically suffer a disadvantage in the wild and are unlikely to persist. Although there is much fear of allergic reactions to transgenic foods containing "foreign" proteins, the fact is that people routinely eat novel foods containing proteins unfamiliar to their immune systems. Severe immune reactions to foods are rare, and the most severe are not to foods derived from modern methods of genetic modification, but rather from the older method of selective breeding (e.g. wheat, peanuts, milk products).

Mod Parent +1 Informative

[handy_vandal]

"prions resist the standard autoclaving procedure, which is 121C for 20 min. Rising temperature to 136C for 60 min will inactivate prions quite efficiently. It more and more turns out that prions aren't nearly as stable as initially thought, they are even partly digested by proteases. The point is, they are stable enough that some of them can make it through the digestive tract."

Informative -- thanks for the clarification.

-kgj

Karma Whore

[sleezly]

More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)

More importantly, if I post a reply to my own topic, I can increase my Karma by +5...

Re:Karma Whore

[blunte]

Actually fartknocker, had I been allowed to edit my own post I wouldn't have needed to respond to myself.

Besides, what good is karma? Mine's been excellent for so long, why would I need to whore?

And, if you look at some of my recent posts, you'll see I'm no friend of the moderators...

Re:Karma Whore

[sleezly]

I agree, it would be nice to edit posts.