Slashdot Mirror
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
...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.
Actually, that's what they suggested on the evening news when I saw this last night.
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.)
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.
Moo.
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.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
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.
NO CARRIER
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.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
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
-kgj
The researcher noted that making them sterile greatly reduced whatever risk there might be for problems later on.
It's an ironic point for you to be making, given your sig: 'Abolish "intellectual property"'
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
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|
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".
>;k
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.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
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.
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.
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.
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.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
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.
fuck you.
"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.
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.
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?
Less is more !
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
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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.
Like what I said? You might like my music