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
Need I say more?
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...
Genetically engineered actors and actresses will be all the rage in a few years. The pets will be nothing in comparison.
i for one welcome our genetically modified pet fish overlords.
Damn! evolution stopped in CA...
-- There is no spaam
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.
...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.
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.
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.
Like everything else, the fish were likely found to cause cancer in the state of California.
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.)
So now they are cool rebellious black market items. Instead of stupid glowing fish. Yay.
It makes sense, we just banned another genetically modified fish not two months ago.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
I'm sure the RIAA is behind this
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?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
So much for my plan to use fish as a night light.
...only outlaws will have glowfish.
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...
More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)
.sigs are for post^Hers.
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.
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?
"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.
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."
"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.
Because you just can't be too careful, no Master and Slave fish either!!!
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.
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.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
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
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.
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."
Look at the quotes in that article.
... 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."
"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.
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?
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.
Google, please define: genegineer.
Beep boop boop bip boop... beep.
"I'm sorry Dave, you're just making shit up."
Hammer of Truth
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);}
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
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?
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.
.. and check the weather forecast - they finally found something too weird for California.
And it was AFTER electing Ahnold as Governor.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.