Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Bans Genegineered Fish

Posted by michael on from the blinky dept.

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."

14 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Blocking breeding is key. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  2. But that's only Cali by IANAL(BIAILS) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  3. That's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Increases market value. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  5. Breeding is only one part by blunte · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  6. When glowfish are outlawed, by djh101010 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...only outlaws will have glowfish.

  7. They're wrong by cephyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. how is this so wrong? by d3faultus3r · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    read my blog
    musings on politics and technol
  9. Re:Oh Me! Me! by crawling_chaos · · Score: 5, Funny
    More importantly, what do I need to do to get ME to glow? Please limit answers to non-lethal solutions :)

    Get pregnant?

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  10. Boy oh boy! by musingmelpomene · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

  11. Blocking breeding isn't feasible by i_r_sensitive · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    "Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
    "Talk minus action equals /." -
  12. No, not the same. by schmaltz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ... where's Siggy?
  13. Re:A victory for nature lovers everywhere! by Megahurts · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  14. Reminds me of nuclear power by James+Lewis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.