Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish

Its only an aquarium fish! by trp642 · 2004-01-16 08:28 · Score: 1, Funny

Sheesh! Its not like people are going to be eating these fish. They could at least make it against the law to release them into the wild & some export restriction. Do they think that there will be some mishap and the fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?

Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by hchaos · 2004-01-16 08:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Sheesh! Its not like people are going to be eating these fish. They could at least make it against the law to release them into the wild & some export restriction. Do they think that there will be some mishap and the fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?
You obviously haven't been to many drunken parties in your life.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:34 · Score: 5, Funny

> > fish will mutate into a super fish and do things like file patent lawsuits?
> You obviously haven't been to many drunken parties in your life.

I've been to drunken parties, but no amount of alcohol has made me want to file a patent. *shudder*
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by Smidge204 · 2004-01-16 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I had the same reaction, but you know someone is gonna do it anyway.

Too bad they can't solve this by putting a warning label on 'em...

Then again, if you're stupid enough to eat one you deserve what you get. That's just me, though. I mean, you can buy all sorts of dangerous pets and there's no law protecting you if you stick your hand in the cage, right? So what if they're genetically engineered, they're for looking not eating.
=Smidge=
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by The_K4 · 2004-01-16 08:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Ever seen an Aligator Gar? People get these fish as pets, when it gets too big (or little Johny doesn't want the fish any more) they find their way into the river or lake. I forget the name but there were a couple of cases of these fish last summer that bite and are dangerous (from Asia somewhere) turning up in US lakes.

I don't think they need to be illegal but laws about not releasing into the wild have failed miserable before.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by dick980 · 2004-01-16 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

If they sell these fish, once they die, what do you think people will do with their dead fish? Not all people will be responsible about disposal--one flush down the toilet, or one dumping into a creek, and this genetic modification is now in the environment. Bigger fish comes by and eats it. Now what?

This is only one of a plethora of examples that may (and probably will) happen. What happens when an organism ingests this GM fish? Will it cause cancer? Bastard prions causing a new vCJD? New flu virus that no one has seen before? No one knows. This is why it needs to be regulated.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by fejikso · 2004-01-16 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative

If I remember correctly, these fish are also modified to be sterile. Therefore, even if the fish escape to the wild, they would not reproduce and spread their artificial mutations.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-16 08:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

d00d din't you see Jurassic Park? n00b.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by kingOFgEEEks · 2004-01-16 08:57 · Score: 1

The only thing about the zebra danio (the parent fish) is that it only gets about 3-5 cm long, ever. Now, i know that it's not known whether the genetic manipulation of the danio to glow under UV light would cause one to, say, survive in temperate waters (they're a tropical fish), or grow to enormus dimensions. Nonetheless, the millions of fish raised and tested to bring this pet to market should be sufficient to show that there is not a great chance for this to happen.

--
mechanicos ergo cogito
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by kingOFgEEEks · 2004-01-16 08:59 · Score: 1

also, i think you're referring to the snakefish, not the alligator gar

--
mechanicos ergo cogito
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2004-01-16 09:02 · Score: 2, Informative

You must be refering to the snakehead fish (native of china) found in maryland.
These are meat-eating fish, which eat other fish. Some local dude, got them as pets and then threw them in a pond (hundreds of them), once he got bored.
There was a lot of fear, of these fish disturbing the fish eco-system of eastern USA

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by JDevers · 2004-01-16 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

When an organism eats this GM fish, it will be full. Nothing else. Why would it be any different than eating the anemone that the gene is from in the FIRST place?

Seriously, no higher organism sucks up genes from its diet and adds them to its genome, it just doesn't work like that.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by jgabby · 2004-01-16 09:14 · Score: 1

And we all remember how well this worked at Jurrasic Park.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by The_K4 · 2004-01-16 09:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's been pointed out, i named the wrong fish........OOPPSSSSS....
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by Iplaw-dc · 2004-01-16 10:18 · Score: 1

The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans. Regulations should be adopted to advise the general public on any potential health problems resulting from genetically modified fish and human consumption. After all, Dolly died pretty young- right? By not setting any standards, other biotech companies who have the potential to genetically modify larger living organisms directly related to the food chain, which could harm the health of humans. If there are no standards, what would stop them from getting away with it????

--
Jax
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by soft_guy · 2004-01-16 11:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, when you are with a group and you all drop acid, that's when the patents start being filed.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by Fallen_Knight · 2004-01-16 14:11 · Score: 1

You try telling that to the masses... remember you ARE what you eat.....
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by yourmom16 · 2004-01-16 14:29 · Score: 1

could you provide a link to the patent?

--
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by Patrick13 · 2004-01-16 14:49 · Score: 1

All I hear is Homer Simpson's voice says "mmm... GloFish... arggghlll!

--
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by spike+hay · 2004-01-17 07:38 · Score: 1

If they sell these fish, once they die, what do you think people will do with their dead fish? Not all people will be responsible about disposal--one flush down the toilet, or one dumping into a creek, and this genetic modification is now in the environment. Bigger fish comes by and eats it. Now what?

Wow. Sorry, but you are amazingly ignorant. When you eat cow, do you sprout hooves and start eating grass? No. The DNA can't somehow magically spice itself into another organism's DNA, all on its own. Also, GM food dna isn't some kind of magical DNA that transcends the laws of physics and the abilities of normal DNA. GM DNA is the same adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases as all other DNA.

Ignorance like this ruins the prospects of potentially useful technology.

--
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Re:Its only an aquarium fish! by zeno_2 · 2004-01-19 14:07 · Score: 1

Here is something pretty similar to what your talkin about. It will download the weather for the area and then it will put a sun or rain or somethin on the toast when it toasts the bread.

The Sky Is Falling! by grub · 2004-01-16 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

I'm not a big fan of GM food but we've been monkeying with the food supply at a higher level for years: pesticides, fungicides, seedless fruits, selective breeding. More recently we have Monsanto and their 'Terminator Gene', etc.

Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison.

(just had a thought.. someone with these GloFish(tm) should feed a few to their cat and watch for ill effects. I'd wager the only interesting bit would be the ability to scoop the litterbox in the dark. :))

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:The Sky Is Falling! by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 2, Informative

> the ability to scoop the litterbox in the dark

Well, use a UV light. Feline urine is UV reactive. I wonher if dried cat pee is too? This is assuming your cat never "poos"...
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

you're right, but I'd consider this a good start. We still don't know the consequences of what we're putting out there and it wouldn't be the first time if/when we get screwed by it (ddt, cane toads, carp, etc).
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by value_added · 2004-01-16 09:05 · Score: 1

Maybe not so tame.

Typically, most stories don't receive much press, save for local coverage or an occasional bit on NPR. The truth is that there's been disasters and disasters-in-the-making happening for years that are ignored if not covered up. Most of choose not to look, deciding life's just fine or the problem is not ours to worry about.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by allism · 2004-01-16 09:05 · Score: 1

Yes, it still glows in UV light after it dries (thank goodness, otherwise I'd never get my carpets completely clean)

--
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by pavon · 2004-01-16 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

This bothers me a little more because GM food has been tested and approved by the FDA so at least we know there are no obvious problems.

I think that the odds of this getting into the food chain are high. Like the funny post below pointed out, you know that some wise-guy will think that it would be awsome to dump a bunch of these into the local lake, and suddenly you can't fish in that lake anymore, for a while a least. Heck I wouldn't put it against some crazy PETA-like people to "protect" the fish population by releasing these making the public scared to eat fish. So in my eyes, it is a certainty that these will get into the wild.

Therefore the only responsible options (that I can think of) are
1) Banning or strictly regulating them
2) Determining that they are safe to eat and then letting anyone buy them.
I am much more in favor of the second option.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by YukioMishima · 2004-01-16 09:08 · Score: 2, Informative

IAAL but this isn't legal advice.

"Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison."

The complaint of the CFS seeks regulation, or at least oversight - the point of the injunction is to stop something irresponsible before it starts, rather than waiting to see irreversible results before condeming them. It is true that GM food is an everyday part of our life, but the production of those crops is regulated, and with good reason. Additionally, this seems different than the life-saving potential of greater food production - if it's merely making money from entertainment value associated with the Nemo fad, then perhaps it should be looked at more seriously. These fish will make it into the wild one way or another, and the same concerns they have with Salmon (a food crop) shouldn't be ignored just because this is a toy.

Not to mention the fact that some kid or college student will inevitably eat one of these.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by Jaysyn · 2004-01-16 09:09 · Score: 1

Do this on the walls of most hotels & you'll never want to stay in a hotel again ;)

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 09:09 · Score: 1

...(ddt, cane toads, carp, The Average Suit (tm) , etc.)...

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by jludwig · 2004-01-16 09:18 · Score: 1

These fish will not make it in the wild. Natural selection picks the best combination of genes for you, anything you do on top of this almost always will reduce the fitness of the individual (at least in their originial environment, which is also usually the optimal environment for them). Since unmodified Zebrafish have not been a problem in our waters (despite being in the hobby for decades) its very, very unlikely a brightly colored aquarium strain would. Not that I agree with GM for fun and pleasure, but thats another issue... I don't like to force my tastes and opinions on others if it doesn't step on my toes - people keeping these fish have little impact on me or the environment I enjoy.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by kfg · 2004-01-16 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is typical beauraucratic "extension of mandate."

If allowed it essentially says that American food safty regulations can encompass anything in the universe, since something somewhere might eat it and that something in turn get eatten by an American.

If I may quote their website, top 'o the page:

"Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment. . .

Emphasis mine.

Hey guys? Yeah, you food Nazis, I'm talking to you.

We already have and agency to protect the enviroment and provide jobs for enviro Nazis.

It's called The Enviromental Protection Agency. Go figure.

Now be good little lads and go figure out what that nasty stuff is that makes Froot Loops glow and how to protect me from it.

Yes, yes, you'll get your traditional reward of a Ding Dong, with Cool Whip on it, with your glass of Tang at recess.

KFG
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by hesiod · 2004-01-16 09:26 · Score: 1

> Do this on the walls of most hotels

I have never thought of that. And I wish to never think of it again, thanks. :)
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by Awptimus+Prime · 2004-01-16 09:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, let's keep these FDA boys in mind the next time you hear about teenagers dying from taking some weight loss pills.

Someone should really do something about the 10 varieties of herbal remedy and speed next to the cash register at every gas station in the country.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by kfg · 2004-01-16 10:03 · Score: 1

And throw in the homeopathic "remedies" now sold as "medicine" in virtually every legitimate pharmacy in creation.

Personally I rather enjoyed that brief period in history when mainstream practitioners of medicine had given up on the concept of "Good Juju" as valid.

I must admit, however, that the water is completely safe from a food perspective. Completely uncontaminated by anything.

Including juju.

KFG
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by the+argonaut · 2004-01-16 10:29 · Score: 2, Informative

If you really think that GE food has been tested and approved by the FDA, you're seriously deluding yourself. The FDA considers GE foods to be substantially equivalent to conventionally grown foods, hence why they do not require any labeling or real testing. The only real regulation is that you can't use genes from certain foods with significant allergenic properties (i.e., peanuts) in your experimentation with our food supply.

--
fuck you.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by juhaz · 2004-01-16 10:51 · Score: 1

Except the fact that those things and glofishes have nothing in common, with the exception that both are fish. If you try to find some negatives, try to at least get ones that are even SOMEHOW relevant.

That might be bit hard, though, there probably aren't any.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:07 · Score: 1

In fact, as I understand it, one of the biggest gripes that the USA has with the EU, WRT GE foods, is that the EU *insist* that the consumer has a right to know if food contains GE ingredients and require labelling, whereas the USA *insist* that companies producing GE foods should not be disadvantaged by adverse publicity and that openly labelling foods might damage their profitability because (*heavens forbid*) consumers might know what they are eating.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by Viper168 · 2004-01-16 15:22 · Score: 1

If that bothers you, don't try it anywhere in your hotel room, all kinds of eerie stains are all over the place. Don't lift the mattresses!
Re:The Sky Is Falling! by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:10 · Score: 1

I think that the odds of this getting into the food chain are high. Like the funny post below pointed out, you know that some wise-guy will think that it would be awsome to dump a bunch of these into the local lake, and suddenly you can't fish in that lake anymore

These fish are already known not to survive in the wild. But what if they did? The chance of any one protein just randomly happening to be toxic to humans is close to zero. After all, humans blithely eat all sorts of creatures, generally with little ill effect. Perhaps if we make a special effort, we might be able to come up with a genetically modified food as dangerous as a peanut.

Brighter Teeth! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-16 08:29 · Score: 1, Funny

Your teeth! They're brigher... but not exactly whiter... What is it? They're glowing! What is it?

Fish! I eat Glo-Fish. And now I also use Glo-Fish Toothpaste to keep up the glow-in-the-dark tooth brightness!

Re:Brighter Teeth! by AKAImBatman · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 1

Your teeth! They're brigher... but not exactly whiter... What is it? They're glowing! What is it?

Uranium

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Food Safety? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

Re:Food Safety? by acramon1 · 2004-01-16 08:34 · Score: 5, Informative

"The FDA said last month it will not regulate the fish because it is not intended for human consumption. A spokeswoman said Wednesday the FDA stands by that statement." - from the ABCNEWS.com article.

It seems the FDA doesn't think anyone's going to eat glowing fish either.
Re:Food Safety? by viniosity · 2004-01-16 08:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows?
C'mon now - this the same country that has warnings designed to prevent people from accidentally swallowing photocopier toner. What do you think would happen if somebody actually ate one of these and got really really sick? (hint: the answer contains the words law and suit)
Re:Food Safety? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

no one consumed ddt, cfc, cane toads or asbestos either... I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.
Re:Food Safety? by jdhutchins · 2004-01-16 08:41 · Score: 2, Informative

The FDA wasn't the one who regulated ddt, cfc's, etc. It was the EPA. The EPA would have to be the ones to regulate this, but they're pets, so I don't know if they really care.
Re:Food Safety? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

> I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

That's fine and I even agree, to a point. Maybe I should have been more clear: my problem is not that someone is bringing up a perfectly valid fear, but that it is some organization on "food safety." No one (AFAIK) is suggesting these should be eaten. Just because something lives, it is not food -- have they made lawsuits about the dangers of eating rare sea urchins? There are more of those than GloFish, but this one just happens to be "man-made" (well, man-spliced).
Re:Food Safety? by pyros · 2004-01-16 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows?

potentially the fish that we do eat.

So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.
Re:Food Safety? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 08:43 · Score: 1

ok. But that wasn't my point. All I'm saying is a little caution wouldn't hurt.
Re:Food Safety? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:44 · Score: 1

> What do you think would happen if somebody actually ate one of these and got really really sick?

So they are bringing a lawsuit to make sure no one sues the company? Okay, tattoo a warning label on all GloFish saying "not for human consumption." :)
Re:Food Safety? by LostCluster · 2004-01-16 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond? Where it's likely to either be eaten by another fish, or worse, mate. We need to figure out if this GloFish has to be considered a polutant...
Re:Food Safety? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 1

agreed, but then I'm sure weirder things have happened in this beuracracy. The only thing that comes to mind at the moment is the IRS getting Al Capone for tax evasion.
Re:Food Safety? by secolactico · 2004-01-16 08:49 · Score: 1

or worse, mate

Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out.

--
No sig
Re:Food Safety? by pyros · 2004-01-16 08:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

or worse, mate
Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out.

That actually brings up another concern. If an animal is genetically modified, including sterility, and it gets into the wild. There is a chance that the rest of the modifications will give it a reproductive advantage (like salmon made larger so we get more food out of them). So then you have all these sterile animals who are 'mating' with all the females, and no offspring are produced, which has a pretty bad effect on that population.
Re:Food Safety? by LostCluster · 2004-01-16 08:54 · Score: 1

The makers claim that, so more likely than not it's true. However, who's doing the audits on those claims? That's why the government needs to come up with a regulartory structure for these things fast, because even if this maker is honest, the next one to come out of the woodwork might not be.
Re:Food Safety? by Lobsang · 2004-01-16 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

Even though I agree with you that fish we eat may eat the GloFish (and this is bad), I also think that if we go down your road we'll starve to death. Name something that is not fed/irrigated with something harmful or at least questionable these days...
Re:Food Safety? by HTH+NE1 · 2004-01-16 08:56 · Score: 1

Well, hopefully you aren't being fed fish that were found already dead of unknown causes, i.e. the fish were alive before being killed to turn them into food for you (and gutted, so any undigested GloFish won't be in your food either).

Me, I have no compulsion towards eating fish every Friday, or any other day for that matter.

I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

Better steer clear of all fish from Japan then, in case they may have taken a nibble from a Japanese pufferfish.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Food Safety? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

> What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond?

Then it is a matter for the EPA, not Food Safety. And yes, I know other fish will eat them. Those fish will eat and/or be affected by just about anything thrown into the pond. That's EPA, why isn't this?
Re:Food Safety? by fireduck · 2004-01-16 09:02 · Score: 1

these are zebra fish. their natural habitat is the tropical waters of India. Chances are they are NOT finding local zebra fish to mate with anywhere in the U.S...
Re:Food Safety? by HTH+NE1 · 2004-01-16 09:03 · Score: 1

What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond? Where it's likely to either be eaten by another fish, or worse, mate.

"Yah, thems floater fishies sure're good eatin', an' ya can catch 'em real easy too."
-- Cletus the slack-jawed yokel

That which doesn't kill my food should make me stronger, or something like that.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Food Safety? by fireduck · 2004-01-16 09:09 · Score: 1

I don't want to eat anything that's eaten something harmful to me, as that substance could be present in high enough concentrations to make me sick, or dead.

if all you ate were grass, you'd probably die. (as we really don't have the mechanisms to extract the nutrients out of grass). however, there's probably little wrong with eating a cow.

the glo in glofish is a protein that fluoresces under specific wavelengths. being a protein, it likely is broken down by the higher organism upon consumption, so that the animo acids can be reused to form proteins that the consuming organism needs to survive.
Re:Food Safety? by calethix · 2004-01-16 09:11 · Score: 1

" Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? "

What I want to know is, who's stopping by the pet store on the way home to pick up dinner? There's just something wrong with that picture.
Re:Food Safety? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 09:33 · Score: 1

> who's stopping by the pet store on the way home to pick up dinner?

[Insert obligatory and possibly inflammatory Thai restaurant joke here]
Re:Food Safety? by C10H14N2 · 2004-01-16 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would highly recommend that you do not eat crustaceans from the Chesapeake bay then, despite the fact that they are delicious. In fact, all crustaceans would be verboten in that case as I doubt that putrid decaying animals and fecal matter would be things you'd want to eat yourself.
Re:Food Safety? by dheltzel · 2004-01-16 09:49 · Score: 1

Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out
I thought I read that also, but a friend of mine bought some to try to breed them and he has a whole bunch of babies, so they are clearly not sterile. It will be impossible to "put the genie back in the bottle" now. I personally have strains of fish that no pet store has sold for 20+ years, they are just bred and passed along to other fish hobbists, so shutting down the trade won't eliminate them from the fish hobby, in fact it will only make them more popular.
It's sad they even waste their time and money on stuff like this. I guess this is just part of the "fool and his money are soon parted" program.
Re:Food Safety? by Jaysyn · 2004-01-16 10:25 · Score: 1

Isn't Mad Cow caused by a prion? Isn't a prion a misformed protien?

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Food Safety? by Florian+Weimer · 2004-01-16 10:29 · Score: 1

Who the heck is eating any fish that glows? So, what does "food safety" have to do with anything?

I bet it will be fed to cows, like anything which is of remote organic origin.
Re:Food Safety? by Have+Blue · 2004-01-16 10:33 · Score: 1

Remember that the food chain is a cycle. Anything organic and/or consumable that isn't hurled into outer space is going to go back into the cycle and sooner or later you'll eat a few atoms from it.
Re:Food Safety? by cgenman · 2004-01-16 10:39 · Score: 1

The FDA wasn't the one who regulated ddt, cfc's, etc. It was the EPA. The EPA would have to be the ones to regulate this, but they're pets, so I don't know if they really care.

Damned pets of the Bush administration.

Oh. You meant the fish.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Food Safety? by C10H14N2 · 2004-01-16 10:39 · Score: 1

Soylent Green is Peeeeople!

But, seriously... This "I don't eat anything that eats things I wouldn't eat" pretty much eliminates anything but, well, eating people. Mmmmm, peeeeople.
Re:Food Safety? by arkane1234 · 2004-01-16 10:53 · Score: 1

It's caused from feeding other cows to a cow.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Food Safety? by aussersterne · 2004-01-16 11:15 · Score: 1

there's probably little wrong with eating a cow

Well aside from conditions of animal cruelty in modern meat farming, there's also the fact that eating meet as a dietary staple is a very inefficient (read: poor) use of planetary resources and probably should be avoided for ethical reasons on those grounds as well. There's also the question of the general healthiness of a farmed meat raised on hormone supplements and vast quantities of antibiotics, and in some cases slaughtered only because it grew too ill or unhealthy to produce milk any longer (or even to stand on its own).

But you're right, the grass in any cow that you happen to eat is unlikely to harm you.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Food Safety? by C10H14N2 · 2004-01-16 11:47 · Score: 1

While the argument from efficiency is largely true, at least with mammals, it is less true with fish and almost silly with mollusks and crustaceans. For godssake, they eat shit and multiply like bacteria. How much more efficient can a food source be? The ethical problem in killing a carnivorous creature for food--that is to say, eating something that would as quickly eat one of us is a stalement, n'est-ce pas? There is perhaps an "ethical" argument concerning eating herbivores as they would not eat us, but should one be confronted with a mountain lion or a German cannibal bent on having lunch, the ethical question of returning the favor is not exactly a difficult one to answer. An argument to the contrary is more an artifact of being urbanized and removed from that potential decision (well, at least in the case of the mountain lion) than of some higher ethic.
Re:Food Safety? by Alsee · 2004-01-16 11:49 · Score: 1

I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.

I agree completely! Particularly when it comes to ToFo, The Anna Nicole Show, hairless cats, $8 batteries to replace an identical battery that came free inside a $4 calculator, and most of all, Bell Bottom jeans!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Food Safety? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 12:04 · Score: 1

Amen!
Re:Food Safety? by Gaijin42 · 2004-01-16 12:11 · Score: 1

if it costs $8 to buy a new battery, and $4 to buy a new calculator, just buy a new calculator.
Re:Food Safety? by DzugZug · 2004-01-16 12:13 · Score: 4, Informative

I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketing something that we don't really understand.
Perhaps, but, I for one don't like the idea of people suing to stop things that they don't understand. The same goes for slashdot posters being afraid of things they don't understand. As one of the minority of biologists who frequent slashdot, I feel a small primer on GM technology is in order. I appologise in advance if this sounds preachy.
First, gene's consist of two parts: a coding sequence (which defines the protien produced by the gene) and a promoter (which controls when and where that protein is made). Think of it as event driven programming -- when the promoter is activated, the protein is made. One good example is Heat Shock Protein (HSP). When the temperature of a cell get's too high, HSP changes shape and can then activate other genes' promoters. These genes mediate the cell's response to thermal stress. Green Flourecent Protein is a protein that occures naturally in a species of jelly fish (Aequorea Victoria) and it happens to be flourecent, i.e. when put under UV light it glows green. Scientists have known about GFP for a while and have created versions of it such as Red Flourecent Protein (RFP) or Cyan Flourecent Protein (CFP) that, after small changes to the coding region glow in different colors.
Say, you want to study development. Early in animal development, there are three tissue types: endoderm, ectoderm, and mezoderm and all internal organs are decended from one of these three embryonic tissues. If you are interested in finding out which organs come from which early tissues, you could do it with transgenics as described below.
Now, how to make a transgenic (GM) animal? First, using biochemical techniques you take the GFP gene and attach it to a promoter for a gene that is expressed (or turned on) in the endoderm. Then you put that construct into a small peice of DNA called a plasmid. The plasmid has some other genes also, such as a replication origin (which allows the plasmid to be coppied in bacteria but not in animals) and a neomycin (antibiotic) resistance gene taken from bacteria that are resistant to neomycin. Then you transfect bacteria (usually a non-pathogenic strain of E. Coli) with the plasmid. That is, you get the plasmid inside the E. Coli. Only a very small percentage of the E. Coli are transfected, so you grow them in media that contains neomycin -- that way you know all of the surviving bacteria cary the plasmid. Using this technique you can "grow" a lot of plasmid. Then, using a little biochemistry, you can isolate the plasmid from the bacteria and inject it into zebrafish embryos. Again, only a very small percentage of the zebrafish will incorperate the DNA into their genomes. Those that do, are transgenic.
The entire process can then be repeated with RFP and the promoter for a mezoderm gene. Now you have a transgenic fish in which some organs glow green and some glow red. This is basically what the GloFish is.
Note that all of the gene's present in the zebrafish are present elsewhere in nature. All that has happened is the scientists have moved a gene from one species to another. Note also, that the gene has become incorporated into the genome of the zebrafish and is not just floating around. A larger fish that eats this zebrafish is no more transgenic than you are a cow for eating beef. The larger fish will not make the protein and it is not possible for the transgene to become incorporated into the genome of other fish it comes in contact with.
Likewise, the neomycin (or other antibiotic) resistance gene is not in bacteria and there is no way for it to get into bacteria. Only the zebrafish are neomycin resistant and (being vertibrate) neomycin never would have hurt them anyway.
This lawsuit is spreading an example of the classic fear, uncertainty, and doubt that is spread by those who oppose any genetic modifications. I agree that we need to have a substantive debate about
Re:Food Safety? by Gaijin42 · 2004-01-16 12:18 · Score: 1

The "reproductive advantage" is when a particular animal has some trait that lets it live long enough to reproduce, thereby letting its genes move forward through the generations.

a) It is concivable that there is some trait that will allow this fish to survive better, but since it cannot reproduce, at worst, the problem will only last for the lifetime of any individual animals out in the wild.

b) many animals will move on to a new mate if they don't get fertilized (except those that mate for life, and I don't think many fish do that). Therefore the sterile fish just gets laid, but shoots blanks (yes, I know fish dont actually have sex that way, its a metaphor). and then the female finds someone else.

c) even if a particular animal in the wild does "tie up" one otherwise fertile animal out there, the number of animals in the wild, compared to the number of unmodified animals in the wild would be so small as to be insignificant.
Re:Food Safety? by Yet+Another+Smith · 2004-01-16 12:26 · Score: 4, Informative

What if a GloFish is released into a fishing pond? Where it's likely to either be eaten by another fish, or worse, mate. We need to figure out if this GloFish has to be considered a polutant...

A) As another poster pointed out, that would be a matter for the EPA, not the FDA, but for some reason these guys are suing the FDA. The FDA doesn't regulate PCBs, yet you don't want to eat fish that ate them.

B) As to wether the EPA should ban them, there's little reason to ban these any more than any other aquarium fish. GloFish are tropical (I think zebra?) fish. If GloFish are likely to get into the population, then so are all sorts of other pet fish. The fact is that they don't. Asiatic clams are an issue. Tropical pet fish are not. These are not Snakeheads we're talking about.

C) Even if they were likely to get into the wild and survive, could they be dangerous? It is extremely unlikely. Numerous bioluminescent organisms currently live in our environment. Fireflies, certain fungi, lots of things are bioluminescent. Lots of things eat them, which could then get into the game-fish population, and nobody gets sick. These fish would use the same biological processes, and are therefore overwhelmingly unlikely to be harmful.

I'm all for caution. There is a good argument that some GM organisms may be bad. But there are so many threats to the environment that are much much more important than GloFish that these people are wasting resources that could be used to fight important battles. As such they are actually harming the environment by slowing down legitimate cases. Hell, their own suit regarding GM salmon is much more likely to pan out as a legitimate concern, and I support intelligent questioning of GM salmon. But if these guys are wasting their time on this, I begin to doubt whether any of their lawsuits are based on anything other than reactionary anti-GM nay-saying, with no basis in a real threat to the environment or people.

--
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Re:Food Safety? by Nucleon500 · 2004-01-16 13:54 · Score: 1

I don't think that's much of a problem. Even assuming fish are monogamous (I have no idea), the reduction in the effective mating would only be (steriles / (fertiles + steriles) * 100) percent. So dropping one fish in a pond would have minimal effect.
A greater danger, of course, is if the GloFish (through their amphibian DNA :-) ) become fertile. I don't know how likely this is. But even then - it takes a good deal of energy to glow, and if it isn't an advantage, the fish would become extinct. Even if glowing is an advantage, as long as the chemicals aren't toxic, what's the harm? (Besides that fish, when they take over the world, will believe in intelligent design.)

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Food Safety? by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:11 · Score: 1

so..... you wouldnt eat an animal unless you'd *also* eat the food that the animal ate?

Do you eat meat *at all* (apart from home-raised vietnamese pot belly pigs[1] fed only on doughnuts[2])? :)

[1] or chickens or whatever
[2] insert whatever *human* food here

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Food Safety? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 15:51 · Score: 1

Alright... I wish you could, well, put it into more english-like terms (I'm a programmer, not a doctor). Where is the guarantee that these genes might not be apart of a larger system of genes? Aren't there features like human pigmentation that are determined by a multitude of genes? Where is the guarantee that some unforeseen feature may arise that is harmful to a greater system?
Re:Food Safety? by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:17 · Score: 1

I for one don't like the idea that we're messing around and marketingsomething that we don't really understand.

As a biologist, I can tell you that we don't really understand any form of life, genetically modified or not. But that's not a reason to close down the supermarkets.
Re:Food Safety? by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:25 · Score: 1

Where is the guarantee that some unforeseen feature may arise that is harmful to a greater system?

There are few guarantees in life. Even with non-GM food, there is no guarantee that it will not induce in you some sort of bizarre and fatal allergic reaction.

However, once consequence of the widespread use of GFP in biological research is that it has been introduced into all sorts of creatures and cells for all sorts of purposes. And to do a study with GFP, you obviously have to check that it isn't causing any kind of toxic effects. So in practice, we have an immense amount of evidence that this particular protein is well tolerated.
Re:Food Safety? by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:28 · Score: 1

potentially the fish that we do eat.

And probably some of the fish that we already do eat. After all, it is a natural protein found in jellyfish. And some fish eat jellyfish.
Re:Food Safety? by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:33 · Score: 1

That actually brings up another concern. If an animal is genetically modified, including sterility, and it gets into the wild. There is a chance that the rest of the modifications will give it a reproductive advantage (like salmon made larger so we get more food out of them).

If you take some well engineered piece of machinery and randomly bolt on a piece of equipment from something else, how likely do you imagine it is that it will work better? Organisms are optimized by millions of years of evolution. That means that the overwhelming majority of changes will be harmful. In particular, salmon have genetic variability in size, which is acted upon by selection. So that if it was better for salmon to be bigger, they already would be
Re:Food Safety? by Alsee · 2004-01-17 00:33 · Score: 1

Exactly why those $8 batteries are on that list of "thing(s) that we don't really understand".

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Food Safety? by Shakrai · 2004-01-18 08:42 · Score: 1

Even if glowing is an advantage, as long as the chemicals aren't toxic, what's the harm?
How is glowing an advantage? It's just going to make it easier for the bigger fish whose hungry to find you...

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

screw that by Tumbleweed · 2004-01-16 08:30 · Score: 5, Funny

I say buy a whole bunch of them and release them into the wild. The aquatic equivalent of fireflys. Too awesome.

Just don't make any with frickin' laser beams, and I think we'll be just fine.

Re:screw that by El · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 1

I suspect a prey creature that glows in the dark would not survive long in any natural environment. Basically, these fish have the equivalent of a big neon sign reading "EAT ME!" on them.

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:screw that by MysticGlyph · 2004-01-16 09:11 · Score: 1

unfortunatly the fish in question only glow under a blacklight which I think are not found in a natural aquatic enviornment ...so the aquatic equivalent to a firefly is not quite an acurate description/analogy since they don't really light up ...so HA HA! You are wrong! Ha Ha ...um, ...sorry ..I'll shut up now..

--
Try my new smokable Sig, ...Sig-erette.
Re:screw that by H3lldr0p · 2004-01-16 09:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Are you sure about that?
I for one do not believe for one second that our caveman ancestors would have gone anywhere near a glow-n-the-dark wolly mammoth.
Re:screw that by El · 2004-01-16 09:36 · Score: 1

Actually, some cavemen DID go near them, which resulted in the glow-in-the-dark wooly mammoth's rapid extinction. Unfortunately, these same cavemen's wearing of glow-in-the-dark wooly mammoth skins as clothing, although making them a big hit with the women, resulted in they themselves quickly falling prey to sabretooth tigers! Don't beleive me? Prove I'm wrong!

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:screw that by jshine · 2004-01-16 19:44 · Score: 1

Might be a good solution for anyone who sees this lawsuit as silly... If these *were* in the wild, then the lawsuit would be moot and could be dismissed.

The Center for Food Safety??? by Orion442 · 2004-01-16 08:30 · Score: 1

Show of hands, how many /.ers think glowing fish and then think "Yummy!"?

Food safety by Mieckowski · 2004-01-16 08:30 · Score: 1

The Center for Food Safety? People eat the glowing fish?

Re:Food safety by va3atc · 2004-01-16 08:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The Center for Food Safety? People eat the glowing fish?

LoL, good one :-)

On a serious note,

It has to do with consequences if these fish would have if they ended up in your streams and lakes.

Steve

--
Candle burns its brightest in the dark

My little brother invented the GloFish... by mcasson · 2004-01-16 08:30 · Score: 1, Funny

When by little brother was 6 he stuck an LED down his goldfish's throat, now that is what I call a GloFish!

--
I've already said all that I have to say.

Re:My little brother invented the GloFish... by PD · 2004-01-16 09:05 · Score: 1

Glow job?

--
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.

I feel sorry for that Glofish... by Microsift · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 3, Funny

probably can't find a lawyer who'll work for fish food and colored light.

--
My other sig is extremely clever...

Misguided by loserbert · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Why does the Center for Food Safety want to regulate my aquarium? How broke do they think I am?

--
[ Don't reply to this ]

Re:Misguided by Orion442 · 2004-01-16 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Guess all that time you spent hunting for tiny lures, tiny hooks and a tiny fishing pole was a waste.
Re:Misguided by UrgleHoth · 2004-01-16 08:40 · Score: 1

Have you seen Finding Nemo? They must be afraid that they will escape into the wild ocean.

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."

Stop the Madness by geekychic · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 1

Argh. Half the news posts on /. these days are about lawsuits. Since when did filing suit against someone become a viable means of effecting action?

Re:Stop the Madness by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 08:36 · Score: 1

You've never heard of O.J. Simpson, have you?
Re:Stop the Madness by Oddster · 2004-01-16 08:59 · Score: 1

Argh. Half the news posts on /. these days are about lawsuits. Since when did filing suit against someone become a viable means of effecting action?

Since we decided that standing back to back, walking 10 paces in opposite directions, and drawing revolvers was no longer a civilized method of conflict resolution.

interesting uses for glo-fish by tuxette · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 2, Informative

I just read this article about an accidental genetic engineering of a two-headed fluorescent zebrafish. The hope is to use research results to develop drugs to cure muscular dystrophy.

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...

But I want my day-glo sashimi! by pu'u_bear · 2004-01-16 08:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously though, in the 50 years (wild guess) that zebrafish have been imported for aquariums, not to mention all of the developmental biology research done on them, no one has found a zebrafish invdading a non-native watershed. Besides, I have to think that them glowing would lead to rapid predation.

--
--You're BOTH right. It's a floor wax AND a desert topping!

Re:But I want my day-glo sashimi! by hesiod · 2004-01-16 08:48 · Score: 1

> them glowing would lead to rapid predation.

No doubt it's not the best choice for surviving natural selection, I agree. If Bass like shiny metal spinners, imagine how much they'd like an entire glowing fish.
Re:But I want my day-glo sashimi! by ilsie · 2004-01-16 09:14 · Score: 1

In Michigan (and a lot of other states, I'm guessing) Pihranas are illegal because there have been cases where pet pihranas have gotten into Lake Michigan and wreaked havoc.

Next up to bat...PETA by GeneralEmergency · 2004-01-16 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Since the Center for Food Safety is suing to stop people from owning glowing pets, shouldn't PETA now sue the Center for Food Safety because they are advocating that people routinely eat their pets?

No really.

--
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency

Re:THIS MEANS WAR by Orion442 · 2004-01-16 08:33 · Score: 1

Thanks to whoever modded this fucker down. Out of all the unfair and unjust mods, this one truely deserved it.

I don't see the problem here by scumbucket · 2004-01-16 08:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.

--
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!

Recall that... by GillBates0 · 2004-01-16 08:33 · Score: 2, Informative

California had already banned the genetically engineered fish according to this old Slashdot story.

Wonder why the poster/editors didn't backlink to it.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Re:Recall that... by pyros · 2004-01-16 08:49 · Score: 2, Funny

California had already banned the genetically engineered fish according to this old Slashdot story.
Wonder why the poster/editors didn't backlink to it.

They were going to repost it as a new front page article tomorrow, and link back to this one in the repost of the old one.
Re:Recall that... by pyros · 2004-01-16 09:34 · Score: 1

thanks for the tip

Frankenfoods by Mieckowski · 2004-01-16 08:35 · Score: 3, Funny

They probably think it is radioactive because it glows.

Re:THIS MEANS WAR by John+Jorsett · 2004-01-16 08:35 · Score: 1

Let's see. Declaration of Jihad. Hate speech. Threat of attack. Description of targets. I think this qualifies under the USA Patriot Act for a rubber-hosing by Homeland Security.

Glowing ME by j_sp_r · 2004-01-16 08:35 · Score: 1

I hope these fish don't come into the humen foodchain. Glowing people won't be a good idea(not that that will happen). Altough, glowing sperm, a very small change, sounds cwl.

Re:Glowing ME by Prof.Phreak · 2004-01-16 08:43 · Score: 1

Glowing people won't be a good idea...

But then you could easily spot those who are `bright' individuals :-)

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

Lawsuit by daeley · 2004-01-16 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

I can see the adverts now:

One Fish, Two Fish
Red Fish, Blue Fish

Wouldn't you like
A mutant GloFish?

(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

Re:Lawsuit by TheWizardOfCheese · 2004-01-16 09:55 · Score: 1

No, no, you mean:

Look what we found, in the park, in the dark
We will take him home
We will call him Clarke

We will take him home
He will Glo and Glo
Will our mother like this?
We don't know

--

"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
Re:Lawsuit by gmaestro · 2004-01-16 13:53 · Score: 1

(with apologies to Dr. Seuss)
If he were still alive you'd have a lawsuit on your hands, but with recent commercialization I suspect you have a check coming.

Let me get this straight...??? by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 08:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed...

Maybe I have a difference of opinion with "The Center For Food Safety", but to me a Government should "properly regulate" a product that has been determined SAFE by letting it out there on the free market and letting the people decide if they want it or not.

Let's see here:

1 - Scientists create something cool, in this case a bad-ass glowing fish.

2 - California bans it.

3 - Some group sues someone.

4 - More regulations and taxes.

5 - Profit! (for the Government, not us)

Re:Let me get this straight...??? by fiendo · 2004-01-16 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Studies have shown that this genetically modified fish is in no way dangerous to humans, even if consumed... The exact quote from the article was "The company's chief executive, Alan Blake, said scientific studies have shown the fish are safe and the lawsuit is without merit."

--
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by sfjoe · 2004-01-16 09:01 · Score: 1

... to me a Government should "properly regulate" a product that has been determined SAFE

The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it.

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

EEEEEH!!! Wrong!

Just because a company says that a product it is selling is safe does not mean it isn't. Point me to one study that justifies a lawsuit.

I'll point you to some evidence that your statement is wrong:

Right off the bat, I can show you just spoke out of your ass:

"There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish."

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00994 .h tml

In fact:

"The zebra fish were originally developed to detect environmental toxins, but Alan Blake and colleagues at Yorktown Technologies, L.P. licensed them to sell as pets."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/21/offbeat.glofish .r eut/

Please, point us to a single study that says they aren't safe. A real study, not just someone being irrationally paranoid about the mystical evils of genetic engineering.

We all saw Jurassic Park, but that's not a reason to go freaking out about a cool invention.
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.

I did one for you, I didn't see any. I found the ones I pointed to though. Please use real studies, facts, and logic to justify lawsuits. It's your line of thinking that has led to this horrible overlawyered situation we have today. You gave absolutely no reason why these fish are a menace to society, you just assume they are because rich people created them.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.

Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will. It's because of the rich people in this world who work their asses off to invent things that you can sit in front of your computer typing pointless messages on /. They invented that car you drive around, and they bought up all the expensive new inventions to drive the price down so people like you could buy glowing fish.

If you pointed me to a real study, done by an unbiased third-party, that justified your claims, I would not call you irrationally paranoid, instead I might learn something.

But obviously I'm not going to learn anything from you today, and that's disappointing.

I wish people would stop suing and trying to regulate everything just because they don't trust it, for some reason they can't put their finger on.

In the meantime, the only people calling this product "unsafe" have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Again, please point me to some if you have some inside knowledge. But I'd hate for you to "waste your time" by doing a 2 second google search.
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

heh, you're getting funny.

There's nothing "blind" about my "worship" of the rich. I admire what a lot of rich people have done with their lives and the good it has done for all of us. I spelled out my reasons very clearly. That isn't blind. I hope to be one of them in the (near) future.

What strikes me as rather "blind" is your hatred of the rich, so much to the point where you seem to think this lawsuit is a good idea, but you can't tell me why.

You think they have no right to profit off something they have invested time and money in, because it might be dangerous, but you can't tell us why it is dangerous, and you are contradicted by several studies including one by the FDA.

I'm having fun with you here, but I'm going to have to stop replying until you point me to a single study that justifies suing the people who invented this product.

Government regulation is a serious thing, that costs businesses a lot of money and leads them to invest less money in R&D and EMPLOYING PEOPLE.

I pointed out how you were wrong with your original statement (The only people who have determined this product is safe are the ones selling it) by pointing out other people who were saying it. You admitted you were too lazy to do a google search to do me wrong, or you lied, did one, found nothing, and claimed laziness instead of admitting you were wrong or being quiet.

You blindly hate rich people, innovation, inventors, etc. You've shown that through your posts. So please, don't call me blind. I gave my reasons for everything, if you are illiterate there is nothing I can do to help you....

Until then, I'd love to hear some evidence from you justifying the lawsuit you support against a very innovative company. Or at least some teeny-tiny reasons for why you believe what you "believe".

Until then, you sound silly. But hey, maybe SCO is hiring!
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 10:21 · Score: 1

I gave a sound reason.

Which was???

I didn't see one!!! Maybe I'm dumb, please tell me again. Just post with the reason, nothing else. Just so I'm sure to get it this time.

And your sound reason for opposing these fish and supporting this lawsuit is....
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by 2marcus · 2004-01-16 14:37 · Score: 1

So, first, let me state: I agree with you that GFP fish are harmless.

Having said that, I would like to see a standardized method for approving genetically modified organisms, with an appropriate bureaucratic home, so that non-harmless mods do not slip through the cracks. (And yes, I note that we have been genetically modifying and transplanting organisms for millenia - africanized bees, kudzu, and Australian rabbits show that perhaps a little more regulation in "old fashioned" genetic modification can save a lot of angst later. Heck, I would like to see antibiotic use to bulk cattle regulated before we breed more antibiotic resistant bacterial strains). sfjoe, for all of his paranoia towards science, does have a point that there has been some history of industry suppressing studies showing that their product is nasty (asbestos and tobacco are two obvious examples). Of course, sometimes lawsuits work the other way, and something that may be benign gets axed (in my opinion, silicone breast implants).

Which is why standardized procedure (like the three trial phases for new FDA approved drugs) can be nice. GFP fish are harmless, but bungarotoxin fish may not be. Bt maize is great for reducing pesticide use, but should require a lot of thought before seeing widespread use.

I agree - government regulation is a serious thing. It does cost money to industry. But it also ensures that our cars don't explode, our medicines don't cause birth defects, our foods are contamination free, our cities have breathable air, our money is safe in our banks, our workplaces are safe, and our large companies don't lie in their accounting and cheat us out of all our money. So you have to balance the dangers of an unfettered economy with the dangers of regulating innovation out of existence.

And, a comment on rich people: Yes, society is set up to reward inventors for products that make people happy. People who become rich off of inventions, good management, hard work - all power to them. However, many rich people are rich because they cheat the system - look at golden parachutes that ensure that CEOs can pull down millions even as their companies go bankrupt, look at tax shelters for the rich like coal gasification plants. Now that there is no inheritance tax anymore, people can inherit large fortunes and then watch them grow without doing a lick of work (yes, there is value to people who risk capital in investments and therefore deserve a reward, but I am not at all convinced that the system really functions at the upper levels).

Anyway, just my two (or perhaps three or four) cents,

-Marcus
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by kapok_tree · 2004-01-16 18:00 · Score: 1

Sadly, I have no mod points right now or I'd mod the parent post up. That's exactly what needs to be done. The development of clear standards and protocols for determining the safety of GMOs. Already GMOs undergo considerably more testing than traditionally bread organisms, but having an open, standardized, publicly reviewed process would be a boon in terms of actual safety. Sadly it woudl do little to assuage the rampant terror that many people feel at the concept, but not much will.
Now we just have to figure out which gov't agency will take it over. The FDA doesn't want it, nor does the EPA nor DOA. I'm loathe to say we need to create yet another government agency, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
Re:Let me get this straight...??? by DzugZug · 2004-01-17 20:50 · Score: 1

This debate about what is or is not a "real study" vs. "irational paranoia" can be settled with two words: Peer Review

Try searching pubmed rather than google

Proper Testing by jmpoast · 2004-01-16 08:38 · Score: 1

I have no problem with genetic engineering, but I agree that proper testing needs to be done to make sure there are no adverse side effects when these genes start to mix in with nature. Not only could the resulting fish have an advantage in nature, possibly killing off other species, but consuming these fish later unknowingly could pose health issues for us. Not saying any of this will happen but it is a possibility and should be looked into.

Re:Proper Testing by pla · 2004-01-16 08:54 · Score: 1

Not only could the resulting fish have an advantage in nature

Sorry, but that won't happen.

A glowing fish (or more accurately, a fluorescent fish, a distinction apparently lost on most Slashdotters) would look like a giant "Eat at Joe's" sign if it got out into the wild. It would have the same life expectancy in a natural body of water as it would in the Sahara desert.

And, even that assumes someone takes the effort to buy a sufficiently large number of breeding triplets and carefully release them in an environment suitable for these fish - Even going from one temperature-and-PH-controlled aquarium to another, about half of your new store-bought fish will die of shock if you just dump the bag into your tank. A few accidentally making it to a random body of water would almost certainly die before anything even managed to eat them.
Re:Proper Testing by jmpoast · 2004-01-16 09:03 · Score: 1

"A glowing fish (or more accurately, a fluorescent fish, a distinction apparently lost on most Slashdotters) would look like a giant "Eat at Joe's" sign if it got out into the wild."

Animals in the wild have already developed bright colors as a sign, but its not "Eat at Joe's" its "Don't eat me unless you want to die, I'm poisonous and taste bad"

And, unless they test it, theres no telling what attributes the offspring of one of these fish and a fish thats already in the wild will produce. Theres just too many variables to take into account.

Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark by Merlinium · 2004-01-16 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

ok obviously to many people are taking things literally to much, they only glow when there is a Light source that shows the transplanted Gene, ie a Black light or a infrared light, they do not glow in the dark, they do not emit light at all. under normal light they appear to be normal Zerba striped fish. so all this glowing poop and firefly fish is utter nonsense. Sheesh no wonder they got people like those that are sueing for regulation of these fish. The unfortunate part in all of this is that their parents were not sued and stopped from creating such a whining ass Tard as they have become. The worlds population is doubling every 40 years, what a shame the intelligence factor is not keeping pace.

--
If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?

Re:Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark by LostCluster · 2004-01-16 08:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which brings up an interesting point... they're not emitting light (as a firefly can) but they simply reflect a rather unusual color.

Still, we've used GM to create a fish that hasn't occured in the wild... no natrual zebra fish comes out with that color. Was anything else changed in the process? We're not sure about that...
Re:Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark by John+Newman · 2004-01-16 09:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

As has been said elsewhere, they fluoresce. That means they absorb light of one wavelength (UV in this case) and emit light of another wavelength (green). So they emit light just like fireflies. It's just that they need to absord light first before emitting it; while the luciferase in a firefly gets the energy for its light emission from an oxidation reaction, so it works in the dark.

The protein that creates this fluorescence, GFP (green fluorescent protein) is an all-natural protein found in undersea organisms. Inserting its gene into the zebrafish genome caused no other changes. We can be as sure about that as I can be that you weren't born with two heads (i.e. almost certain, but there are no absolutes in biology).

It's true that you don't find fluorescent zebrafish in the wild, but then I don't see any poodle-wolves or siamese-lions in the wild either. Every domesticated animal has undergone far, far more extensive genetic modifcation than any molecular biologist can even begin to comprehend. To say nothing of domesticated plants. You think corn looked like that when it was a wild plant? You think bananas didn't have seeds? But instead we worry about adding a single harmless gene to an aquarium fish?
Re:Glo-Fish Don't Glow in the dark by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:19 · Score: 1

"Every domesticated animal has undergone far, far more extensive genetic modifcation than any molecular biologist can even begin to comprehend."

And don't forget that they have also been through FAR more extensive 'testing' than any molecular biologist could *ever* get funding for.

How many generations of R&D have dogs been through to produce todays wierd and wonderful breeds?

GE projects have to be out of the door in a matter of a few years or else you won't get that Ka-*Ching* effect and shareholder profit.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Food safety!?!? by SanLouBlues · 2004-01-16 08:40 · Score: 1

These things are puny! You could eat no sooner eat these than you could a goldfish (not the cracker).

I suppose they are also suing to regulate the consumption of sea anemones, from which the 'glow' gene comes.

And lets make sure that nobody's eating rocks or twigs while we're at it!

Can anyone verify this quote by JustAnotherReader · 2004-01-16 08:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

Is this even possible? I mean, if I eat meat from an animal that has a genetic pre-disposition to being diabetic it doesn't mean that I will become diabetic. Is there any evidence at all that eating a genetically altered animal will in any way effect the genetics of the animal that consumes it?

Does anyone here have the background to clear this up? It seems that this is the crux issue. If it's not possible to transport any genetic information (and I would think that it's not) then this is a total knee-jerk reaction with no science to back it up.

Re:Can anyone verify this quote by gr8_phk · 2004-01-16 08:47 · Score: 1

I'm not a biologist, but I think there is a remote chance of a gene you eat getting into one of your cells. I'd imagine the odds are exceedingly slim, and the odds of it getting to cells that create your offspring is approximately zero - but not actually zero. I'm way out of my field on this anyway.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by mr.capaneus · 2004-01-16 08:55 · Score: 1

I don't think the concern in some kind of comic book type gene mixing. They are afraid that there may be some compound or something in the fish that does not occur naturally and is harmful to humans.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by radish · 2004-01-16 08:58 · Score: 1

IANAB but this is one of the issues behind BSE (Mad Cow Disease). It is _believed_ to be a mutated form of a disease which affects sheep (scrapee), and was contracted by cows after they were fed on food derived from dead sheep. The next logical step is for people to eat the cows, and get ill themselves. CJD is a brain disease in humans which is again similar to BSE, and again the belief is that people may be able to contract it by eating beef from infected cows.

Now I realise this isn't quite the same as transmitting genetic patterns, but as I understand it BSE/CJD isn't a regular disease caused by a virus or bacteria, but something much more akin to a transferrable genetic anomaly. But this is where my total lack of knowledge of the subject becomes obvious. Maybe someone out there can fill me in?

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by fireduck · 2004-01-16 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

a number of organisms exist that glow or luminesce (various bacteria, fireflies, some squid, etc.). their predators do not glow or luminesce. hence, it's fairly obvious that if little timmy eats the glofish, he's not gonna glow.

For a more scientific perspective, I am currently researching the potential for DNA transport in the environment and its potential danger--think dead plants that have been modified in some way, (say pesticide resistance), and bits of their DNA being incorporated by bacteria. While the process can occur, i.e., bacteria can pick up DNA from outside the cell, the frequency with which it occurs is very small (this is called transformation).

We're not bacteria, and I don't have much knowledge of transformation in higher organisms, but a quick look at a microbiology book says that eukaryotic sells have a different mechanism (transfection), which seems to have an even smaller chance of success.

so, bottom line, it's a nonissue, at least in terms of people eating them. bacteria picking up the genes, however, is a bigger issue though...
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by altstadt · 2004-01-16 09:00 · Score: 1

Here, have a nice slab of cow. It had a pre-disposition to falling down when it tried to walk, but I'm sure it's okay to eat.

Genes express themselves as proteins. Currently we (as a species) are dealing with the effects of some proteins (found in another species) that are mis-folding and then appear to be replicating themselves without the benefit of genetic material.

I agree that this fish issue is currently being blown out of proportion, but I can understand the reaction.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by srleffler · 2004-01-16 09:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is there any evidence at all that eating a genetically altered animal will in any way effect the genetics of the animal that consumes it?
No, but it is possible that a genetically altered animal might produce proteins that would be harmful to animals that eat it, or people that eat those animals. If you don't believe me, look up prions for an example of a harmful protein that can be passed on in this way.
A more likely harmful situation would be for a genetically altered creature to produce compounds that are simply toxic or carcinogenic. Those might also be passed on up the food chain.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by pyros · 2004-01-16 09:01 · Score: 1

I think the concern is not that consumption will genetically modify us, but rather the alterations, combined with being consumed by other animals we do it, will potentially result in a substance toxic to us.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by aafiske · 2004-01-16 09:02 · Score: 1

Well, I read this morning that the US is under heat about the mad cow issue because we feed our spare cow bits to other animals. (This practice is outlawed in the EU, I believe.) And then the other animals get eaten by cows, who then become sick with what the spare-bits cow had. So with only one degree of separation, it's still possible to transmit some diseases.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by srleffler · 2004-01-16 09:05 · Score: 1

It is not a genetic change that is passed on in BSE/CJD. It is a defective protein. The "normal" protein occurs naturally in both cows and humans. The "defective" version has the property that when it encounters a "normal" protein of that type, it alters it to the defective form. Once you have some of the defective form in your brain, more and more of the "normal" protein becomes converted to the defective form over time, resulting in brain damage.
This explanation is highly simplified, of course.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by larkost · 2004-01-16 09:20 · Score: 2, Informative

No... the leading theory on both BSE and CJD are that a protein gets folded in the wrong way, and becomes a catalyst for folding other proteins in the same (wrong) way. This is called a prion. The only association with genetic structure (other than the protein modeling tools used to study both) is that there might be a genetic pre-disposition for a lack of mechanism that helps prevent the bad folding for happening in the first place.

I will stress that this is all theory, and there are lots of scientists out there with other theories.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by Empyrean9 · 2004-01-16 10:37 · Score: 1

Hmmmm.... Glowing bacteria? What would that be like?
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by arkane1234 · 2004-01-16 11:05 · Score: 1

Hmmmm.... Glowing bacteria? What would that be like?

There are some species that live in lakes and such that do it.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by JustAnotherReader · 2004-01-16 11:20 · Score: 1

A more likely harmful situation would be for a genetically altered creature to produce compounds that are simply toxic or carcinogenic. Those might also be passed on up the food chain
But if they were toxic it would kill the animal that eats it. If it were carcinogenic it would(in the long run) also kill the animal. If the animal had cancerous tumors then WE would avoid eating it.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by srleffler · 2004-01-16 12:56 · Score: 1

It depends how toxic or how carcinogenic. Just last week I heard a news story which recommended that pregnant women should limit their consumption of farmed tuna because the tuna had excessive levels of mercury in them. Maybe the mercury would eventually kill the tuna but presumably most get 'harvested' before that happens.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:14 · Score: 1

If the food was sushi, and therefore raw and with its DNA intact, might genes in it be picked up by ones gut-bugs?

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:Can anyone verify this quote by slavefishy · 2004-01-17 01:07 · Score: 1

I'm not at all an expert, but I am a keen biologist and have spent a couple of weeks doing research work with an organism known as Agrobacterium Tumefaciens. It has the ability to transfer genetic material from its own genome to its host's genome; in this particular case, genes for the synthesis of cytokinins and opines, which result in tumour growths containing a type of amino acid/sugar that the bacteria can metabolise. There're also various mechanisms that bacteria like E. Coli use, such as bacteriophages and transferance from other dead organism's DNA.

The concern is that there could feasibly be some type of organism or other mechanism by which the human body can acquire genetic material through digestion of another organism. Although this is possible, I think it's fairly irrelevant for the following reasons:

1) Viruses implant their genetic material into a host's cells and that usually doesn't result in long-term genetic damage;
2) For the most serious damage to occur from transfer of genes, genetic material would really need to be implanted into a human's gametes, but it's likely that material would only be implanted into somatic cells;
3) Manufacture of things like plastics or toxic materials is of much larger concern (who really cares what genes they're using, if their product is toxic to the environment?);
4) As has already been stated, there're much worse nasties out there and we're coping just fine.

There's qutie possibly also some paranoia from BSE, though that was caused from prion proteins which is an altogether different kettle of fish.

Well by AstrumPreliator · 2004-01-16 08:41 · Score: 1

As much as I disagree with the idea of a genetically altered pet I see no harm in them if you want one. I doubt the gene transplant would start a plague. But then again I'm not an expert in the field.
Maybe a few experiments are in order to do determine whether the fish can carry any potential health risks. As long as the fish isn't in any pain and nobody is in danger there shouldn't be a problem.

This had better not dash my dreams . . . by StefanJ · 2004-01-16 08:42 · Score: 3, Funny

. . . of owning a GMO Border collie with prehensile paws and a obsessive compulsive disorder that compels him to pair up my freshly laundered socks and keep my bookshelves in order.

If he can herd those damn neighbor kids off the lawn between laundry loads, so much the better. If he has any spare time after that, he's free to play cards with the neo-ferret who inspects the cable runs and cleans out the air ducts.

Nyahhhh, rotten kids and their goddamn glowing green racing llamas.

Stefan

I support this allegation... by GillBates0 · 2004-01-16 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.

because I've been doing a bit of reading on the Mad Cow disease lately. The disease, has a dormant time of a few years in cows (it can go unnoticed for about 10 years), and for an equivalent period in humans as the CJD disease. As a result, it's possible that a large number of humans contracted the disease about a decade ago, due to a cow which got it about two decades ago. There's speculation that some older people being misdiagnosed with other debilitating brain disorders, are actually CJD patients.

Mad cow disease is originally believed to have been caused as a result of feeding beef/other meat products to cows. After the US passed a law saying that cows could not be fed food based on beef, lawyers found a way around it (no time to dig up link right now): they started feeding beef products to chicken and chicken based products to beef.

My point is: using genetically altered food, and generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans (can anybody tell me how the first case of AIDS is believed to have occurred). Putting genetically modified fish in the food-chain is not a good idea, unless it's *very* strictly controlled to make sure the fish aren't eaten by other animals.

/end rant

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Re:I support this allegation... by djrogers · 2004-01-16 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

What? Mad cow has exactly NOTHING to do with GM foods! BSE is currently thought to be caused by a specific protein that inhabits the spinal cord and brain of infected cattle. This is not a result of cows eating GM cows - nor is it punishment for some sort of animistic cannibalism. The ban on cows eating cows was related to cross contamination - ie a healthy cow eats a sick cow and subsequently gets sick - of BSE. BTW - nice try with AIDS too, but again, it has NOTHING to do with GM unless you buy into the c-o-n-spiracy theories...

--
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Re:I support this allegation... by kabocox · 2004-01-16 09:19 · Score: 1

Putting genetically modified fish in the food-chain is not a good idea, unless it's *very* strictly controlled to make sure the fish aren't eaten by other animals.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't putting them in the food chain mean that they are being eaten by animals? Humans are animals. Maybe you meant fungus, bacteria, and worms that are meant to eat dead animals. That would work. It's in the food chain then. Uh, what would happen if a bird ate your worm? I'm guessing nothing. Maybe a few generations and there would be a modification in the bird's feeding habits, but for one worm it would be o.k. If I recall my enivornimental science, the food web has a pyramid effect with posions. The top predators get a lot higher dose of a toxin than those worms or grass. It would depend on if the new fish would be a toxin. It shouldn't. I'd bet that there are alots of new species being made right now that humans will never see. We like to think we know alot. We know very little. We have no idea how this would react in the wild. I general think it is a bad idea. Glowing fish would be fine with me, but how long until folks make fish that can sink boats or eat through fishing nets? We are stupid enough to do it. Or make predators that are higher than us. Think elphants that could survive tank rounds and liked the taste of human. Or tigers that could survive small arms fire, but really liked to eat humans. Think genetic warfare. If we could release a virus or bateria that made all life forms within a area suddenly want to eat humans if possible. Don't you think we are stupid enough to release it? I know we are.
Re:I support this allegation... by cpeterso · 2004-01-16 10:13 · Score: 1

Maybe people should stop eating cow brains, too:

"Cow brain sandwiches still on the menu"

EVANSVILLE, Indiana (AP) -- Fear of mad cow disease hasn't kept Cecelia Coan from eating her beloved deep-fried cow-brain sandwiches. She's more concerned about cholesterol than suffering the brain-wasting disease found in a cow in Washington state last month.

--
cpeterso
Re:I support this allegation... by Suppafly · 2004-01-16 10:22 · Score: 1

My point is: using genetically altered food, and generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans

Neither AIDS nor mad cow disease are the result of genetically modified foods, but they do provide examples of cross species infection. But, that wasn't your point.
Re:I support this allegation... by pz · 2004-01-16 10:58 · Score: 1

I've been doing a bit of reading on the Mad Cow disease lately.

Apparently, not enough reading. CJD and vCJD are different, although related, diseases with different symptoms, different susceptible populations, and different progressions. vCJD, for example, affects a much younger population and has a very short incubation time (for want of a better word), whereas CJD is, more-or-less as you describe it, a disease that primarily affects older people or those who took human growth hormone injections before the synthetic version was commercially available. Once more: CJD and vCJD are not the same disease.

Mad cow disease is originally believed to have been caused as a result of feeding beef/other meat products to cows.

Uhm, no. Mad cow disease is primarily spread by that mechanism, it did not originate by that way. It is currently hypothesized that spongiform encepalopathies (ie, BSE in cows, scrapie in sheep, CJD in humans, I-forget-what in chicken) happen spontaneously at a low but detectable background rate in any given population. Now, what happens when you take a sick animal and feed its remains to a large number of other animals? The same thing that happened to those unfortunate short youngsters who were given real human growth hormone in the last century: disease transmission.

The disease is an interesting one. Here's a quick primer: there are small proteins called prions which are ubiquitous in the central nervous system. Their function is not yet well understood, but they're everywhere. They come in two conformations (3d structures), a normal one and a disease-causing one. Healthy individuals likely have zero disease-causing conformations -- why? Here's the cool bit: the diseasing causing conformation catalizes the switching of normal versions to disease-causing versions! So just one bad molecule starts to change all of the others. Normal cooking heat unfortunately does not destroy these prions, either. It is hypothesized that some vanishingly small number of prions in the aggregate set from a population of individuals spontaneously convert to the disease-causing conformation (my favorite reason is cosmic-ray strike). However, ingesting even one bad prion may be enough to cause disease, eventually.

Scientific American published a small handful of articles (3?) on the subject a few years ago.

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Re:I support this allegation... by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:21 · Score: 1

Proof that eating brains makes ya smarter!

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:I support this allegation... by ThaReetLad · 2004-01-28 23:35 · Score: 1

That reminds me of a joke from when BSE was the "Big Thing" here in the UK.

Cow 1: Hey, what do you think about this mad cow disease?

Cow 2: It doesn't bother me, I'm a helocopter!!

--
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. : ( by osjedi · 2004-01-16 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative

These are not "glowing fish". They do not emit light. They are just brightly colored. BORING.

--
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-

Anti-GM Luddites by John+Jorsett · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Center for Food Safety works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the proliferation of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS engages in legal, scientific and grassroots initiatives to guide national and international policymaking on critical food safety issues.

CFS doesn't want genetically modified food, period. It's closely associated with Jeremy Rifkin of Foundation on Economic Trends, which pretty much says it all regarding where CFS comes down on the political/technological issues.

Re:GloFish? by jargoone · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 1

I know it was a seemingly innocent question, but unfortunately, YHBT. See "Is this good or is it whack?" for details.

Next they'll want to regulate Cats and Dogs... by graffix_jones · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 1

after all, domesticated animals have been 'genetically engineered' for years... although through old-world methods such as selective breeding.

Yeesh... where do you draw the line?

FAQ on their Website by coronaride · 2004-01-16 08:46 · Score: 2, Informative

did anyone read this?

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.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.

Otto Protection by cosmicpossum · 2004-01-16 08:47 · Score: 1

They are concerned about Otto's health.
Wanda

--
(This sig intentionally left blank)

Re:Sadly this is news... by El · 2004-01-16 08:49 · Score: 1

Or what about the sheer volume of landfill waste created daily? Today's landfill is tomorrow's valuable mining resource.

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Pertinent information by Mieckowski · 2004-01-16 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Taken from web site: FAQs 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. However, it is important to remember that GloFish(TM) fluorescent fish are intended for use as aquarium fish only, and should never be intentionally released into the wild. What if a fluorescent zebra fish is eaten in the wild by another animal? For an animal in the wild, eating a fluorescent zebra fish is the same as eating any other zebra fish. Their fluorescence is derived from a gene that is already found in nature 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. However, please remember that fluorescent zebra fish are NOT intended for human consumption. What will happen to me if I eat one of these fish? Fluorescent zebra fish, like all ornamental fish, are NOT intended for human consumption; they should never be eaten.

regulate? by ThePretender · 2004-01-16 08:50 · Score: 1

until the government can properly regulate it

and by regulate, you mean make money off of, right?

Re:regulate? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 09:23 · Score: 1

> and by regulate, you mean make money off of, right?

Come on, would the government ever do anything that didn't make them or their friends more money? Or more power?
Re:regulate? by Fjord · 2004-01-16 09:48 · Score: 1

Smack or Tax it.

--
-no broken link

Re:Sadly this is news... by sfjoe · 2004-01-16 08:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think there are bigger threats to the survival of mankind than some glow in the dark fish.

You're probably right. But, on the other hand, we realy have no way of knowing what the long-term effects are and that is the nut of the matter.
John Q. Public buys glowing fish for his kids, gets tired of feeding them and tosses them in the local river where they become part of the food chain.
AIDS is such a scourge because it can spread quietly for years before it shows itself in symptoms. What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body? The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

When GloFish are outlawed... by Sowbug · 2004-01-16 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

only outlaws will eat GloFish.

Re:When GloFish are outlawed... by Polo · 2004-01-16 10:53 · Score: 2, Funny

If marriage is outlawed....

only outlaws will have in-laws.

And here I was all set to open a Sushi joint. by Kenja · 2004-01-16 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

And here I was all set to open a Sushi joint. I was gona call it Chernobyl Zushi.

Ah well.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Mmm! by El · 2004-01-16 08:52 · Score: 1

Sushi you can eat in the dark!

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 08:52 · Score: 1

Um somehow I doubt that. You still have to sort, purify, etc all that combined waste to get something usefull. Sure if landfills were already neatly sorted in their constituent elements it may be a mining resource. As it is now they're just messes.

As a sign of stupidy abound my school recently switched from paper trays for pizza slices to styrofoam containers. Hazaa for progress!

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

GoFish for GloFish... by dexterpexter · 2004-01-16 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny

*laughs*

Well, considering the amount of ridiculous trademark infringement cases we have seen in the news recently, I am suprised that the Go Fish Card Game People have not sued the GloFish people for infringement. Hey, if people can confuse Lindows with Windows, then why not?

I, for one, welcome our new GloFish Overlords...

--

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."

Re:Sadly this is news... by El · 2004-01-16 08:55 · Score: 1

You still have to sort, purify, etc all that combined waste to get something usefull. Right, whereas when doing extraction of naturally occuring resources, they are already neatly sorted!

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

I'll try one by bluGill · 2004-01-16 08:55 · Score: 1

If it was the right spiecies. Trout are good, so I'll try a glowing one. I don't like northen pike, so I wouldn't try a glowing on.

Now for the fine print: it would be raised on a diet where attention was paid to preventing things like heavy metal and other toxin build up. I'd look a lot closer at what made it glow, and make sure chemicallly it wasn't going to be harmful. I'd make sure I'd cook it right.

I'm not against eating glowing fish. However I'm not going eat one without understanding the risks. Right now I know of no risks, just some luddites scared of them. IF there is hard science one way or the other about how harmful glowing fish are it will make my mind up about eating them. If there is not hard science (which is what I suspect, after all they are not making these for people to eat) then no I will not eat one.

A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by StefanJ · 2004-01-16 08:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you follow the link, you'll find that Monsanto, for whom I have no great love either, has abandoned the project.

A friend thought of a genuinely interesting use for a crop with terminator genes:

Erosion control.

There are several species of fast-growing plant what would be very useful for preventing (say) an hilly area whose forest cover burned away from eroding, but who are also dangerous "alien" species.

Kudzu is one example; more subtle is the bizarre-looking "ice plant" that was imported to California for erosion control along railways but has become a pest.

It might be worth a research project to look into whether a fast-growing erosion control plant equipped with terminator genes could stabilize a burned-out area, retaining the soil for long enough for native plants to get a toe-hold. And then die out . . .

Stefan

Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by bmwm3nut · 2004-01-16 09:07 · Score: 1

imho, there is no good use for a terminator gene. granted monsanto invented it to be evil and charge more for their seeds. and granted you gave a good possible use for the terminator gene. however, my problem with a terminator gene is not that it helps monsanto make gobs of money, it's that what happens if there is an accidental cross polination of a plant with the terminator gene and normal everyday plants. that's when you run into issues. if enough plants get polinated (or the gene is introduced some other way in nature) then it can be possible that all the plants will quit producing seeds, that's a problem! the best thing is to never ever introduce a terminator gene into the wild.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by GoRK · 2004-01-16 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Eucalyptis tree is similarly a problem in Hawaii. It was brought in to solve erosion and weather problems many years ago after the rainforest was cleared to harvest sandalwood; however, being an alien species and highly monotypic, it is now preventing the native plants from growing back. The guy who brought the tree in said something to the effect of "you'll laud me now but hate me later." I agree that it would be good to have such a plant that can be used in this manner as an environment booster and then automatically die off. Too bad when you start talking about this kind of stuff all the tree huggers can smell is themselves. Genetic research and genetic manipulation is one of the few tools that we have at our disposal to make proper environmental repairs in a timely manner and ensure that we don't have to do any more damage as the human population grows.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by Smallpond · 2004-01-16 09:19 · Score: 4, Funny

That's right. The plants that pick up the gene would be unable to reproduce and would all die out! Pretty soon all you would have left would be the plants without the gene!

Oh, wait...
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-16 10:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

hmmmm, how about we use the hawiian eucalyptis groves as new homes for koalas.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by cpeterso · 2004-01-16 10:10 · Score: 1

yeah and the non-native planet with no competitors (as forest cover burned away) grows uncontrollably, thus blocking the return of the native plants. Even if the non-native plant "terminated" itself after one season, it could be a big problem.

This same thing happened in California. California used to be green year round, but grasses accidentally imported from Spain took over. That's why California's hills are dead and brown most of the year.

--
cpeterso
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by emptor · 2004-01-16 10:20 · Score: 1

Speaking as a forester; if you did plant a fast-growing plant with a terminator to provide initial groundcover (like kudzu), there's every chance it would be so succesful that it would inhibit the development of natives. If you wait for it to "terminate" then you're back to square one except for the dead organic matter left behind. Not a bad concept but I don't think it's really technically feasible.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by Alsee · 2004-01-16 11:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

All the Terminator gene does is sterilize the seeds, but Kudzu (and similar) is such a fast growing plant exactly because it has no need to go through a seed cycle. It simply spreads and roots and spreads and roots - potentially one monsterously large plant covering a hundred acres. Whoops! :D

P.S.
Genetic engineers are number five on the Top Ten list of People You Do Not Want To Hear Say "Whoops!"

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by justzisguy · 2004-01-16 12:51 · Score: 1

The way I understand it, the roots would still be in the ground providing that erosion control for a period of time before they decompose...
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by myowntrueself · 2004-01-16 15:02 · Score: 1

I'm going to see if I can get a grant to insert a weed killer resistance gene into kudzu grass.

While I'm at it, I'll add the gene from the castor plant, the oil is *useful*! (too bad its highly toxic as well.

What else can we cram in there... kudzu sounds like such a good starting point for world domination through genetics!

My 'baby' deserves the best chance I can give it. :)

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by BrianH · 2004-01-16 15:47 · Score: 1

Where the heck did you hear THAT? There are still, today, large stretches of the California foothills that are nearly free of invasive species, or in which native grasses are still the majority. I assure you that these grasses turn quite brown when it doesn't rain for five months straight and the 105 degree summer heat rolls in. Only the oaks and manzanita stay green in that kind of weather.

--

There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by kapok_tree · 2004-01-16 17:36 · Score: 1

The irony is that the "Terminator" gene is a valid solution to a great many of the real concerns with GMOs.
One of the largest issues is the matter of cross-pollination - I don't think anyone wants to see GMOs released into the wild, but so long as we continue to modify plants while leaving their reproductive mechanisms intact this will remain a possibility - all but a certainty, in fact. The terminator gene is an elegant solution to this problem, but it has been blocked by many of the same lobbying groups that have in the past trumpeted cross-pollination as an issue!

I'll add that the detractors of the temrinator gene - claiming that it is simply a case of corporate greed - are using a nonsensical argument. GM crops don't compete against legacy seed. They're much too expensive to produce to have a realistic chance in that market. Instead GM seed is intended to replace hybridized seed such as is marketed by Pioneer. Odd thing is, you have to buy new hybrid seed every year anyway (hybrid traits won't breed true).
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by cpeterso · 2004-01-17 09:13 · Score: 1

"What happened to California?":

California's native grasses, which covered thousands of square miles, virtually all the entire coastal ranges and Great Valley, were perennial. They had deep roots and stayed green for much of the year (many all year) and served admirably to prevent erosion.

"Landowners Guide to Native Grass Enhancement and Restoration":

Grasslands in California are among the most endangered ecosystem in the United States and in California are on the decline. An area of approximately 7,000,000 ha (about 25% of the area of California) has been converted to annual grassland dominated by non-native annuals primarily of Mediterranean origin. Conversion to non-native annual vegetation was so fast, so extensive and so complete that the original extent and species composition of native perennial grasslands is unknown, however the prairies of California contain many elements of the original habitat.

Native grasses are interesting characters. They can be amazingly old. A bunch of purple needlegrass might live as long as 1,000 years. As one of the old Californios, they deserve our respect as tough survivors. Using roots that extend up to 18 feet, they tap into nutrients and water found deep in the soil, and so remain green even in the hot, dry months of fall.

--
cpeterso
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by John+Courtland · 2004-01-17 11:36 · Score: 1

Then they control the Kudzu by importing sheep, and now hillbillies are getting the same idea as the Greeks: sheep are GOOOOOD fuckin'!

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:A GOOD use for the Terminator Gene (big "?") by JET+666 · 2004-01-19 21:36 · Score: 1

"What else can we cram in there... kudzu sounds like such a good starting point for world domination through genetics!

My 'baby' deserves the best chance I can give it."
ofcorse THC or LSD

--
De sig boss de sig

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 08:58 · Score: 1

Yes they are.

When's the last time you had to extract metal from various plastics, papers and other weird man-made chemicals?

Point being landfill bad idea. It's just a by-product of "plenty of resources to burn" syndrome people all too happily adopt.

How's about this. Stop making products solely to make money because if you keep it up in a few hundred years it won't matter!

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:Unregulated Domain Registrars are worse by Thud457 · 2004-01-16 08:58 · Score: 1

I find The Church of Scientology to be offensive.

Plz remove them from the net.

thx!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Actually, no by Gothmolly · 2004-01-16 08:59 · Score: 1

They are native to America. You linked to a Google page, but didn't read any of the pages? Jeesh.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:Actually, no by The_K4 · 2004-01-16 09:20 · Score: 1

No actully I didn't. I remembered the wrong name (I was thinking snakehead as ppl have pointed out). I *thought* i had it right, it's kinda like the preview.....i should made sure first. Oh well.....

deep sh*t by myatmpinis1234 · 2004-01-16 09:01 · Score: 1

If the government regulated every bad thing that could potentially end up down my toilet, i'd be in deep sh*t. Literally.

this might be a redundant question by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 09:01 · Score: 1

But can you sue for stupidity??? I mean really ya know how much money we could make off those quacks by just using their website against them by showing the scientific facts behind their lies!!!!!!

besides as everyone has pointed out

a) they are nothing new, zebrafish have been turned into "Glo-fish" for years by scientists

b) ITS NOT FUCKING FOOD SO THE FDA, YOU KNOW THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION CANT DO SHIT!!!

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Re:this might be a redundant question by Have+Blue · 2004-01-16 10:48 · Score: 1

In response to point a, this is the first time that non-scientists have owned the GM fish, and non-scientists tend to do stupid things like flush unwanted pets down the toilet or otherwise let them out into the wild. These fish have previously only existed in controlled laboratory environments.
Re:this might be a redundant question by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 12:18 · Score: 1

trust me scientists can be JUST as stupid...
Just cause your learned doesnt mean your "smart"

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Re:Sadly this is news... by El · 2004-01-16 09:02 · Score: 1

I've got a better idea -- factor in the projected eventual disposal cost into the price of new products, then make the landfills free. This would go a long way towards making recyclable products more economically competitive, and remove the incentive to just dump stuff in the woods as people currently do.

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 09:02 · Score: 1

I don't see this as being that drastic. For the first 18 years of my life I had zero power to affect any change. In fact under most forms of law I was barely a person!

I still see more immediate problems. Who knows, maybe tis glofish will help the environment. What is known though is that fossil fuel is limited. That landfill space cannot grow indefinitely.

This is basically a case of misplaced priorities.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. by DeepStream · 2004-01-16 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative

In fact, they do emit light. They are fluorescent, meaning that they absorb photons of one wavelength (in this case in the UV band, I believe) and re-emit photons of a different wavelength (in the visible). They won't glow in the absence of any UV, but they most certainly can emit visible light even in the dark.

Re:They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. by bad-badtz-maru · 2004-01-16 09:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, not only that... the $5 fish "glow" +significantly+ less than a 99c neon tetra.

Actually humans get vCJD from eating BSE Beef... by AzrealAO · 2004-01-16 09:03 · Score: 2, Informative

vCJD is variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease.

The nature of the TSE agent is being investigated and is still a matter of debate. According to the prion theory, the agent is composed largely, if not entirely, of a self-replicating protein, referred to as a prion. Another theory argues that the agent is virus-like and possesses nucleic acids which carry genetic information. Although strong evidence collected over the past decade supports the prion theory, the ability of the TSE agent to form multiple strains is more easily explained by a virus-like agent.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en /

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 09:06 · Score: 1

Or how about just stop cutting corners by making crappily packaged products just to turn profit?

Also how about just admiting that certain things shouldn't exist in the first place [SUVs, cigarettes, individually packaged foods, styrofoam containers].

I think if you just open your eyes you will see many environmental problems are caused by pure and simple greed. People drive their own land-yacht SUV instead of taking the bus cuz then they'd have to share. The have their own food stash in their house [if you think about this there are social, environmental and economical benefits to communal kitchens], etc, etc..

ME FIRST ME FIRST ME FIRST!!!

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:Sadly this is news... by sfjoe · 2004-01-16 09:08 · Score: 1

Who knows, maybe tis glofish will help the environment.

When it comes to the enviromnent, I'm of the opinion that no change is a good change.

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

It's not consumption of genes, but Virii... by SwansonMarpalum · 2004-01-16 09:09 · Score: 2, Informative

These fish are created by inducing mass genetic mutation with a specially bred virus which alters the DNA of the cells which it infects. The virus itself is benign enough to initial observation. The concern is that these fish, by definition, have been affected by the virus.

If one of these fish was released into the wild, there is potential that the virus would also be released into the wild. When that occurs, the aftermath could be catastrophic. Or it could also be completely benign. The suit is demanding that this question be determined before the fish are released to people in general.

--
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan

Muhuhahaha! by Dracolytch · 2004-01-16 09:10 · Score: 1

And once I combine this gene with the Babelfish, my life's work will be complete!

~D

--
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.

Re:Sadly this is news... by HTH+NE1 · 2004-01-16 09:10 · Score: 1

Today's landfill is tomorrow's valuable mining resource.

More like tomorrow's archeology site. The future can learn a lot about our ancient society from studying our waste.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 09:11 · Score: 1

No change is a good change....

So you think darwin was wrong?

Heretic!

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Somewhere in America ... by FreeUser · 2004-01-16 09:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

... there is an idiot stupid enough to eat cochroaches. Or automobile tires. Or used condoms.

These people exist. Usually nature is somewhat effective in removing them from the evolutionary process, if the species is lucky enought to have them engage in their favorite passtime prior to producing progeny.

In any event, whether or not the species is fortunate enough to have such fools removed from the gene pool prior to procreation, one thing is certain. No one is stupid enough to propose the FDA regulate cockroaches, automobile tires, or used condoms.

But apparently some anti-genetic science luddites are stupid enough to think the FDA should regulate the genetically modified equivelent of gold fish. Alas, such idiots are not so accomidating as to remove themselves from our collective gene pool, more's the pity.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Somewhere in America ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-16 09:38 · Score: 1, Funny

"Alas, such idiots are not so accomidating as to remove themselves from our collective gene pool, more's the pity."

They try, but I brake for them. Somehow I don't think "But your honour, I ran over him for the sake of our gene pool" would be very effective as a defense.
Re:Somewhere in America ... by Mattcelt · 2004-01-16 09:55 · Score: 1

Um, I hate to rain on your parade, but condoms and tires don't procreate. I would think that a little extra caution is in order.

And the cockroaches? I think most would agree they should be outlawed completely except for scientific research. Immediately.
Re:Somewhere in America ... by Aumaden · 2004-01-16 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is precisely why we see no obvious evolution of the human species. The lawyers won't let us kill off those who should never be allowed to procreate.
Of course, it could be argued that that is a survival instinct on the part of lawyers.

Re:Center for food safety by smcavoy · 2004-01-16 09:16 · Score: 1

GM foods cause problems, not solve them.
It gives control of the food supply (through patents/copyright) to corporations focused on one thing, profit.

Now if you've got no problem giving that up, think enron.

My wife is from the Philippines... by schon · 2004-01-16 09:18 · Score: 1

... and the first thing she thinks when she sees any type of fish is "I wonder what it tastes like."

What a waste of effort by frovingslosh · 2004-01-16 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They" are exposing our food to radiation and not telling us about it on the package. "They" are feeding us Frankenfoods and not telling us about it (in the U.S.) Even with all the known dangers of Mad Cow, "they" feed rendered cows to chickens, and then turn right around and feed "chicken scratch" (which includes stuff that has not passed through the chicken as well as stuff that has) back to the cows in the U.S. This and hundreds of other much more serious issues go on all around us, but these people are wasting time (and environmental crediability) by fighting little fish (that don't really glow without the help of a black light, by the way)! Sure, these fish might get out. So might any of the other tropical fish in the hobbly. Most, like these fish, would not survive. Heck, regular zebra fish have a much better chance to survive in an echo system as an alien species and affect it than these toys do.

I'm not crazy about a world of genetically modified creatures, but there are more important things that already affect our lives that these people should be going after, not likely harmless little red fish.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Thank you for completely missing the point. by Chmcginn · 2004-01-16 09:19 · Score: 1

It's been awhile, but I seem to remember Monsanto's justification for the terminator gene is just what you're talking about - the modified plants can't spread (at least not much), because the successive generations are sterile. They can't cause any serious impact on wild, unmodified version of the plant, because they'll die out so quickly. And if you think one field of self-terminating crop is going to somehow pollinate every plant of the same species in the country... well, nevermind. Think that if you want.

--
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

I blame hollywood by kaltkalt · 2004-01-16 09:23 · Score: 1

I think this irrational fear of everything genetically-enhanced is due to movies where radioactive mutant spiders bite people who then become "spider-men" and other such nonsense. Sure, those movies can be entertaining, but when hollywood pseudo-science becomes a basis for public policy discourse we've taken a step backwards. Rather, a giant leap backwards for mankind. Dumb people watch too many movies and have no concept of what is realistic and what is fantasy. The same people who want to ban glo-fish are the same ones who want to ban Harry Potter. Democracy doesn't work when the least educated are the most politically active. Oh well.

--

Stupid people make stupid things profitable.

-1, Uninformed by Tim · 2004-01-16 09:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

My point is: using genetically altered food, and generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans (can anybody tell me how the first case of AIDS is believed to have occurred). Putting genetically modified fish in the food-chain is not a good idea, unless it's *very* strictly controlled to make sure the fish aren't eaten by other animals.

You don't know what you're talking about. This wouldn't be bad, except for the fact that you're propagating your silly, sky-is-falling rhetoric to other people, who will hear you use factual-sounding words, and therefore think that you have some knowledge of the subject and possibly listen to you.

One of the first errors you make is in the assumption that the modification to the glowfish is poorly understood. In fact, the protein that is responsible for this was isolated from a living organism, is widely used in biomedical research (even to the point of modifying living human cells), and is extremely well-characterized. Contrast this to the protein that is hypothesized to cause vCJD: we don't even know what it is with any confidence, let alone how it works. Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, you confuse (purposefully?) a naturally-occuring disease (vCJD) with the results of genetic engineering. Let me reiterate: vCJD has nothing to do with genetic engineering. The prion assumed to be responsible for vCJD has occurred spontaneously in nature for a very long time. Similar mutant proteins spontaneously occur in elk, deer, and, yes, humans. Equating Mad Cow with genetic engineering is just a cheap scare tactic. (Ditto for your AIDS reference -- HIV has a long evolutionary history, and is known to have evolved from other viruses in other organisms. No genetic boogeymen involved.)

In short, your conclusion is completely unfounded. Genetically altered food has never been implicated in long-term genetic or medical problems for humans. It may be true that the long-term health effects of particular mutations haven't been studied adequately, but that doesn't support your assertion. And, ultimately, compared to the genetically-modified organisms being sold into our food supply every day, the Glowfish is extremely well-characterized and inert.

--
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?

Re:-1, Uninformed by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 09:44 · Score: 1, Informative

oh thank GOD someone knows what they are talking about, cause the genetic scared FREAK certainly dont

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Re:-1, Uninformed by oliphaunt · 2004-01-16 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Phew, thank goodness someone else said it first. Here's links to a couple of articles about the active chromophore in the fish, vs. the active prion that causes BSE/vCJD. Good images in the flourescent protein article.

Repeat after me, everyone: Eating GM food will not cause my genes to be modified.

--

Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Re:-1, Uninformed by Xenothaulus · 2004-01-19 04:12 · Score: 1

(can anybody tell me how the first case of AIDS is believed to have occurred)

Some guy fucked a green monkey. I thought everyone knew that...

Go AHEAD by ewhenn · 2004-01-16 09:27 · Score: 1

Outlaw GloFish, just wait until I start selling GloDogs.

whats the big deal? by sherpajohn · 2004-01-16 09:37 · Score: 1

I for one, welcome our new Glo Fish Overlords! Ought to keep the damned cat amused 'til it can figure out how to stage a coup.

--

Going on means going far
Going far means returning

Re:Center for food safety by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-16 09:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not just stop having kids, you have to be willing to force other people to stop having kids. Population growth in th "West" is nil or less...

It's those dang poor people in Asia and Africa, with their alternative cultural beliefs about the role, meaning, and appropriate usage of kids.

If you're reliant on your children for sustainance in your old age, then by golly, you're going to be motivated to have a bunch of them. The more you have, the better off you'll be!

So... if you have a problem with globalization submarining "local culture", but you also have a problem with "overpopulation", then you've got a REAL problem. The solutions to these two issues are fundamentally at odds.

Unless... you're willing to cut off ALL contact with them, including denying them modern medicine. Presumably, ol' Mother Nature would thin out the population for them then. Though maybe not- they've already learned basic principles that Western medicine is based on, and what one man can do, another can do, so maybe they just replicate the most critical pieces of Western medicine locally? (Think vaccines and clean water) Or maybe not. They don't seem to be getting the clean water thing down on their own...

Oh the conundrums that face the modern liberal!

freedom by oohp · 2004-01-16 09:39 · Score: 1

Freedom for the glowing fishies! I might be getting some of those now that they're illegal. War on drugs. War on terror. What's next? War on glowing pets?

Re:This is not HALF as important as... by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 09:41 · Score: 1

funny all I got was porn today, having the democrats spam would have been a nice change...

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

There are alternatives! by WebGangsta · 2004-01-16 09:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Aquarium-based Lasers!

Of course, if they can do this, then it's just a short step from here to sharks with lasers attached to their heads.

wtf? by tacokill · 2004-01-16 09:44 · Score: 1

"generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways has been found to result in long-term genetic and other problems for humans"

There are so many things wrong with this statement.

First, what the heck do you mean by "unnatural". If nature includes everything and we are part of nature, then how do we act "unnatural"? Remember, nature includes all things - even nuclear waste. It's not just trees and butterflies and such. I mean, man doing ANYTHING should be considered natural -- because man is part of nature. So what exactly is unnatural about man trying to use nature to his benefit? Seems to me that every animal on the planet does that.

Second, please provide proof for your wildly speculative claim about long-term results. I am quite sure that - at best - the jury is still out on this. I can think of lots of examples where "unnatural" monkeying by man has resulted in FANTASTIC advances for all of the mankind and the planet. One that comes to mind off the top of my head is the creation of oil-eating microbes by Exxon back in the 80's.

The simple fact is that science, in and of itself, is exploration. Yes, there are unintended consequences from time to time. However, making sweeping claims about the good or bad of a given technology is just crazy until there is enough ample evidence to support your claim.

How about a "no pollen" gene? by nairolF · 2004-01-16 09:47 · Score: 1

Now that would be useful, as one of the major concerns about GM crops is that they pollinate neighboring fields. This leads to:
(a) The spread of whatever new genes the GM crop contains to other fields and possibly other species.
(b) The neighboring farmer will no longer be able to sell his crop as non-GM. (This is a big issue in Europe, where products with GM-labels are expected to sell badly, once they finally hit the markets. It is enough for the grain to contain the modified genes, not the plants themselves).
(c) The owner of the GM patent could theoretically sue the neighboring farmer for patent infringement and demand license fees. Sounds idiotic, but as far as I know (IANAL), this is legally possible. And don't tell me that the big companies are too ethical to do this.

Therefor I propose that GM crops should only be allowed if they produce no viable pollen. This should be technically feasible (but it probably takes some effort breeding plants that cannot pollenate...)

--
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

Re:How about a "no pollen" gene? by rhombic · 2004-01-16 09:58 · Score: 1

(c) The owner of the GM patent could theoretically sue the neighboring farmer for patent infringement and demand license fees. Sounds idiotic, but as far as I know (IANAL), this is legally possible.

This is not just legally possible, but it has already happened. Here comes the lawyers....

--

--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

People seem to be missing the point by fantastic+max · 2004-01-16 09:47 · Score: 2, Informative

As a scientist and as an educator, I have to remind people about the possible side-effects involved in tinkering at this level. While Glo-fish are a fad, the original fluorescent zebra fish provide an invaluable tool to study developmental biology, as do green and red mice that are not sold as pets. The bad efffects of not having regulation on these fad pets is that anyone can get these as pets. And I know how people treat pets. Noone says that we have to worry about eating Glofish and ingesting the foreign genes. The real problem comes from the possibility of horizontal transmission of the antibiotic resistance gene. As with any GM food/organism, you simply don't want to introduce exogenous genes into the general population. Some government agency should be regulating these novelty items.

Re:People seem to be missing the point by JustAnotherReader · 2004-01-16 11:31 · Score: 1

The real problem comes from the possibility of horizontal transmission of the antibiotic resistance gene.
As has been stated many time in this thread: Eating genetically modified food does not modify YOUR genes. Take my earlier example. If I eat meat from a pig that has a genetic predisposition to being diabetic it DOES NOT mean that I will become diabetic.

Genetic Engineering. by bmo · 2004-01-16 09:49 · Score: 1

WE GOTTA GET RID OF THAT SCARY GENETIC ENGINEERIN!!!! WHO KNOWS WHAT KIND OF GLOWIN' FARM ANIMULES THEY'LL MAKE! GLOWIN' COWS!!! IT'LL BE TOO EASY FOR THEM THAR FLYIN' SAUCERS TO PICK UP COWS TO MUTILATE!!

I SEEN 'EM! I SEEN 'EM!!

--

On another note, why hasn't any of these "Environmentalists" noticed that humans have been "genetic engineers" for as long as we've domesticated flora and fauna? It's the same bloody thing, except with lab equipment.

Oh, I get it. "Humans are evil." (TM)

--
Dan

Re:GloFish? by jargoone · 2004-01-16 09:51 · Score: 1

Interesting. Could have fooled me.

FWIW, you are whack. Not good.

Re:GloFish? by hesiod · 2004-01-16 10:04 · Score: 1

> Interesting. Could have fooled me.
> FWIW, you are whack. Not good.

Evidently, I fooled you without trying. I am whack? I had no idea. Thanks! "Not good" as in "I'm Baaaaad?"

Look, get over it. It was about as good as any place to say what I said, big effin' deal.

Re:The Sky Is Falling! but not from glowing fish by H310iSe · 2004-01-16 10:07 · Score: 1

It's true that the fish probably pose no risk to the environement. I heard an interview with one of the guys responsible for banning the glowfish in California (from the CA fish and wildlife board) - he was refreshingly candid and said they appraised the risk to the ecosystem (due to release into the wild) as next-to-nil (pointing out that the fish freaking GLOW so they'd probably be eaten by preditors long before they could become any kind of problem). He said, however, that the board has a moral as well as technical responsiblity and he felt casually toying with gene manipulation to make interesting pets is simply a Bad Idea (tm) and thus they banned 'em from CA.

I totally disagree but at least he was honest about why they were banned!

--
closed minded is as closed minded does

Re:This is not HALF as important as... by Moryath · 2004-01-16 10:20 · Score: 1

I'll do you one better.

This was in my spamtrap box today:
===

Dear Friend,

Sign up now to join the Democratic Party's free e-newsletter and
action alerts! Get involved by getting connected.

http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e0 58 yU5KeSekWz1fm5XTl34-qN586X9NvsOGO7U5XTAvtHk82FWCvx p0b

Our goal is to sign up 5,000 new members this week to receive our
free email newsletter and action alerts.

The 2004 election is only months away! To stop George Bush and his
corporate giveaways, it's going to take ALL of us.

That's why the Democratic Party is counting on YOU and thousands
of others across the country to get involved by receiving important
news updates, action alerts, campaign and rally information,
petitions -- whatever it takes to beat George Bush!

It's free, fast and easy -- and it's only one click away.

http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e0 ov P4obQOQqFH6ifopIx5ns-2ovGpj2DlrcrW4opITDVLqveaFSDu E0a

So please, join now, get connected, and help us reach our goal!

http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e0 JL ClJz-W-DbMePyJOjoIx3wkJLQO6kZ5FUFKlJOj9ZcRDLq8b7Zg r09

Remember, whether it's the economy, the environment, foreign policy,
civil liberties, education, protecting our seniors, health care,
jobs... George Bush has taken America in the WRONG direction. And
it's TIME FOR CHANGE. Join now!

http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?xkiquaQgVh7IbujM4e0 C1 bfCEJLJjhN5FWCv4PYiVtTC1ovlT6yZgZRfCv4U6u2j1IdhH6X D08

-

You recently registered with a network website and opted in to
receive specialonline offers like this one. To no longer receive
messages, please use this link to remove your subscription.

http://clk.go2lnk.com/r/r0.4?lafkxFeotRnTKx9iU2E lu qMCuacEcQNvtHzuho7xS4U6uqVhJme0y-P1VM2vxM55

Your information has not been given or sold to the Democratic
National Committee, and you have not been added to any mailing
lists owned by the:

Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Let me ask a basic question by squarooticus · 2004-01-16 10:23 · Score: 1

until the government can properly regulate it

Who says the government has the power to regulate things like this, much less that it is "proper" for them to do so?

--
[ home ]

Thus . . . by StefanJ · 2004-01-16 10:29 · Score: 1

. . . my inclusion of '(big "?")', and suggesting a trial first.

I lived in the Bay Area for several years, and know about the alien species problems.

If this scheme works, you'd want the temporary cover to grow like mad. It would be there to prevent runaway erosion and mud slides, which are both dangerous to people and destructive of the ecosystem.

It's a suggestion that might be worth trying, and an example of how something that many consider awful and ungodly might be put to constructive use.

Note that the last people I'd want to be involved in the trial would be Monsanto. Those arrogant clowns are responsible for much of the mistrust of GMO crops.

Re:They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. by Suppafly · 2004-01-16 10:29 · Score: 1

These are not "glowing fish". They do not emit light. They are just brightly colored. BORING.

Wrong, they glow under uv light.

I can't believe what I'm hearing.. by Reaverkin · 2004-01-16 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

It should be plainly obvious that this kind of commercial practice is extremely dangerous to our environment and sets a poor precedent. Who are we to say that this species is harmless? Please don't tell me that they understand the consequences of such a fish getting into the wild! Hell, it need be only slightly less pallatable to predators and (eventually) you can kiss the 'pure-bred' version goodbye.

Perhaps I am simply nostalgic, but I'd prefer leave the ecosystem to successive generations more or less how I found it. I don't want the ocean to look like a rave.

Is it really necessary to assume these kinds of risks and meddle with nature simply for people's amusement?

Re:I can't believe what I'm hearing.. by demon · 2004-01-16 14:15 · Score: 1

First, as others will point out, the plants and animals used for food today have been genetically manipulated for years - if not by direct manipulation of their genes, by breeding in desirable traits, and breeding out undesirable ones. Also, supposedly all these "glo-fish" are made male. It's awfully hard for them to breed and make more glowing fishies. Also, THEY ARE TROPICAL FISH. If you release them into your local lake or stream, the odds of them surviving for long are slim to none - because they're simply not suited to that environment at all.

What is up with people and this hysteria? C'mon kids, let's try to show some reason.

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Re:I can't believe what I'm hearing.. by bhima · 2004-01-16 22:31 · Score: 1

This presumes that fluorescing to attract predators is an evolutionary advantage in the warm fresh water ecosystem where these fish are originally from. I could be wrong but in many years of fishing I have always done well with brightly colored lures the fish could see.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Cool by StefanJ · 2004-01-16 10:33 · Score: 1

That's the kind of feed back I like to see . . . from someone who works in the field.

What DO forestry folks due, if anything, after a big fire? Any plantings, etc.?

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by KDan · 2004-01-16 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I agree with your point about other animals, funnily enough I think that where humans are concerned, genetic engineering is the only possible next step.

Why?

Because evolution, for humans (at least in the western world), has in effect come to a standstill. The sick don't die, and even when they do die they often have time to reproduce first (except for a very small minority). The weak don't get eaten by predators. The stupid don't get eaten by predators as well, though their country does... but that's another topic. Anyway so my point is that there are no selection factors that are able to affect humanity at large, because there's too many of us and we're too well protected from our environment. Note that I think it's great that we're not playing that game anymore, because that game is not one that is acceptable for us, intelligent, thinking human beings.

So then, the only way to continue evolving as a species is to drive our own evolution. There are several ways you can do that. You can use the nazi way of selective breeding (or rather selective killing), only let people with 'good genes' have kids... but what a terrible world that would be. Or you could use a bit of genetic engineering to nudge things forward. The latter needs to be done with great care to avoid all the potential dangers, but it is clearly a better solution than the former, and a better solution than simply doing nothing and stagnating forever (or until we kill each other with nukes or pretzels or whatever).

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. by Alkaiser · 2004-01-16 10:35 · Score: 1

Yeah...these are totally weak when compared to the GloWorm!! They never filed a lawsuit against it...

--
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga

GFP: harmless. Next gene mod: Maybe not? by 2marcus · 2004-01-16 10:35 · Score: 1

There are three potential biological dangers here.

One: can the genes be transmitted?

Answer: No. Bacteria can "infect" other bacteria with genes (see jumping plasmids), but multicellular organisms are pretty much limited to passing on genes by breeding.

Two: Will the new gene cause the animal to produce a toxin that can potentially bioaccumulate?

Answer: Depends on the gene. In this case, green fluorescent protein and its analogues are basically an expressed protein that folds and has a minor chemical reaction to produce a small, harmless fluorophore. Pretty inert. So, no. In other cases: maybe. Pretty slim chance, unless you are intentionally inserting sea snail poison genes (which wouldn't bioaccumulate anyway) (note that for food crops, Monsanto does insert toxins aimed at insects - see Bt Maize). Maybe you could weaken an animals immune system and make it a host for breeding viruses and other illnesses.

Three: If the animal escapes into the wild, can it breed and imbalance ecosystems.

Answer: Depends on the gene. With GFP, an escaped zebrafish in a region that is hospitable to zebrafish - quite possibly you might spread the gene around. It wouldn't imbalance ecoystems though. With inserting insect toxin genes into crops - oh, yeah, it could potentially be a problem.

So, to sum up: GFP zebrafish: Mostly harmless. Other gene modifications: It depends. However, what we need is a consistent system for evaluating these modifications, and some bureaucracy to administer it. Yes, bureaucracies are a pain, but you know - I like the fact that food poisoning is pretty rare, that medicines go through rigorous trials before they reach the shelves, etc. etc. and sometimes it requires being overly cautious about safe advances in order to catch the nasty ones (thalidomide).

(And yes, you can develop similar dangers without high tech gene insertion: see africanized bees. It might not be a bad idea to include serious cross-breeding in this sort of review).

-Marcus

Re:Sadly this is news... by justin_speers · 2004-01-16 10:39 · Score: 1

What if it takes twenty years of eating genetically-modified foods before poisonous levels of some protein are developed in the body?

And what if it takes 40 years? Or 60 years? Scientific studies by the FDA have proven these fish are no more dangerous than the unmodified fish. There is no reason to believe they are dangerous. Repeat: NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

The sciense we're relying on to tell us this is safe has largely been funded by the people who stand to make a profit off of it. Are you ready to roll the dice now?

The science we're relying on is not just funded by those people who are profiting off of this. See the FDA study, or search google, lots of stuff comes up.

Meanwhile, no study, funded by anyone, has concluded that these fish can even be potentially dangerous.

Here's an example of one of the "reasons" these special-interest groups want to prevent these inventors from profiting off their product, from Time Magazine, who named it one of the coolest inventions of 2003:

Opponents of genetic engineering fear that these creatures could crossbreed with wild species, creating glowing schools of Frankenfish. To keep them from spreading their shining DNA, the distributor, Taikong International, sterilizes them all.

First off, is there any reason why crossbreeding is a dangerous thing? None is provided, and this isn't my area of expertise. So I guess I'm asking for the experts opinion on this. Second of all, they're all sterilized, so that seems to negate the only "concern" I've heard from anyone. Again, no studies show these fish are dangerous to anyone in any way.

So let's please stop suing everyone who innovates. Or go work for SCO. They love your type.

Ronald Reagan said by captaineo · 2004-01-16 11:28 · Score: 1

"The government's view of the economy... If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Frankenstin? by gone.fishing · 2004-01-16 11:41 · Score: 2

For the love of God will somebody please explain to me how "genetic engineering" is going to destroy the earth? I don't get it. Really, it isn't obvious to me.

Every day we eat foods that are genetic modifications of the originals. The corn we eat today bears very little resemblence to the maize eaten by the indians and original settlers. Apples, like the Red Delicious are hybrids - it hardly seems to be the same thing that comes from the apple tree in my back yard. Today's cattle are larger and better than those grown in the '30's & 40's, same thing goes for pigs. Turkeys and chickens produce more white meat today than they did even a few years ago. They are all GENETIC MUTATIONS! Should I stop eating them? No. They are better than the originals.

Genetic engineering is a science. These people understand what they are doing. They are ethical people who do their best to deliver safe, reliable, beneficial products to market. The companies that employ them expose themselves to great liability so they test these products thouroughly.

I'm not ready for scientists to graft human DNA into apes to create a ready supply of transplantable organs but that goes more to ethical questions than it does to the science.

Science is all about discovery to bebefit mankind. Engineering is all about the application of science to benefit mankind. It is a good thing to have oversight of these processes but there are far too many out there crying wolf!

Thinking that there are mad scientists out there creating evil things to benefit themselves is largely a product of Hollywood. The people that can't seperate Hollywood fantasy from reality are the ones screaming that mad scientists will create a genetic mutation that will destroy humanity.

Okay. This is just fundamentally wrong. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 11:50 · Score: 2, Informative

They filed a lawsuit because they want a law passed?

Haven't they heard about the separation of powers? Jeez.

You know, we used to teach kids that if you want a law passed, you talk to your local representitive with the legislature. You know, the group that's supposed to pass the laws?

The judiciary is supposed to interpret the existing laws, not go around making up news ones!

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:Okay. This is just fundamentally wrong. by bhima · 2004-01-16 22:36 · Score: 1

I see this as an example of a fundamental problem in the US. On one hand the administration is pro-business to the point of being detrimental to its citizens and foreign policy. At the same time the Government is so slow it can not keep up with the innovation of theses same companies. Come on! How long have we been reading about these sorts of developments?

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

I for one... by soft_guy · 2004-01-16 11:53 · Score: 1

welcome our new Mrs. Paul gloing fish stick masters!

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

Right. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 11:54 · Score: 1

I heat, treat and condition the water and I carefully measure the food, but I can barely keep the fish in my tank alive.

But you're telling me some gold fish is going to jump from my tank and magically infect the world with it's evil abilities?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Is that a glowing fish stick in your pocket? by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:04 · Score: 1

Or are you just happy to see me?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

The courts certainly don't. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:07 · Score: 1

And unless Congress authorizes it, the federal government doesn't have that authority, either.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

What nonsense. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would like you to provide some proof that any animal more complex than a bacteria has ever taken up the DNA of a creature it consumed.

What complete fear mongering.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

And that magically gives the FDA power over it? by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:11 · Score: 1

Sorry - the correct route is to introduce a bill in Congress, not sue random agencies (Health and Human Services?!?) for not violating their own charters.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:And that magically gives the FDA power over it? by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 12:15 · Score: 1

I think you read wrong, i was implying sueing the wackjobs, not the gove... well you get what I am saying.

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Actually, you're wrong. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:15 · Score: 1

They don't "glow", they fluoresce. The same way a black light poster fluoresces. In order to "glow" they would have to generate their own light, the way deep sea fishes do.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

You have an odd definition of "glow". by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:18 · Score: 1

glow

--
Clear, Dark Skies

For breaking what law? by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:21 · Score: 1

You can't sue anyone if no law has been broken!

If you don't want these fish on the market, you have to get Congress to pass a law banning them. You can't just sue someone for doing something you don't like!

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:For breaking what law? by falcon5768 · 2004-01-16 12:41 · Score: 1

grrr yaknow HUMOR is lost on you guys sometimes....
RE READ what I said.... and BTW I have a order on the fish for my aquarium through my local pet seller so I would REALLY re-read my first post.
gaaa, stupid (rolls eyes)

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Question... by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:24 · Score: 1

Since you seem to know a bit about this.

How do the prions get across the blood-brain barrier?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:Question... by pz · 2004-01-17 02:18 · Score: 1

How do the prions get across the blood-brain barrier?

There's evidence that the blood-brain barrier is not quite as absolute as originally thought and that, for example, leukocytes (part of the immune system) can traverse the barrier, going from blood to brain. This mechanism is suspected to be critical for progression of diseases like AIDS-related dementia and spongiform encepalopathies among others. However, I don't recall seeing a definitive answer to your question (but that in and of itself isn't definitive 'cause there's a lot of work I've not read about!).

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.

Cross species infection by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:26 · Score: 1

is wildly different from cross-species DNA transmission.

If it was so easy to move DNA from one species to another, why do the pharma companies spend billions trying to do it?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Actually, that's just the current theory. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:29 · Score: 2, Informative

While it's a good theory, the transmission path has never been proven.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

denial by Doc+Ruby · 2004-01-16 12:32 · Score: 1

Viruses are routinely ingested by hosts which are then infected with their genes. Even mad cow prions infect through ingestion. Try Googling for transgene mutation. And remember, with GM, the best is yet to come.

--

--
make install -not war

ROTFL! by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 12:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, that's pretty much how viruses spread, isn't it? By infecting hosts, which involves invading cells, injecting RNA and reconfiguring the host cell to produce more virus.

On the other hand, as I said before show me one example where a creature more complex than a bacteria has taken up DNA from a creature it has consumed.

Otherwise just give up and admit you're spouting bullshit.

Oh, and a bonus question: show me a viral infection that alters the germline DNA.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:ROTFL! by grouse · 2004-01-16 22:27 · Score: 1

Hypotheses have been put forth regarding lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes, largely based on phylogenetic evidence. See e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9724962&dopt=Abstract . Trends Genet. 14 (1998), pp. 307-311. But if the biological mechanism for such a thing were actually demonstrated, it would be big news.

Your bonus question is easier: See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12225916&dopt=Abstrac t

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by Transient0 · 2004-01-16 12:44 · Score: 1

wow....

you have successfully reproduced a thought conceived by almost every thirteen year old boy in the last fifty years.

Said boy then usually goes on to learn about the holocaust and decides that maybe it's best to leave things as they are after all.

--
lysergically yours

What do we *really* understand? by Gorimek · 2004-01-16 13:09 · Score: 1

I don't think there is any food we really fully understand.

There is food we're used to, but that's a whole other thing, as proved by how we keep discovering that stuff we've eaten for generations can give us deadly diseases - or help cure them.

Re:What do we *really* understand? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 15:54 · Score: 1

Then why mess around with it, with a technology that really is still in its infancy? Because we can? Because we don't understand everything anyways?
Re:What do we *really* understand? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 16:05 · Score: 1

I realize that the new food can be used to save lives. I am well aware that I've consumed GM foodstuffs at one time or another being a US citizen. Again, I'm simply airing a word of caution. This is still a big gamble.
Re:What do we *really* understand? by kapok_tree · 2004-01-16 17:48 · Score: 1

It's as much of a gamble as it was for the people who first installed lightbulb sockets in their house - did you know they thought that an empty light bulb socket would leak electricty intot he atmosphere? I've no idea what they thought it would *do* but some people did believe it was a serious risk.
Fact of the matter is, there's always something that we won't know. Will there be mistakes in genetic engineering? Absolutely. There HAVE been mistakes - some of them particularly horrendous - but there will also be triumphs.
We live in a commercial world. Advances are driven by money. This is particularly true of genetic engineering where costs are measured in millions or billions of dollars and decades of research. This isn't something that someone will cook up in his basement lab overnight (and if that *could* happen, would we be better off?).
You're worried. That's fine - I'm worried, too. I'm worried that irrational fear will hold us back from developing the knowledge we need to harness this vast power. I'm worried that a scared public will allow itself to be manipulated into losing the benefits of this technology.
Re:What do we *really* understand? by originalTMAN · 2004-01-16 19:38 · Score: 1

but if one runs more tests and does more studies then the technology would be there without the public becoming potential guinea pigs. And who thought electricity would leak into the atmosphere? Besides that, there are huge side-effects of "a lightbulb in every home"... dirty power generation for example- which is a lot more easily taken care of than some unforeseen ecological disaster caused by GM flora/fauna.
Re:What do we *really* understand? by kapok_tree · 2004-01-16 20:18 · Score: 1

And at one point have "enough" tests been run? Already, GMOs undergo orders of magnitude more testing than their "natural" equivalents. In fact, to date there have been zero illnesses caused by genetic modification of crops - a track record that is not matched by more traditional farming methods. I would be less disenchanted by the calls for "more testing" if the people protesting the lack of testing weren't also the people destroying test crops.
Governemnt oversight is a good idea. However, there will always be on more test to be run, one more half-witted theory that some scientist, somewhere, will be obligated to disprove. I for one do not believe that our scientific progress should be hamstrung by people who will never accept the technology anyway.

Lost on me? by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-16 13:16 · Score: 1

Ummm dude?

did you notice that my original post wasn't replying to you, but to HaveBlue?

So, in effect, you attacked me for defending you?

And you accuse me of not reading?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:oh my... imagine the horrors by fishbowl · 2004-01-16 13:43 · Score: 1

I have an aquarium fish that eats goldfish. What is the legal distinction between my buying feeder fish for my pets, and eating them myself? The only way there could be a problem is if the goldfish-swallowers steal the fish they swallow. There are laws against stealing...

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Regulation? Sounds like a perfect job for ICANN by rs79 · 2004-01-16 13:51 · Score: 1

When tropical fish are outlawed, only outlaws will have tropical fish.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?

Not only that but... by rs79 · 2004-01-16 15:10 · Score: 1

There's a reason fish are generally dull silver things with at best some green or brown or black, it's camoflage. Xanthic mutations ("yellow fish") or albinos occur sporadically in aquaria but are never found in nature.

Why? Is it because they never occur in nature? No, of course they do. They just get eaten very very quickly because they stand out.

Now, obviously there are exceptions to this, coral reef fish, some killifish, Amazon fish such as neons are all brightly colored, but they are the exceptions not the rules and tend to more or less keep to themselves and don't have the predators other fish do.

So, if you release some glowfish into the wild I would certainly expect them to get eaten, and very very quickly, but I would doubt very highly they could actually establsh a population in the wild. These fish are expensive. How many are supposed to escape into the wild at any one time? 2? 4? We really care about this?

One thing that's unclear to me, and perhaps somebody who knows better than me can explain this, where does the bacterial and viral genes enter into this? From what I've read (and I've read what I can about these, I write for a tropical fish magzine (TFH) and these things are definitly causing a big buzz) the glowiness comes from anemone genes.

I'm much much more concerned with random gene folding in GM soy than I am about a bunch of stupid Zebrafish.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?

Biology 101... or maybe not by Biologist · 2004-01-16 15:31 · Score: 1

Just to reiterate a couple of points above which are worth repeating... When you eat something, parts of its genome DO NOT become part of your genome. Also, proteins (such as the fluorescent protein which is being expressed in the fish) are digested in your stomach and intestine, hence they can't get into your blood, or anything like that, and make you glow.

Really? It's as easy as that? by smchris · 2004-01-16 16:02 · Score: 1

Heck, let's file a suit against the 50% mutant soybeans we're eating, the corn, etc.!

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-16 16:23 · Score: 1

SARS. Nuff said.

If you think about it how many things today have you touched that have probably been handled by 100s of others. Door handles, seats, money, those plastic cafeteria trays, etc...

Yeah sure if a community is messy they could suffer as a group but last I checked the military eats in a common mess with 100s of people and they're not dying off left right and center.

If you can manage to not be a slob a community kitchen is cheaper, more social and wastes fewer resources. But again, that would be asking people to not think ME FIRST.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

More left wing reactionary bullshit by orionware · 2004-01-16 16:34 · Score: 1

Do scientists have every genome and every spontaneous mutation mapped out for everything we eat? Of course not.

These fish are sterile so if they do get into the wild waterways NOTHING will happen except bigger fish will have more food.

This, like most other things year hear from the reactionary left, is based on Junk Science.

--

Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...

Genetically altered bait fish boondoggle? by ratfynk · 2004-01-16 16:53 · Score: 1

Glo Fish already swim in the rivers around Chernobyl, some have even been spotted around Pickering Ont, and Pittsberg. They make excellent bait, muskies and pike love them. They show up better in poluted water than a shiner. Using (TM) GLO Fish for live bait rocks!

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!

BestBarkerVoice: Step Right Up! by SubtleNuance · 2004-01-16 17:03 · Score: 1

Witness! Fellow slashdotters; the Ad hominem attack!

ooohhh aaahhh

See for yourself, marvel at the absence of reason as our frind John Jorsett uses the tools of Propaganda101 to amaze and influence, decieve and misdirect.

Accept no substitutes!

Re:BestBarkerVoice: Step Right Up! by John+Jorsett · 2004-01-17 06:03 · Score: 1

Witness! Fellow slashdotters; the Ad hominem attack! See for yourself, marvel at the absence of reason as our frind [sic] John Jorsett uses the tools of Propaganda101 to amaze and influence, decieve [sic] and misdirect.

Tu quoque

I think it would make really cool sushi by dogfart · 2004-01-16 17:30 · Score: 1

Just turn the lights out AND IT GLOWS!

Couldn't be any more hazardous than fugu, and more fun than vodka and red bull

--

"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

No, you don't get the point by dogfart · 2004-01-16 17:46 · Score: 1

That subtle changes to living creatures and how they live may cause effects that are not apparent for decades, but when they do become apparent are quite lethal and incurable.

It took a number of years before feeding cattle parts to cattle resulted in Mad Cow Disease, then some years thereafter before it was known that Mad Cow Disease could jump species and affect humans. By this point, many thousands of cattle were affected and a hundred or so humans were dying a ghastly death.

Same with AIDS, a virus that jumped from primates to humans decades ago, caused a little noticed disease, then under the right conditions mushroomed into the human population

It was not reasonable to expect AIDS would result from human-monkey interactions in equatorial Africa in the 1960s, much less that the disease would become a global pandemic. It was also not reasonable to expect that feeding inadequately treated cattle parts to cattle in the UK in the 1980's would result in a few years in the decimation of the UK cattle industry.

The original post was suggesting we take heed of these examples and be careful about making genetically modified organisms widely available.

--

"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

Point of information by kapok_tree · 2004-01-16 18:08 · Score: 1

"The federal suit, filed in Washington, D.C., alleges the benign fluorescing gene was inserted using other genes derived from animal and human viruses as well as antibiotic resistant bacteria." This is true. It's also one of the most asinine thigns to say about genetic engineering. The bulk of genetic modification is accomplished using bacteria mediation. In plants it's usually Agrobacterium tumefaciens, in animals a number of different bacteria and retrovirii. Aside from biolistics (which, yes, does in fact involve shooting cells with a gun that is loaded with DNA segments) ALL genetic modification uses bacteria or virus-derived methods. This is not news and anyone familiar with the technology should be appalled that this trivial bit of knowledge is being used for such blatant fearmongering.

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by Austerity+Empowers · 2004-01-16 18:43 · Score: 1

I disagree that evolution is now moot for humans, it's as strong as ever. Whoever breeds fastest with survivable offspring will have a significant effect upon the gene pool, and over millions of years or so, have the most impact in what we become. You can have the opinion that evolution no longer serves the most important needs of humanity, but it's a fact that evolution is not dead, that's BIO 101.

As for the rest...I'm not religious and I try not to be overly fearful of new things, but care should be taken with how we tamper with our genes in the same way we take care when splitting atoms.

It should not be a tool of the rich, effects of tampering should be evaluated over a lifetime, and we need to get a snapshot of the 1.0 release so we can get it back if the build gets hairy.

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by glesga_kiss · 2004-01-16 18:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because evolution, for humans (at least in the western world), has in effect come to a standstill. The sick don't die, and even when they do die they often have time to reproduce first (except for a very small minority). The weak don't get eaten by predators. The stupid don't get eaten by predators as well, though their country does... but that's another topic. Anyway so my point is that there are no selection factors that are able to affect humanity at large

That's not even half the problem. Without the selection, the gene pool actually gets progresively weaker! People with bad immune systems (e.g.) can take drugs to prolong their life. If the disease is genetic, then it won't be getting filtered out at all, and it will propagate if they have children. Within X generations, the majority of the population will carry serious flaws from the miriad of things that can go wrong with the human body.

Take bad eyesight as a simple example, assuming it was genetic. 1000 years ago, you would be a shit hunter or forrager, and your genetic seed would not prosper. But now, with corrective lenses and recently surgery, it's a non-issue to your prosperity. Who's to say that in a couple hundred years, all humans in the developed world may require corrective eye surgery? I think it's pretty likely.

Childbirth is the same. Several hundred years ago, you'd have at least ten kids, with maybe 2-3 making it to adulthood, basically the strongest ones. Evolution. Most would die in the first year. England has published some really old data on the net, such as the birth and death registrars. It's really scary and tragic to take a browse through them, as you can see clear evidence of the infant mortality rate. Now, every child saved nowadays from a random complication is a score for human progress. But every genetic problem we workaround is a potential problem for the following generations.

This has been on my mind for years. Evolution hasn't stopped; it's regressed. It pretty much stopped the moment we learned to read and write, although in reality we've just changed the rulebook, as you say yourself. Physical (i.e. genetic) attributes are now a side-note in our success in staying alive long enough to reproduce, and alcohol completely trashes the good looks==good health instict we have! The biggest factor now is simply how many babies each set of parents is willing to churn out. And in many cases, that's an entirely wrong metric, as a set of unresponsible parents can kick out another uncared-for kid almost every year, while families that actually rear their children into responsible adults tend to be smaller. Social de-evolution.

The solution? I wish I had one, I'm just pointing out the problem. The obvious ones are all morally rehensible and total non-starters, and some have been tried before, even in civilised countries. After much thought, the only one I can see is "live with it". I just hope our healthcare keeps up. The economic factors in access to healthcare could be come a key part of your evolutionary score in future, which will favour the rich. Which in it's own way is going back to basic evolution. It's a messy subject!

Any non-Nazi style solutions would be welcome!!

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:15 · Score: 1

So then, the only way to continue evolving as a species is to drive our own evolution.

So what? The fact that evolution has replaced God as the origin of species does not turn evolution into God. The assumption that it is good to evolve needs to be questioned.

The first AIDS case by Fanglord · 2004-01-16 19:31 · Score: 1

AIDS is believed to have come from cross-species contamination (probably unsanitary butchering and eating) from chimpanzees in central Africa sometime in the early part of the century. There is a simian version of HIV called SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), that shares sequence similarity with HIV. HIV is not caused by genetic manipulation.

The first confirmed case of HIV infection was from a patient who gave a blood sample in 1959. The infection wasn't discovered until the 80s, however, when they finally knew what to look for.

First AIDS case

I'm not sure what you mean by "generally exploiting nature in unnatural ways". The spread of HIV/AIDS may have been exacerbated by vaccination programs in central Africa during the 60s, where syringes were used repetedly. Does a vaccination program count as unnatural exploitation?

What the lawyers wouldn't let them say by tgibbs · 2004-01-16 19:41 · Score: 1

Fluorescent zebra fish, like all ornamental fish, are NOT intended for human consumption; they should never be eaten.

And if you did, they are almost certainly completely harmless. But we have no intention of wasting a couple of million dollars proving it.

The abstracts as links by grouse · 2004-01-16 22:29 · Score: 1

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-17 00:42 · Score: 1

Ok this is bullshit. I've been around the military for a good part of my teen years and rarely do you ever hear about people getting sick at the mess.

Disease is not a major problem in military bases. I don't know which you've been to [I've been to Petawawa, Borden, St-Jean, Lac Sebastien and Baggotville in Canada] and the worse thing I saw was an outbreak of sunburns and heatstroke [cuz of the 30+ temps].

I'm sure people get sick in the military. I just doubt it's because they eat in a common mess. A big part of basic training in the military is how to live in groups [e.g. this is why they inspect your barracks often].

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Excellent links. Thanks. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-17 01:30 · Score: 1

The first is a hypothesis about something that would have happened billions of years ago (when eukaryotes were still single-celled creatures) but it's still a fascinating paper.

Thanks!

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:Excellent links. Thanks. by grouse · 2004-01-17 06:27 · Score: 1

You said "more complicated than a bacterium," not multicellular. :-) But in any case, I'm not arguing that it fits the requirements of your challenge so it's not important.

You're welcome!

Spreading via virus... by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-17 01:49 · Score: 1

Yet, if that happened, wouldn't we expect it to happen every day, with natural DNA?

Any evidence that SARS has transmitted cat DNA to the infected humans, or AIDS transmitted monkey DNA to people with that disease?

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Re:Sadly this is news... by tomstdenis · 2004-01-17 04:04 · Score: 1

I think you'll find even normal ME FIRST homes in the middle of a warzone are not clean either.

What's your point?

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Scientific Responsibility by Melantha_Bacchae · 2004-01-17 05:02 · Score: 1

It has long been the theme of Toho's Godzilla series that the atom and later the cell are sacred fires man is not to touch, let alone steal from the gods. The theme of scientific responsibility, so eloquently expressed in "Jurassic Park", is but an echo of a movie from fifty years ago about another dinosaur: "Gojira"!

In the original Japanese version of that movie, Dr. Serizawa chooses death rather than take the risk that his accidental discovery would be used as a weapon by some nation. He had experience with the Nazis that cost him his eye, and that convinced him that he could be tortured into revealing his discovery. He could trust no nation, on either side of the Cold War. The only way to save Japan from Godzilla and protect the world from his discovery, was for him to make one weapon, destroy his life's work, and then die with Godzilla.

His shining example shames the irresponsible corporate scientists of today, as much as it shamed the Manhattan Project scientists.

"Our people.. stricken with disease.
You.. you played with the fires of the gods.
And you dare to come here and ask us for help!
You betrayed us! You expect us to trust you after what you have done?"
Infant Island Chief, "Godzilla vs. Mothra" (US Version), 1964
(Giving voice to the Marshall Islands people, on the tenth anniversary of the H-bomb Bravo, which also created Godzilla.)

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by KDan · 2004-01-17 06:32 · Score: 1

That is an excellent point. Is it good to evolve? First we must define what we mean by "evolve". I think a good definition would be 'improve our innate physical characteristics'.

There are several angles we can approach this then. Economically, some traits are positive for society - for instance less disease - because it reduces, for instance health care costs. But that's really of very small importance. Economical arguments are not enough to justify such tampering with our gene pool.

What about the point of view of our own happiness? Being able to live longer and healthier would improve our happiness? Quite possibly. I think if you go to someone with a hereditary genetic disease, you will have a hard time convincing them that they wouldn't be happier without it. That's a very good reason to push evolution forward - to help us be happier.

I could go into more angles but as I've found one which works I'll leave it for someone else to dig out the other angles.

So then, yes, there are some benefits to evolution. The question is really whether the benefits outweigh the costs. If the costs are those associated with selective breeding and all the horrible societal consequences it brings, then the benefits definitely do not outweigh the costs. See nazi germany for a good example of how selective breeding makes for a bad world.

So what are the costs of genetic engineering that would outweigh the benefits of evolution? I can't see such great costs, so long as the process is regulated properly to allow universal access to it. Please let me know if you think of any.

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by tgibbs · 2004-01-17 07:31 · Score: 1

That is an excellent point. Is it good to evolve? First we must define what we mean by "evolve". I think a good definition would be 'improve our innate physical characteristics'.

Evolution by natural selection already has a definition: "increase the number of surviving, fertile offspring." For example, evolution will favor a gene that increases your fertility, but as a side effect, causes you to die a painful death in your mid-fifties from cancer.

my friend by Transient0 · 2004-01-17 08:19 · Score: 1

there is such a thing as relevance. It is actually surprisingly fundamental to analogy.

It seems to me that the practice of eugenics is a fairly relevant point when discussing why HItler was bad.

--
lysergically yours

Thanks. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-17 08:30 · Score: 1

I hadn't heard that leukocytes could pass the barrier - I thought perhaps prions were small enough to pass thru.

Interesting.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Aesthetically injured? by LauraW · 2004-01-17 12:20 · Score: 1

My favorite part of the lawsuit is:

9. Defendants' actions allowing the release of GE ornamental fish and other animal varieties into the environment also ensures that individuals serving on CTA's board of directors are, and will be, aesthetically, physically and recreationally injured.

Huh? Did SCO's lawyers branch out into environmental lawsuits when I wasn't looking?

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by glesga_kiss · 2004-01-18 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually no. Genetic diseases can and are being selected out by in vitro fertilisation and selective implantation.

Personally, I like the traditional way of having kids, you know, sex!! ;-)

It surely is A Brave New World.

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by KDan · 2004-01-18 05:10 · Score: 1

Well, you're talking about blind, darwinian evolution. I was talking about evolution in general. Darwinian evolution, ie "survival of the fittest", is as you defined it. But evolution in general is an alteration of physical characteristics for purpose X. Where, in this case, purpose X can be whatever we want.

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem

Re:Hook, line, and sinker by claudebbg · 2004-01-19 06:49 · Score: 1

The "selective breeding" you talk about is not just a bad idea (and not at all because of a "terrible world it would be"). It's as stupid as the "bit of genetic engineering".
Don't you remember the nazis were not only mass killers but also really bad scientists in that field, they just made a big confusion between their obsessions and science, most of their "theories" were pure crap, assembled from one of the worst scientists of the past.
Genetic engineering is based on a bit better scientific thinking but genetic modifications are not at all under control. Even in the most advanced research labs, they don't (can't) imagine the consequences of modifications based on a large scale. We are already taking huge risks with genetically modified animals and plants because we don't (can't) control what happens in less than a century.
If we begin to decide what a good genetic pattern is, we'll be on day 1 of the end of the specie, just because selection is not the solution.
Most of the easy-thinkers just forget the most important point of this darwin selection theory: mulitplicity of combination. The more sub-species and evolution there are, the better it is to create new possibilities for the future.
We still are evolving now, by mixing people from all over the globe and the fact that we can save lifes with medecine is a good thing to make new people appear, able to do new things. The question is to maintain and improve our ability to survive, not to select.
By the way, as we are at the "information age", we also have to evolve in our way of thinking. A first step would be that everybody understand the eugenism is crap. That is evolution!

--
ClaudeBBG

Re:They don't GLOW! They are just bright colored. by bad-badtz-maru · 2004-01-20 04:04 · Score: 1

If the GFs are brighter then you probably have a water quality problem.

money where your mouth is by Doc+Ruby · 2004-01-20 22:50 · Score: 1

From the New York Times today: "No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes". We're just getting started with the research on trasngenes, but we're releasing them into the wild, into our foodchain. Do you want your diet at the same beta-test quality as your browser? In the US, we test food and drugs to determine that they're safe for human consumption. We don't just assume that they're OK until the pestilential cat is out of the bag. Now just admit you're getting your checks from the agri-engineering biz, or just give up and join the sane skeptics before it's too late to know *what* you're putting into your mouth.

"Eeeww, Beta." - Homer Simpson

--

--
make install -not war

Perhaps you should read the article. by porkchop_d_clown · 2004-01-21 03:31 · Score: 1

Since the article only discusses engineered animals and plants possibly out performing native life forms. It says *nothing* about mutant genes somehow infecting other animals or people.

And for good reason, too.

--
Clear, Dark Skies

Perhaps you should trust your lunch by Doc+Ruby · 2004-01-21 06:43 · Score: 1

Yes, the good reason is that these transgene techs are unproven. As we're starting research, we're identifying the risks. The article is referring to "transgene escape", where a transgene gets into other genomes through breeding. As I continue my amateur, part-time research, I continue to add to the research suggested by others, more professional, in this thread. Meanwhile, it's clear that we don't know enough to be safe, and the more we find out, the greater the risks. Let's not play Mendel Roulette with our diet - let's test these on professional guinea pigs, instead of involuntary beta test on our food web.

--

--
make install -not war

Slashdot Mirror

Lawsuit Filed Against Unregulated GloFish

330 of 438 comments (clear)