Genetically Engineered Pets Hit the Market 756
psoriac writes "According to this article the Taiwanese Taikong Corporation is starting to sell "Night Pearls" - zebrafish that glow in different red and green patterns thanks to genes from jellyfish and marine coral. US sales are expected to follow."
"Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
Get the freakin' thing upset, and BOOOM.... bits of insect/fish dripping down your walls....
How about this? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about this? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How about this? (Score:4, Funny)
Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you clean it? That is without killing the fish when you depressurized it.
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'm daydreaming, I may as well make it a perfectly self-sustaining biosphere that never needs cleaning, right?
Seriously, if I could afford to create such an environment and the equipment needed to get the fishes from the ocean and into it (which to the best of my knowledge noone has ever done) I would imagine I could create a cleaning system that works while the system was pressurized.
Alternately, perhaps some multi-chambered approach where the fish could be herded into a chamber that remains pressurized while the other chamber is depressurized for cleaning???
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, the Monterey Bay Aquarium [mbayaq.org] has quite a few deep sea creatures [mbayaq.org] in pressurised tanks/displays. I don't know how they clean them though.
Ender
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
Here [ecosaqua.com]. Not luminicent, but it's a start.
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
Many deep sea creatures don't actually require a pressurized environment. They can life at surface pressure. But they tend to be very sensitive to temp (need cold), light (its dark down there), and oxygen level.
Monterey Bay Aquarium: Care of deep sea animals [mbayaq.org]Re:Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I don't know about the oxygen thing, but it seems they'd be a perfect companion for Slashdotters.
Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Interesting)
Before all the fuss about "messing with nature", I'll just remind /. readers about the theory that most human attributes including pigmentation were selected by sexual, not environmental selection. I.e. we look like we do largely because, like glowing fish, we find ourselves "cute".
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, that's the "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals".
Now you really _can_ tune a fish! (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, maybe now we can have a live action Charlie Tuna!
Comparing the taste of these fish to natural fish is like comparing apples and oranges. Oh, wait, now we can have both at the same time!
So what colour synthahol goes with synthetic fish?
Will you have to do a blush response test to find out if your fish is a replicant or not? Calling Chef Harrison Ford!
Maybe now they can genegineer some fish that, even when uncooked, taste like cooked fish. Sushi
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Funny)
The lady asked him, "What size aquarium will you be putting these in?".
He replied: "Aquarium? I was just going to chuck them at passing cars in the parking lot!"
~Wx
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:4, Insightful)
Something tells me that genes don't feel pain and therefore can't be tortured. Maybe it is that lack of a nervous system.
From an ethical point of view I have no problem with this. My only concern would be letting something like this loose in nature and therefore messing with ecology.
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gene torture (Score:3, Interesting)
Since when are chemicals considered to have wills? If they don't they can't be frustrated in the way that you are claiming, and as such your argument that they are not being tortured.
They are, however, being altered from their "natural" course. Or are they? Aren't humans part of nature? If we are, if we are a product of nature, how can we ever do anything that is outside of what is natural? Then us playing with genes is just anohter part of nature, albeit a new a
Re:How do you know YOU have a will? (Score:3, Funny)
This is not meaningless, this is how all arguments are carried out. You define what you mean by something and then see if that definition works. But that is off topic...
Genes are not just dumb chemicals, eh? Why
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:4, Funny)
Geeks and Bugblatters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Geeks and Bugblatters (Score:3, Funny)
The real truth is: the jocks hook up with the hot chicks early on, and get them pregnant. Then the jocks either die out due to stupid auto accidents, or they reform and become decent people. The wives of the dead ones now have a bunch of kids, and have gotten fat, so not only can they not find a new husband (not even the geeks want them), but that's that many women now out of the pool of available ones. The women that are left have their pick of all the players at the clubs, a
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and what is found to be cute often relies on the features necessary for best survival in any environment.
Go back a few thousand years:
In Africa, the darker the skin the more time out in the sun gathering food and hunting. The women who are larger can carry more, nurse more, hence the desire for larger, curvatious women (Go back to older African songs saying their women have bigger breasts/ass)
In Eastern Asian countries, especially Japan, a lot of time is spent fishing in bright sunlight. Darker pigmentation in the eyes, plus smaller eyes, for better visibility on the water, lean muscles for fishing -- height being a factor.
Cute is a byproduct of what the environment says will survive best.
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't consider "Baby Got Back" an older African song.
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Interesting)
There was more to the PBS special than "PBS says black people are black because of sunlight". The scientific explanation was that in parts of Africa where sunlight is most intense human skin has the least amount of trouble manufacturing vitamin D. Therefore there's an overabundance of that kind of sunlight hence the darker pigmentation to shield against it.
As humans moved further away from Africa the sunlight became less intense making v
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a shame they can't provide a drug that could be given to current pets to make them glow. (Yes, I admit it.. I'd probably dose myself.. who needs a glow in the dark condom now!) I'd feel safer letting my pets out to pee at night if they
Re:Roll on the genetically engineered toys (Score:3, Funny)
(obligatory) Probably not you, if you start glowing...
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the solution is, because there are many good uses for GM products, but its an issue that needs to be thought out carefully, instead of just saying "cool!"
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
If left to their own devices simple mutation will eventually lead to the hardier species anyways.
More of a problem is if they are not hardier species and rely upon artificial environments [man] to survive. Even then it's simply an ethical consideration about making a species that is doomed without us. Are we ready for the responsibility and the such.
Personally I think it's cool. I also think that *someone* is going to do it, as someone will always disregard ethics for some reason or another...
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a problem not because it might simply replace one existing species, but because it might replace that species and take down dozens of others with it, throwing an entire ecosystem into disarray. Take the brown snake, [usda.gov] which was introduced to Guam in fruit shipments. They eat birds and birds' eggs. They are rapidly destroying all of the birds in Guam, because there are not enough natural hazards to keep them in check. Additionally, they crawl into transformers and short circuit t
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's hardly the fault of Genetic Modification, and entirely the fault of our stupid patent litigation laws. If you want to argue that companies shouldn't be able to own species or modifications, I'm right there with you. And it probably would reduce GM research a little. Banning GM because
monoclonal forests.. great (Score:4, Insightful)
They cut down a diverse woodland. They replant with monoclonal trees that will be quick/easy to harvest next time. It's a tree farm, not a forest. It's probably better than clear cutting, but not much.
I doubt it in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that glowing in the dark would benefit a zebrafish. Its very unlikely they'd be more attractive to the opposite sex here, zebrafish are not used to looking for glowing mates. Also, glowing in the dark could be quite a disadvantage if any predators are near.
In case of GM'd crops (resistance to pests etc.) the modified organism could well be superior to the wildtype.
But even if an advantage is introduced, its still questionable if replacing the wild type with the improved version is a bad thing.
What does humanity lose when all soybean plants become roundup-resistant? Would the world be a worse planet to live on if all zebrafish glowed in the dark?
Re:I doubt it in this case (Score:3, Interesting)
Just what I was thinking. The glowing fish would be the first thing eaten, so their genes would not last long in the wild.
Re:I doubt it in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing, unless hatred of Monsanto is a human good.
What really would be a pisser, though, is if all the weeds in the soybean fields ended up roundup resistant.
Is the protein edible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats the kind of situation that I'd be curious about. They may be relatively unimportant traits and still have some far reaching effects.
Re:I doubt it in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume you read my previous disclaimer, so bear with me.
My understanding was that terminated plants produce nonviable seeds. Do they also not produce pollen? Is it certain (I took special note of your "effectively", which is often informal shorthand for "almost certain", but perhaps you meant it differently) that pollen from a terminated plant could not be introduced into a species that is viable and pass that gene to its offspring?
Re:I doubt it in this case (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, organic farms are not necessarily "better" for the environment than any other farm. They produce less per square acre (feeding fewer people), and that "natural fertilizer" isn't all that great either.
I could continue poking holes here, but what's the use.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
This same kind of thing could happen with fish or whatever. Some fish that is not as steril as thought breeds with another unmodified fish and a kid gives one of the offsping to a friend. If this goes a bit further then the owner of the
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh poopiedoops. A froo-froo gene like luciferase or GFP (Green Flourescent Protein) will not convey an advantage (more likely a disadvantage as it would make them visable to predators). This is innocuous and harmless to the fish.
So-called "frankenfood" is also mostly alarmist nonsense. SOME forms of GM food are a good thing(tm). For instance, if you could increase the nutritional value of a crop plant, that is good. It is likely to be somewhat costly to the plant when compared to non-altered wildtype (it takes energy to produce extra nutrients that evolution didn't set you up with). Food designed to be used for vaccination would also be good and not provide any advantage (but a cost) for the plant for similar reasons. On the other hand, creating drought-resistant plants, salt-resistant plants, or chemical agent resistant plants is NOT a likely good thing as in the evolutionary environment of a farm, this would provide a distinct evolutionary advantage to the plants, even those that pick up the trait by incidental species transfer of DNA (happens a lot...agrobacteria is one way to pass DNA around, as are certain plant viruses).
Under NORMAL circumstances (left to the wild ways of evolution), resistance to herbacide would not be of any real use and would actually be a biological burden to be selected against. But in our day with chemicals being used, it is an advantage. Thus it would be as advantageous to the desired plant as it is to the "weed" that picked up the gene by horizontal gene transfer. Bad news and ultimately self-defeating.
Thus, Greens and other knee-jerk anti-GM food people need to learn a bit and start making logical and reasonable distinctions. Altering crops for improved nutritional value or for specific use in immunization is A-OK and not harmful (What, a weed might actually pick up some extra nutritional value? Good! A new crop plant! But it wont because it is burdensome to carry). On the other hand, altering crops to produce pesticides or be herbicide resistant is a recipe for disaster.
One genetic engineering project I was involved with for a while was an attempt to improve the fungal resistance of sugarbeets. The means was to transfer chitinase into sugarbeets from fungi, an enzyme that degrades chitin, the cell-wall material in fungi (among other things). In fungi, the chitinase gene is tightly regulated and needed for proper cell growth and division. Placed into a crop plant, the hope was that if a fungal disease tried to attack the crop, the chitinase in the plant would cause the fungi to lyse (break open) and die. There are different ways this could work: have the gene turned on all the time so there is always a low level of chitinase (alien to a plant) all the time or you could tie it to a gene promotor associated with the plants stress response system so that it turns on only when the plant is under direct attack by fungi. Spiffy idea and good. Weeds are not generally devastated by fungal disease anyway so a transfer would be harmless. Besides, since there are viruses and bacteria that can transfer DNA between species of plants, and fungi can infiltrate and attack various plants, it is not unlikely that there are already wild plants out there that contain various genes from viruses, bacteria and fungi anyway already. There is nothing magic going on here.
An alternative project along the same vein was to alter yeast to overproduce chitinase on demand. The idea here was that you would spray your crop with a solution containing the modified yeast and then induce chitinase overproduction. The yeast would burst and dump their cell contents into the soil in the immediate vicinity. For some unknown period of time, active chitinase in the soil would (or so it was hoped) provide a barrier to fungi, preventing attack on the plants. I doubt this project would have worked out very well for a number of reasons but at this point I don't know the status of either project as I no longer work in that lab.
It is not automatic that any GM of crops MUST be a bad thing. Use some critical thinking before judging.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
That's why we all have to buy Fords!
Re:more than cool (Score:3, Funny)
Easy! Just remove the skin.
ya know what I think (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like a PR problem.
Maybe they should hire Robert Novak [petswarehouse.com] to help their image- he lots of fish experience!
The killer app... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be stupid! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait, that's Phish, my bad.
Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Danger! Danger Wil Robinson! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds pretty neat to me, after all people have been genetically modifying animals for tens of thousands of years, except the tool has been breeding rather than genetics. It's called domestication. We didn't hear any of these hypocrites moaning about the evils of genetics when they invented Clamato, did we???
Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and people have been using cars for tens of thousands of years, it was called running.
Jeez, breeding for particular traits is NOT at all the same as inserting genes from other species.
Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson! (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who has taken several courses on Genetic Engineering with scientists deeply involved in the field, I can say that there is little consensus on what exactly 'Genetic Engineer' means, as a term.
There are natural processes by which genes from one organism get inserted into genomes of another. Are you saying that this is not GE? Does it have to occur in a test tube to be GE? How can the location where the transgenetic meeting occurs determine the risk to the ecosystem?
-R
Re:Danger! Danger Wil Robinson! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the same morons who claim that MSG is safe (I would SO like to beat their face in with a brick...safe my ass!) and that pot is as dangerous as heroin.
The US FDA does not have my respect. They clearly base their "scientific" rulings on what would most benefit certain industries rather than what is actually safe or not.
It just so happens that GMfood (sounds like an edible car...nevermind) is a big industry in the US, and what a surprise, the FDA does nothing that would stand in t
Ever read Dune? (Score:2, Interesting)
An Elephant Makes Love To A Pig (Score:2)
and
"Hey! These pigs look like Mr. Garrison!"
this is nothing new... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:this is nothing new... (Score:3, Funny)
Back in my day... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, many fish, such as goldfish, are just slightly different breeds of wild fish, such as carp. If an "engineered" fish escapes and breeds with a fish that's in our food chain and then we eat it, that could have important health implications. We need to be absolutely sure that genetically engineered products, such as grains, don't reach human mouths.
Re:I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who said anything about gene transfer? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like developing an antitoxin is equivelent to putting a man on Mars.
2) GM organisms driving NE organisms to extinction
Why is it that ecological niches are always considered to be a binary yes-no system? Two predators can co-exist in the same area, provided that resources are abundant enough for both to survive. Also, why is it always assumed the only the NEs will die off at the pressures of the GMs? It's certainly possible that the reverse will happen.
3) Genetic monoculture susceptible to parasites and climate
And?
4) Hubristic scientists playing God calling down the wrath of Heaven
You call this a scientifically valid reason?
5) Gene transfer between similar existing species leading to any one of the above
So the first time we crossed horses and donkeys to get mules, the environment should have collapsed and God should have rained vengeful wrath down upon us, right?
Give me a break. Go read some real science, unaltered by religious dogma, and then get back to me.
I wonder how long these would survive in the wild? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but... (Score:4, Funny)
I still dont agree with this. (Score:2)
First of all know one completely understands a gene strand. ok lets say we have our cool glowing fish soon to be the next pet must have. first of all in new enviroonments they will evolve. in a natrual environment they will evolve even more. Who says these things wont develope stingers. What happens when kids start releasing these things into the ocean and they start growing and adapting. People need to learn that implimentation and experiementation are two completely different things. pretty soon we will
Grass (Score:3, Interesting)
You can get it today (Score:4, Funny)
A dyslexics nightmare... (Score:3, Funny)
GM pets (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GM pets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GM pets (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see a pic of these fish though, or some video. I have no problem with a genetically modified pet. In the future, maybe we can have tigers that get no bigger than house cats, or something cool like that. Or photosynthetic pets that you don't have to feed! Just stick them outside for a few hours!
The FUD never ceases to amaze (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you could really hurt the bottom line of pet stores that don't carry GM fish.
Oh my god! Not strange colored GM tropical fish in our waters! It'll be anarchy! Dogs and cats living together...
Look, while some GM pets might be an issue in this respect - more successful breeds crowding out the less successful - that's how nature works anyway. If you improve on nature, well, you've helped nature along. However, some glowing fish are just going to be easier targets. They'll be lunch before you can say "cyalume".
As for, say, pets engineered to not drop dander all over the place, it's likely that the dander is useful to them from a survival standpoint somehow, and they won't really be able to live in the wild. Proliferation of genes problem solved. Of course, if they are MORE successful, then it's an adaptation they would have developed eventually anyway. Since they haven't by this time (presumably they've had a while to make that advance) it will probably make them less successful.
Now I know I'm taking a rather simplistic view here but someone has to take this stance, and it might as well be me. Those of you who are afraid of everything GM just because it's GM, and who want to stop GM research, are only holding us back. Everything we learn from GM plants and animals applies to our future, it teaches us something about the way genecodes work. Stop trying to keep us from our birthright, and let us learn. Thank you.
Re:The FUD never ceases to amaze (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but that gives them a helluva long time. Sigh-a-loom... key-a-loom... cha-loom-ee... uhh.....
I have to wonder about the people aginst this (Score:3, Insightful)
So, this is an honest question here.
Most people seem to believe that if these 'engineered' creatures get out, it would be doom somehow.
The only difference between 'genetically engineered' and not that is if WE do it intentionally or nature does it at random.
Because of the fact nature can introduce a new random change in genes to create something that does exist, is that reason to stop nature?
Not at all.
I aggree that if these things got out there would be changes. But no more than any other evolutionary change. Both are equally unpredictable.
If this was to happen at random in nature, it would be amazing and wonderful, but if we caused it due to a desire, its evil bad and distructive, for the same exact reason, because we (Humans) dont know what it will do.
Why is the reaction different?
Lets just pretend for a second here that we can control whatever is needed to cause humans to grow gills. Granted that type of thing is exponentially complex, and it has almost no chances of happening at random, or really of us creating that atleast for a long long time.. but stick with this for a sec.
Now, if we could do that to ourselfs, the same 'oh no its bad!' reaction would happen.
But if it was a natural mutation.. for the same thing.. What then?
Would it be bad then too?
Would it be ok?
Why?
So lets look at small changes.
GM grains. They are evil because, why again? They compete with life like everything else and happen to be better than the things they kill off?
What about if we could genetically change a human to not be allergic to something (Say, milk) is that as equally as bad if these changed humans get out and reproduce?
Right now we have both types of humans, the 'older' strains that are allergic to cows milk, and the 'newer' strain that isnt and can drink it.
Its a small gene change but it is no different if we do it or it 'just happens'.
A fish is a larger change. But its the same example, whats the differce if it just naturally happened? And who are we to say it never would?
Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?
As just one more lifeform on this planet that came into being due to natures random gene changes, I cant see why ANY human is aginst changing genes, because your basically aginst your own existance.
And if it really is nothing more than a difference between 'nature did it at random' and 'we caused it ourself' then wearing glasses, getting braces, having a tooth pulled, having any medial operation, all of those are non natural changes to our design that you should be aginst too (Yet rarely are, never in my experence with others aginst genetic research so far.)
I'm not looking to change anyones mind, I'm looking for someone to try and change mine, in a way that makes sense.
Lil help?
can i ask the anti-gm people a question? (Score:5, Interesting)
hello? do you know how stupid you sound?
look: there is informed, intelligent whistleblowing and alarmism, and then there is false, hysterical, fear of the unknown alarmism
i think "frankenfood" is a good term to use for gm food another parallel to the frankenstein legend: remember the stupid peasants who wanted to burn frankenstein in their fear of something that, essentially, in the story as written by mary shelley, was actually HELPING them?
do you not see how your uneducated fear of the unknown holds us back?
are you going to stop the part of human nature that is curious and tinkers and is basically what has gotten us as far as it has in civilization?
please.
I'm sure you'll.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The consequences of a such a young (and cash hungry) industry industry could be exceptional. Thats worth questioning. Look at the pharmacuetical industry and remember that their reach is somewhat limited. I mean do [businessweek.com] you really trust [coca.com.au] the pharmaceutical [bbc.co.uk] industry?
Genetics as a science may be a little different as a industry.
Re:can i ask the anti-gm people a question? (Score:3, Informative)
Monsanto is suing farmers for having the audacity to re-plant seeds from plants they grew. Apparently, you're supposed to keep paying Monsanto year after year for your seed stock.
Note: Many farmers actually do buy new seed every year, as commercially available seed is of a higher and more consistent quality compared to harvested seed from the field. However, Monsanto is trying to take this choice away from farmers, and force them to keep paying.
So just don't buy Monsanto seed, right?
Wrong.
Mons
patents/breeding? (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume these glowing genes are patented by somebody?
Does this mean that if you buy these fish, breeding them will be illegal?
Do you think that once, rather than this just being something that affects farmers (in faraway states) and computer programmers (who the average person has to learn an entire new vocabulary just to understand what the programmers are talking about), once the whole you-can-patent-anything thing starts to affect "the average person" in a very clear, noticeable way-- "Here are some dogs, that you paid money for. But you're banned from letting them breed, because they happen to contain some invisible series of DNA codes that, despite being part of this dog's very life, is the intellectual property of some random corporation."-- do you think once we reach that point, maybe we'll finally start to see public backlash against how far the u.s. patent paradigm has gone?
Of course, if the people selling these fish want to keep their patents safe, they'd probably just make all the fish infertile. But then if all the fish are infertile, why are the environmentalists worried? Is it because they've seen "Jurassic park"? And what happens if some of the un-neutered versions somehow leak out on the black market (ebay)? Could they stop that? Is spaying a DMCA-applicable "method that effectively controls access to intellectual property"?
Re:patents/breeding? (Score:3, Interesting)
My gf recently bought a puppy from a breeder. She had to sign a contract saying that she would have it neutered as soon as it was old enough or they can take it back. She's not suppose to breed it or enter it in dog shows. So I would say the answer to your question is yes.
Incidentally, the humane society has a policy like this as well but I can see their argument for it a lot more than a breeder since they're d
MyFish.com presents: "2Fish2Furious" (Score:3, Funny)
And Nitrous boost! Give those dolphins & sharks something to talk about at the water cooler on Monday.
Re:MyFish.com presents: "2Fish2Furious" (Score:3, Funny)
Don Knotts
Daryl Hannah
& Gilbert Gottfried
Get your 2Fish2Furious collectors cups at Long John Silver's!
pictures here... (Score:3, Informative)
More info on the fish (Score:5, Informative)
Here are several [mongabay.com] stories and pictures of the fish.
The pictures (and other sites such as this one [ornamental-fish-int.org]) imply that they are "fluorescent" fish, i.e., they glow when bathed in UV light, as opposed to fish that glow without a UV light source.
Re:More info on the fish (Score:3, Insightful)
Hit him again, ma! I wants to see the fishy glow!
Genetically Engineered Virus for Mice (Score:4, Interesting)
The virus is a genetically engineered strain of the herpes virus from a mouse, and has been modified to induce an immune reaction in female mice around the egg, causing them to become infertile for around 6 months.
Obviously this virus is targeted at mice only, and is aimed at reducing (if not eliminating) the frequency and severity of mice plagues in Australia.
If successful it would remove the need for the literal tonnes of highly poisinous rodenticides that are now applied around farms, grain silos etc. Not to mention the economic benefit from an increase grain harvest quantity and quality.
The results of an unsuccessful trial are left to the imagination of the reader ..
They are now nearly at the stage where a permit is to be applied for that would allow for field trials of this virus.
Of note is that last time similar field trials were undertaken (of a Calaci (sp?) virus) for rabbits, the virus escaped from the control area and rapidly spread across the entire continent. Luckily it appears to have had no adverse affects on native wildlife, although several childen lost pet rabbits to the virus (a vaccine is now available to protect the "Fluffys" of this world).
You can read more about the virus in this [abc.net.au] transcript from a local Science show.
Should make for interesting debate when/if the permit application becomes reality.
Re:Genetically Engineered Virus for Mice (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral: stop fucking with your carefully balanced ecology.
Well thats just great! (Score:3, Funny)
Why do I even bother.....
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Please go look at a Chihuahua and an Irish Wolfhound, and tell me again about genetic manipulation. And creating new breeds named Peekapoo [dogbreedinfo.com] and Labradoodle [labradoodle-dogs.com] is as much an abomination as Mephisto's five-assed monkey.
Then, take a look at the problems rampant in the pet population:
Who wouldn't want the genes fixed?
Yeah, (Score:3, Funny)
No more kittens? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No more kittens? (Score:3, Funny)
not quite like seedless grapes, but.. (Score:3, Funny)
selective breeding (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GM Pets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GM Pets (Score:3, Insightful)
In nature, evolution happens, but it's at a slow enough pace that disruptive changes are rare. "Disruptive" in this case means a change that causes mass extinctions, change in climate, or other severe factors. Natural, slow evolution changes things a tiny bit at a time, allowing the ecosystem to adapt, so that there's no wild swings.
Direct GM, like we're doing, has the
Re:biggest problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem you described only occurs when you let loose WILD TYPE species -- they might actually be well-adapted for the niche. Chances are, if we don't already have glowing fish, that's not a trait which improves survival rates, and the glowing fish will die or get eaten.