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."
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!"
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:Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you clean it? That is without killing the fish when you depressurized it.
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.
I wonder how long these would survive in the wild? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to do better (Score:1, Insightful)
I expect better trolling out of you, sir.
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.
Whaaa!!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Boohoo. I'd buy one of these fish. Be interesting to see how much this blackballing affects local availability.
Re:GM Pets (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
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: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:GM pets (Score:3, Insightful)
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 patent will be forced to defend it and sue all the kids. Or maybe their parents because they should have known better.
It should not be posible to patent anything related to life and its genetic makeup. I think the farmer should have sued Monsanto for providing a substance that corrupted the years of plant breeding he had done to get the crop just as he wanted it.
Silly me. The farmer could not afford enought lawyers to darken the skies. American justice at its best.
Re:"Finally... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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?
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.
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 of patents just makes no sense at all.
I really wish the so-called "environmentalists" would stick to actually doing something to help the environment, like supporting lumbering (since they will replant the trees) rather than strip farming (who don't care about the trees at all). Or maybe protecting species from becoming extinct rather than worrying about us introducing more species. Mutation is a normal process, and if we're speeding it up a little that's fine. If anything, we probably should be doing this to replace the species that are otherwise dying out.
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: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.
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?
Re:More info on the fish (Score:3, Insightful)
Hit him again, ma! I wants to see the fishy glow!
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 the way of billions of dollars of genetically modified profit (glow in the dark cash anyone?).
Re:Genetically Engineered Virus for Mice (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral: stop fucking with your carefully balanced ecology.
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.
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.
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'm sure you'll.. (Score:1, Insightful)
please!
The fact is, science can do wrong. This is not an anti-science stand, it is an anti-irresponsibility stand. Your attack against anyone who expresses concerns about GM foods being a high school flunkout is the kind of reaction to be expected from someone who is on the exact opposite ideological side of the argument, and brings nothing to the situation but divisiveness. In other words, you are little more than a troll.
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.
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.
Re:I have to wonder about the people aginst this (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I have to wonder about the people aginst this (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
There are those who would argue over the use of "allergic" in this context... Actually, everyone is 'lactose intolerant.' - In humans, the production of lactase (the enzyme that breaks-down lactose) is inversely related to age. In other words, 'Milk is for babies!'
Re:I doubt it in this case (Score:2, 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 potential to make vast, sweeping changes is very short periods of time. Introducing a gene to an organism that it might never have evolved if left alone (such as giving glowing genes to fish that would not have evolved them) can, conceivably, cause problems. God knows there's enough examples of human "interference" with ecosystems wreaking havoc -- witness the rabbits in Australia. (And that was simply transplanting an organism from one area to another, not even messing with the genes.)
Where the problem comes in is that biodiversity is a good thing, for a variety of reasons I needn't go into here. Introducing potentially disruptive elements (like genetically-modified fish) can, in some cases, cause problems.
Why is it different from, say, regular breeding? Well, even regular breeding is orders of magnitude slower than genetic engineering, giving ecosystems more time to adapt. It's the rapid changes that GM can introduce that its detractors see as a problem.
Ultimately, I don't have enough information to really decide whether or to what degree GM is a good idea. I've read numerous arguments on both sides, but unfortunately, thanks to the short-sightedness of most humans, the majority of the arguments boil down to dogma.
What about the genetic code of a Human? (Score:2, Insightful)
If good ol' homo sapiens begins adopting genetic modifications and those mods are patented/copyrighted....does that mean that bio-tech companies could concievably hold patents on YOUR body?
some key issues noone has mentioned (Score:2, Insightful)
The major problem that currently exists in nature is alien species, not GM species. GM could solve this problem by moving customers to alien species that can't survive in the wild. The problem with these fish is that they are not GM enough. Any Zebra fish (glowing or not) is a potential risk alien species invasion.
If we had a real market for GM pets, maybe they could spend more money making really really good versions, instead of fighting lawsuits etc.
ie, with GM fish, how about some options like this.
They could be engineered to require a dietary supplement that they could not get enough of in the wild. (ie delete their genes that make vitamin C?)
They could be engineered to need a really weird PH level in the water, or for the eggs to mature
Maybe the eggs could be engineered to only produce males at 1 temp extreme, females at another temp extreme (ie arctic vs tropical).
Maybe the eggs would require warm incubation (ie turtle eggs) on land.
They could be engineered to be unable/unwilling to cross with related wild species.
Hell, for all I know, you could engineer them so that males could only survive in very salty water, and females in fresh. Human would be required to get sperm from males to females (ie straining the water from one tank, then 'polluting the water in the other tank'
Think of all the species that could be saved if there was a GM cat that ate vegetarian food pellets and didn't hunt. Cats wipe out many native species
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just a problem of species being introduced into alien environments. Genetically modified creatures that escape could cause similar problems, perhaps exacerbated by their modifications. Mind you, a fish that glows at night is going to get eaten pretty quick. But we should be very careful about introducing GM creatures into the wild just because there could be unforeseen consequences that we wouldn't like.
Well, that's one ethical consideration that doesn't strike me as particular pressing; we've done it before, why not again? There are plenty of species that would almost certainly die out if we did: seedless grapes, maize, several forms of wheat, possibly cows. Personally I would be more worried about species dying because we kill them than species dying because we create them.
Re:Gene torture (Score:2, Insightful)
So you see, "crime" is all over nature, it is totally natural. However, as a society, we have decided that we do not value such actions, moreoever, that we will punish such actions. It is really a socities survival strategy, to limit the actions of others, and to punish those that act out side of these limits.
Now i am not saying that we should not have laws, i rather think that an ordered society is more fun to live in than a chaotic one. However, we need to realize that crime, as we call it, is a totally natural action, and that the only reason that it is considered bad is that society, as a collective, has adopted a survival stragegy that tries to limit those that will not work. That is all
I am not sure this is clear, but i hope it is.
As for karma, yeah there is some bad moderation, but that is just the way it goes. People don't like being forced to think, so they mod it down.