Glowing Fish are First Genetically Engineered Pets 361
securitas writes "It was bound to happen. Texas-based biotechnology company Yorktown Technologies will start selling a 'genetically engineered aquarium fish that glows in the dark.' The trademarked GloFish -- 'a tropical zebra fish infused with the gene of a sea anemone that makes it glow fluorescent red' -- is first genetically engineered pet. The possible consequences of introducing a new trangenic species into the environment has touched off a debate that has critics such as the National Academies of Science and the Center for Food Safety calling for a ban on the sale of the fish unless the FDA regulates and approves it. The fish go on sale in January 2004. You can see photos of the GloFish here. Cool, but it's no Blinky." M : I think these guys are marketing the fish for a Taiwanese company.
Novelty Item (Score:5, Insightful)
The first? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Novelty Item (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a side effect of a useful experiment, why not make some money from it and raise awareness for genetic engineering?
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The methods used may be different but just about every breed of dog known to Man has been 'genetically engineered.' For example, I have a Boston Terrier. The Boston was created in 1857 as a dog fighter by breeding English Bulldogs and English Terriers. Therefore, the Boston was engineered. Take any dog and you'll find that someone wanted a dog that could do this or that or was such a size so they went about selecting different existing species and breeding them to create their perfect dog. So many people think that genetic engineering is done with test tubes but any time two species are brought together artificially you are engineering genetics. Mendel was a genetic engineer and he lived in the 1100s.
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? That'd be a neat trick. If you are successful in breeding different species you get infertile offspring - that's what species are, different groups that don't crossbreed to produce fertile offspring. Like crossing a donkey and a horse to make a (normally infertile) mule.
Now taking two different breeds of dogs (which are both from the same species) and crossbreeding is a type of artificial selection, but that's nothing at all like taking parts of two different species and combining them into a new one.
What I find most apalling... (Score:2, Insightful)
I realise that there will be things that are genetically altered for the worse. They will either be an experiment or from the mind of someone who intends to do wrong. this is where the line should be drawn... for those who intend to do harm with genetics. Otherwise it is intended for the betterment of society.
All of the stories you've heard about the genetically altered badities - the Hulk, the tenage mutant ninja turtles, the monkey with 4 asses... are just that, stories. Until the haze of negativity is lifted from genetics we can only make small steps, like making fish glow.
Not wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
(Two people of a different race having children isn't genetic engineering.)
And genetic engineering which completely removes the neccessity for having two creatures have sex to mix the genes. The entire process is dependent on human intervention.
The former is natural selection. The latter is intelligent design.
This fish was given genes from a species it could never naturally mate with. Dogs were mated with other dogs they could naturally mate with.
Ben
The mindless anti-GM zelots really piss me off (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not saying "all GM is good, let's go" - quite the contrary:
The mindless anti-GM zelots can prevent things that really help - I would love to see a GM crop that fixed nitrogen like a legume, yielded lots of bio-desiel and plastic precursors, and could be grown year after year in brackish soil, concentrating the salt in the stalks - imagine the boost to the environment and the boost to the third world farmer! But you can bet that, even if an RMS-inspired botanist created such a crop and released it free of charge (think George Washington Carver), the mindless anti-GMers would prevent it from seeing the light of day!
In short, BE worried about things, but have a clearly reasoned, well thought through idea of WHY you are worried - not just because the thing has "scary" words in it like "genetically modified", "nuclear", or "diesel"!
As seen on SouthPark (Score:2, Insightful)
I am dead serious, by the way.
Re:The mindless anti-GM zelots really piss me off (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you attribute far too much power to the 'anti-GMers'. Here in the US the 'mindless anti-GMers' (all twelve of them) have essentially been powerless to do anything. At this point in time in the US corporate interests trump any others, and Monsanto has been given a free pass to do whatever they please, no matter what the consequences. Consider that in the US it is *illegal* to state that your products do not contain GM products. The anti-GMers have some sway in Europe and elsewhere, but even there you will find that often they are not the mindless straw men you have drawn at all, but have very good reasons for criticism, such as those you yourself have enumerated. Anti-GM usually means anti-Monsanto, and frankly Monsanto can behave completely horribly. Their filing of hundreds of frivolous suits against farmers who refuse to use their products, their propaganda/disinfomation campaigns like the 'golde rice' BS, and many other abuses come to mind. If we ever reach the day where GM is not propagated by corporate predators with a big portfolio of patented life forms, and a bigger army of lawyers, I expect the tone from the anti-GM people might change, but we are not in that world now.