Japanese Creating "Super Tuna" 280
motherpusbucket writes "The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna' within the next decade or so. They have about 60% of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months. The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them."
Obligatory..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Heroes in my sandwich
Tuna Power!
Re: (Score:2)
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna
Heroes in my sandwich
Tuna Power!
So sorry I used my mod points already.
Even more sorry that I sang your post.
Re: (Score:2)
and I, for one, welcome our ichthyous overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
Heroes in a half can! Tuna Power!
Sashimi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.
Exactly. If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators. And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna? will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan? Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is th
Re:Sashimi (Score:5, Funny)
maybe, but what happens if the super tuna out competes and eats all non-super tuna?
Darwin wins. See, tuna made themselves to tasty that:
1) They'd be overfished.
2) We'd see that, and then make them EVEN BETTER and plentiful.
Well done tuna. You've won the genetic lottery.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. One of the best possible traits to develop is being tasty to humans — if all you care about is population anyway.
I don't think cows, corn, or soy will be going extinct any time soon.
Re:Sashimi (Score:5, Funny)
Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.
Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
"Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.
Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!
Re: (Score:2)
Tuna comes pre-breaded now? Talk about a time saver!
I was reading a story in the paper about battered women, and I thought "damn, all this time I've been eating them plain!"
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Breading alters genes :)
I know it was a typo. But it was a funny one.
Re: (Score:2)
I dropped a loaf in my jeans laughing at that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-SB
Tuna less scary than Corn? (Score:2)
I'm drawing a blank, does anyone else have an idea why that would be?
Re: (Score:2)
Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..
If they made a terminator gene for Super Tuna preventing them from breeding, similar to the one in corn, HELL YES I'd argue against it.
I'm not against gene manipulation in theory, it's just the practice that worries me. I know you were making a joke by calling it DRM, but that's exactly what it could be; living beings with DRM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue that eco-maniacs (Score:4, Informative)
Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes. This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.
see:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&h=p0i5C&u=Xnrbb [facebook.com]
It would be nice if they could add (Score:3, Funny)
A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.
Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.
Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.
TUNAZILLA! (Score:4, Funny)
'nuf said...
Tuna Porn? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig SouthPark gay fish reference (Score:2)
Do you like fishsticks [wikipedia.org]?
Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto of the Sea? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how do you aquaculture tuna and keep the meat tasty? The reason tuna is so tasty is because of migrations thousands of miles long- which any aquaculture operation isn't going to have.
Re: (Score:2)
Tuna still travel a long distance, they just do it in circles inside the nets. These fish have that high speed swimming need in their very genes a little location issue is not going to stop them.
Re:Monsanto of the Sea? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?
Unpossible.
Farmers only get sued because they own & 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.
There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
wouldn't it be a rural legend?
*SUPER* tuna? (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, and I thought husbands were already whipped.
Sorry Charlie... (Score:4, Funny)
It's a tunami!
very dangerous practice (Score:2, Insightful)
People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks
we face from environmental damage. There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existing
creatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible. Most all of the changes we've made
have been exceedingly helpful.
But there are a few unavoidable truths:
1- Humans cannot contain na
Re: (Score:2)
Food availability is the single most important factor that keeps people from starving to death.
FTFY.
If that's how you want to control the population, at least be honest about it.
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you get too self-righteous, it's not necessarily quite that simple. First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
Second, it doesn't mean fewer people starving to death so much as it means more people (perhaps temporarily) not-starving to death-- and there's a difference. The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again. If population growth is otherwise unchecked (e.g. by predators), then a population's numbers will grow until the available resources are not sufficient to support further growth. The two possibilities once that happens is (a) there will be some kind of equilibrium reached; or (b) the population will overuse the existing resources to the point where they basically exterminate themselves.
Which path do we want to take?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, scarcity of food may possibly cause people (consciously or unconsciously) to have fewer children. I don't know the science on that one, but it's possible.
It doesn't. Look at the fertility rates in countries where starvation and famine aren't a problem (Western Europe, US, Japan). Then, compare that with the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa.
The whole point of an argument like the one the GP is making is, if you increase the food supply, the population increases to the point where people start starving to death again.
So, you're saying that no matter how much (or little) food we produce, we'll always have people starving to death?
If you want mandatory population control, implement a one child policy like China, forced sterilization, or simply shoot the excess people in the head. But seriously, almost anything would be less cruel an
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds good to me. Believe me, I'm not in favor of people starving to brutal population-control. I think education is generally a terrific force for positive change.
Really, I'm just saying that the best solutions to poverty and hunger will probably not as simple as increased production. Having more food available won't keep people from going hungry-- at least not all by itself. Continual and poorly considered increases in production will probably lead to increased overall consumption of natural re
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with applying Malthusian population arguments to human beings is that humans have always distinguished themselves from most other animals by having fewer children than their environment could support at a subsistence level. The resources thus saved are invested in other areas: preparation for the future, peace/civilization, comfort, convenience, etc. Malthusian population dynamics conclude that any population will increase to the maximum possible given the available resources, but that manifestl
Re: (Score:2)
humans have always distinguished themselves from most other animals by having fewer children than their environment could support at a subsistence level
Then why are there such food shortages that we have to genetically engineer food to make it more plentiful? If we haven't already surpassed our environment's ability to sustain our current population, then why aren't we already good?
I know, there's some whacky conspiracy where rich people are all trying to starve everyone. Ok, that's at least plausible. But how is genetically engineered tuna going to fix that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, it might be dangerous!
We better not do it then!
Moan panic aaaah fear shock trauma noooo!
Re: (Score:2)
Longwinded philosophical post. You've been warned.
One simple question. Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process? And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?
In other words: if we are simply using the
Re: (Score:2)
...why should we...
We shouldn't. People just do, because their sense of purpose is driven by that goal.
Saving the environment is just the same as praying to a god, only different.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth's environment, over and over again. Recurring ice ages, tropical rain forests, migrating continents, reversing magnetic fields, myriad species evolu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down. This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:4, Informative)
I completely agree.
Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.
I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.
It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present. Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.
It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present. Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.
The problem is, this is NOT what is being done. Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes. And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.
They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.
Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on? Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments? It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.
Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes. If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?
Re: (Score:2)
We call that evolution.
Now, that's a glib answer, and it's true that we can't simply excuse away any kind of meddling that way. But you seem to be under the impression that, outside of man's interference, nature is out there standing still. It's not. The world around is is constantly evolving, and genetic patterns are being introduced, flourishing, and failing all the
You disgust me (Score:2)
In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources. This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term. Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
Seriously, you do. I'm all in favor of trying to limit population growth, as the earth does have limited resources. Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there. But you do realize how lack of food limits population growth right? It's not lower birth rates because people in some of the most food insecure nations of the world have the highest birthrates.
Starvation. Primarily of those too weak to defend themselves. That means small children, and
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there.
Still, it's not quite so simple. I remember hearing about a study recently that, all around the world, connected lower birthrates strongly with increased consumption of resources. What they found was basically that, if the amount of resources used per-person was figured to be roughly equivalent to what a 1000-pound animal would consume, than they had roughly the same birthrate as a 1000-pound animal. If they consumed resources at the rate of a 2000-pound animal, then they had the birthrate of a 2000-poun
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, we're caught between a fixed expenditure situation (increasing the standard of living around the world to the point where population size is static or decreasing), and an ever increasing cost situation where the population continues to increase and resource use also increases regardless of how low the cost per person is.
I'm n
Re: (Score:2)
Re:very dangerous practice (Score:5, Interesting)
I see potential danger. Tuna are already a highly refined predator. What if the cages break and a group escape? Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas. What could this mean for other species? Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?
I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable. Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions. Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast. Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.
Re: (Score:2)
2.) Factual, but human-modified genes are no more inherently risky then natural mutations - just we do it faster.
3.) Ah ha! I've got you here - we'll just overfish this particular kind. No limits, nothing. Just give them some obvious mark for ease of sorting, and we'll have no problem hunting them to extinction if we must.
Your closing paragraph is the worst. It's wrong to improve our food per acre and food per hour of wo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's all hide under rocks and hope we don't change the world into the bringer of our doom in the process.
People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.
Genetic research doesn't seem so radically new in that cont
Re: (Score:2)
"Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.
Yes monocultures are a risk, when you're entire food supply depends on them. I have a feeling that you read the Omnivore's Dilemma and took from it what you wanted to hear rather than reading what Michael Pollan actually said. It wouldn't be the first time someone did that. I've run in to it quite a bit actually. The biggest danger that monoculture presents is when you apply it to the particular link that corn plays in the industrial food chain. If a new disease came around that affected corn, it woul
polarized opinion across Alantic Ocean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3- "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.
Excellent point. The obvious solution is to create several different species of Super Tuna!
Re: (Score:2)
Greedy politicians and corporate bigwigs are the ones screwing everyone else over.
super yeast (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What do you want in a beer that you aren't getting? If you bump up the alcohol percentage, it isn't legally a beer anymore, and it seems like you should be able to find something you like given the variety available.
As far as productivity, hops are a bigger problem than yeast.
Re: (Score:2)
The closest to "super-yeast" I know of are wine yeasts which go up to somewhere in the 21-24% region. If you use an ale yeast first, to get the right waste products, errr flavour, then restart with something like this to ramp up the neurotoxins, you should be fine.
However, if you just want regular ale, I would recommend SkullSplitter [wikipedia.org].
Tuna Schmoona (Score:2, Informative)
Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it? You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along. Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.
This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater am
All about the food chain (Score:2)
Of course I have no idea if Tuna raise of soybeans and rice would
Sounds great... (Score:2)
Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?
AM/FM Tuna? (Score:2)
Which bands does it receive? Is it a superheterodyne tuna?
Cross them?! (Score:2)
Cross them?! Cross them with what? Other tuna species? Piranhas? Cmdr Taco?
Or, make them angry? Why would they be, err... angry, at anything?
oblig. (Score:3, Funny)
Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life.
-- Vince 'Slap Chop' Offer
Godzilluna (Score:2)
I thought (Score:3, Funny)
Nope - (Score:2)
That was StarKist.
buh-dum-pum
Do *what* if you cross them? (Score:2)
The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.
Uh, does jabbing them in the mouth with a barbed hook not count as "crossing them?" I don't think that's what the tuna fishermen would want.
In Japan... (Score:2, Funny)
Singing fish (Score:2)
What happens when they finish? (Score:2, Insightful)
Environmentalists: No.
Scientists: Please?
Environmentalists: Will it take over existing species?
Scientists: Yes but it will also make it easier/cheaper to feed the world population.
Environmentalists: No.
Conservation sounds like a good idea and all but how sweet would it be if the ocean was full of super salmon and super tuna that had the qualities mentioned here? If we created a super
Re: (Score:2)
you can tune a file system (Score:2)
but you can't tuna fish.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, what they mean is: Current tuna tastes excellent. Power tuna will merely taste good.
Re: (Score:2)
Max Power tuna will merely taste good.
Yes, only faster!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That last bit is likely not far from the truth. Tuna is already a kind of superfish- they're a red meat fish with fast-twitch muscles that allow them to swim at up to 60 MPH for some breeds.
If the Japanese try to improve on them, we're going to need steel nets to catch them as they end up with southern migration patterns around both S. America and Africa......
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fish Overlords (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the Japanese are exceedingly worried about a surge in the numbers of jellyfish. Super-colonies of ants on land. Genetically modified tuna and thousands of jellyfish by sea. I fear the human race is soon to be overwhelmed.
Our only hope is to pit ant against jellyfish and hope to convince the tuna that they should be on our side.
No you may not Re:Tuna Overlords (Score:2, Funny)
May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...
No you may not [slashdot.org].
May I be the first to say you can tune a filesystem but you can't tuna fish. Oh wait, someone beat [livejournal.com] me to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that anything like We 3 Kings?
(Hint: < yields <)
(Super Hint: &lt; yields <)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Not me. Corporate food either tastes like shit, or has no taste at all. Compare a grocery store tomato (ripened with phosgene gas) to a home grown one. The one from the store tastes like cardboard, the one from the garden is delicious.
Re:We 3 Tuna (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck kind of cardboard do they have where you live?
Or alternatively, what the fuck kind of store-bought tomatoes do they have where you live?
Re:We 3 Tuna (Score:5, Funny)
Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be:
ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US.
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. The concept of a 'frankenfish' which deliberately accelerates evolution for shortsighted purposes is a baaaad idea with a bad end for all of us.