Glo Fish

ScottT1980

ScottT1980

Well-Known Member
As long as these fish do not get into the natural population, then I have no problem...

Just my opinion

Take er easy
Scott T.
 
SaltyQueen

SaltyQueen

Member
I have posted this before, & my opinion on this still stands- this is just wrong. Imagine how many fish were killed or tortured during the development of this new "glo fish", all so people can have pretty glowing fish! Horrible! :mad:
 
Flipper

Flipper

Sturgeon General
Originally posted by ScottT1980
As long as these fish do not get into the natural population, then I have no problem...
Click to expand...

I read about them in Time magazine. Apparently, the fish are sterilized so they cannot breed.
 
EdgeKrusher

EdgeKrusher

Member
Actually they were developed to help scientists determine pollution levels or something like that. It wasn't made for the public, but they did see that they could market them to us.

Glofish.com

HTH

EK
 
ScottT1980

ScottT1980

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by SaltyQueen
I have posted this before, & my opinion on this still stands- this is just wrong. Imagine how many fish were killed or tortured during the development of this new "glo fish", all so people can have pretty glowing fish! Horrible! :mad:
Click to expand...

Just to make a few comments (not to change your mind, I can certainly see both sides of this issue)...

All of this is done in vitro and can be done without unnecessarily hurting any fish. Again, transgenics is done almost immediatly after fusion of sperm and egg, in the 1 to 8 cell stage. The fusion of sperm and egg can also be done in vitro and therefore, al that is needed is the sperm and eggs of a fish. Transgenics is only done (because it has only been effectivly done) up to the 8 cell stage which would probably be day two of development (I don't know the time table for fish, only mammals).

Therefore, I can assure you no fish was tortured, at least no more than we do ourselves in tanks. From what I know, sperm and eggs are isolated relativlely easily from these fish. As for fish being killed, well, there are many eggs that will not survive but I doubt many (if any) fish that were already living, were killed.

I will try to find the scientific paper regarding this study and see if I can present more accurate points.

The issue I see is that it is just another example of humans trying to play God just for the sake of playing God.

Ah well...

Take er easy
Scott T.
 
SaltyQueen

SaltyQueen

Member
Flipper, the site EdgeKrusher linked to in the above post says that they're not sterilized, so they are capable of breeding. This reminds me of the "stained glass fish" that are sometimes found in pet stores. Once the new glo-fish become popular, I'd be willing to bet you'll start to see other species of fish being genetically altered to be more appealing to consumers. While the original intent of the glo-fish was for scientists to detect pollution, now that it's been commercialized, more people are going to want to cash in on this.
 
Witfull

Witfull

Well-Known Member
my thoughts on this-
scientist do some strange things for research. many of the results come into the mainstream of our lives. if it wasnt for these experiments where would we be now? i dont want this to become a debate on ethics of experimentation.
as for the painted and dyed fish we all have seen, id rather see a transgenetic fish for sale than these poor fish. ever notice the death rate of dyed skirt tetras. or a tank full of painted glass wrought with lymphcoma? now there are thousands of these fish being killed every day long before they make it to the LFS. the lucky few live and rid themselves of the dye/paint.
as for them makimg it into the local population. i would think that the "glo" would make them an easy mark for predators. or being that the are a tropical fish they will suscumb to the elements as the seasons turn.
i am not an expert by any means on this just my thoughts. feel free to disagree, thats what this is all about. healthy exchange of thoughts.
 
Flipper

Flipper

Sturgeon General
Actually, it seems what I read about was a different project. Here is the clip from November 17, 2003 TIME:

RED FISH, BLUE FISH, GLOW-IN-THE-DARK FISH

Want to add some pizazz to your aquarium? A Taiwanese scientist has devised a way to make otherwise colorless fish glow neon green in the dark. Professor H.J. Tsai at National Taiwan University works this biological magic by injecting a protein extracted from jellyfish into the fertilized eggs of rice fish. He also uses a protein from coral to make the fish glow a vibrant reddish pink. Opponents of genetic engineering fear that these creatures could be crossbred with wild species, creating a glowing school of Frankenfish. To keep them from spreading their glowing DNA,the distributor, Taikong International, sterilizes them all.
INVENTOR: H.J. Tsai
AVAILABILITY: Now, $7.50 each (in parts of Europe and Asia but not in the U.S.)
TO LEARN MORE: www.azoo.com.tw
Click to expand...

(I was not able to access the Azoo link that TIME provided.)
 
jks1

jks1

Member
I understand the need for scientific experementation. However, i think it is wrong to alter a species for the sake of profit. I know cows are altered to produce more milk etc, but it seems as technology grows scientists are breeching areas where perhaps we need not go. I think it is a shame.
 
Flipper

Flipper

Sturgeon General
You must remember that while some scientists do things for betterment of society, some need to try to do something 'because it's there.' I can't really blame them. That is, after all, what an experiment is. But projects also need funding, and thus the seemingly harmless (at least to some) biproduct of an experiment goes on the market. (I also can't blame scientists for being in their job to make money.)

As far as genetic engineering, that always concerns me a bit more. I'm not necessarily against it, but it can certainly be a dangerous thing.

I'm not sure if this "playing God" aspect bothers me too much. I believe in God very much, but I really don't have any idea what he likes and doesn't like coming from the human race. As far as I know, God may have given us the ability to do these things because he doesn't mind. Or maybe He's content with us making our own bed to sleep in. Either way, it seems to me that anything God wanted to keep exclusive to his own doings, he could easily keep out of our reach. JMO
 
Woodstock

Woodstock

The Wand Geek was here. ;)
RS STAFF
We've been genetically messing with animals for a long time. Maybe not at the fetus level, but certainly selectively breeding them for our own needs. Look at the dog breeds, cat breeds, horses, cows (both meat or dairy), chickens.... and the list goes on and on. Genetically altering or selectively breeding are close cousins. Think about it. :smirk:
 
ScottT1980

ScottT1980

Well-Known Member
I think what I took issue with was the "cruelty" perception of transgenics. The only reason I take issue with this idea is that unless we all have captive breed species in our systems, the we are all responsible for some sort of "cruelty" and death in aquatic species. Of course, the idea of what is cruel in animals is very subjective and until we can read minds, it will be. Nevertheless, I would say that the number of fish that are injured or die for our own desires to play God (i.e. have aquariums in our homes) through the aquaria trade is more than those that were hurt or died in this experiment. Again, since I haven't found the paper yet, I can only speculate.

As for genetic alteration in and of itself, man, so much good can be done with it and yet, so much bad can arise. It tough to tell if it will be a slippery slope although studies in China are proving it to be the case (transgenic, human embryo studies).

I find it fascinating and horrifying...

Take er easy
Scott T.
 
ScottT1980

ScottT1980

Well-Known Member
Well, if they are egg layers, then the process is sooooooo much easier and the fish were probably not hurt...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top