Genetically altered fish, good or bad your opinion

atmmachine816
  • #1
So I recently bought the genetically altered zebra danios so they are different colors. They were made this way to detect pollution originally and now are being sold. I'm curious to see what your thoughts are. Is it ok to buy and support this or is it wrong and we shouldn't buy them.

Here's some info if you don't know what they are

Mods if you think this belongs in the hot topics move it there please, I thought since it's fish it might belong here, not sure. thanks
 
0morrokh
  • #2
Well, it sounds like these fish simply inherit the gene that makes them glow, with no inhumane processes like in fish dyeing. So...I guess there's nothing really wrong with them, although I personally am not sure if I like how they look. What I'm interested to know is whether or not there are any negative side affects associated with the gene.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #3
I don't have a problem with it, but wouldn't buy any myself. I really wonder what would happen if they made it out into the wild and somehow were able to breed. The glofish are likely to be eaten with their coloring, but other genetic tampering could be different.
 
fishgirl
  • #4
I think they look cool, as the fish are Just like the regular zebrafish and the altered zebrafish have been around for so long I think as long as people don't let them in to the lakes or rivers it ok to have and keep them.
 
0morrokh
  • #5
I don't have a problem with it, but wouldn't buy any myself. I really wonder what would happen if they made it out into the wild and somehow were able to breed. The glofish are likely to be eaten with their coloring, but other genetic tampering could be different.

That's a good point but it's pretty much true of any fish we keep...we've bred and altered them so much they're very different from the fish in the wild.
 
Butterfly
  • #6
..we've bred and altered them so much they're very different from the fish in the wild.
Too true but this is the only one I can think of that has had it's DNA altered. Jellyfish DNA is what's used to alter their colors. I believe the red ones were the ones that were developed to detect pollution, they were the original Glo-fish.
There are certain states (and I think california is one of them) that don't allow them to be sold in their state for the very reason Dave stated.
The DNA is injected into the fish eggs so no pain is involved but it just doesn't feel right.
carol
 
COBettaCouple
  • #7
we like to think we're smarter than we are since we can play with DNA, but there's still so much to understand about DNA and the layers of matter & energy that are below it. who knows what long-term effects DNA tampering can have. Like I said, I think it's ok to buy & own them, but I hope that more DNA tampering doesn't lead to some crazy ecological disaster.
 
Gozer_1
  • #8
I have to say I'm mostly against genetic tampering. Gene pollution is a problem we'll be dealing with eventually. Crossing a fish with a fish by means of breeding is one thing but to take genes from one animal and sticking them in others just isn't right to me. Not that I have anything against someone buying them lol. Just not for me. They've made human pigs, spider goats and firefly plants. Just seems like a bad idea. Sure we can reap benefits but why? The pigs are used for transplant organs. The goats produce spider silk proteins in their milk. They are doing Bio Pharming now where Corn produces medicines. They have to be careful to remove all the pollen tassels so the corn doesn't cross with food crops and make people sick. Contamination of wild waters happens often. The caulerpa problem in the Mediterranean stems from a strain created by human tampering. They've actually learned to build things with DNA. In a very near future we will likely be creating our own "specialized" life forms. I just don't know that we should. Seems like a god complex to me. If we quit polluting we won't need pollution detecter fish, right.
 
0morrokh
  • #9
I'm not sure how I feel about genetically altering plants and animals. However, I do think in the case of Glofish there isn't much change of affecting wild populations...the only fish that generally get released in the wild are the ones that get too big, and in any case a glowing red danio isn't gonna last any length of time in the wild.
 
Allie
  • #10
I wouldn't keep them myself or any hybrids.
 
Chief_waterchanger
  • #11
I think altering things is neither right nor wrong, it just is what it is. However, I believe there are unforeseen consequences for fiddling with genetics, and I hope it turns out to be something minor, since most "fishkeepers" buy for coloration the market will be there for a while.
 
Gozer_1
  • #12
I would vote for genetic alterations much more over dyeing. Atleast the fish is that color on its own. Really the fish isn't a problem but it is a stepping stone to other alterations that, somewhere along the line, could cause very bad problems. I believe that if people would follow the laws of nature instead of challenging them at every turn, we would find a lot of our problems are the result of poor actions of our own. Like I said we wouldn't need pollution detecting fish if we hadn't polluted to begin with. Obviously we did and must now try to fix it. It's too bad it takes "freaks" of "un"nature to do it. I use the term freaks lightly.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #13
The thing about DNA-manipulation is this -- when has mankind made some great advance without using it for war and killing? when has mankind made some great advance without some unforeseen big problem coming from it? Splitting the atom was a great leap in science with the potential for energy, but it was turned into a weapon and we now live on a planet polluted with nuclear waste. Just think what we could do with the power of DNA.
 
Gozer_1
  • #14
The thing about DNA-manipulation is this -- when has mankind made some great advance without using it for war and killing? when has mankind made some great advance without some unforeseen big problem coming from it? Splitting the atom was a great leap in science with the potential for energy, but it was turned into a weapon and we now live on a planet polluted with nuclear waste. Just think what we could do with the power of DNA.

Yup that's it exactly. Alfred Nobel invented Dynamite for earth moving. Shortly before his death a French newspaper ran an early Obituary saying he had dedicated his life to killing people, calling him "The Merchant of death" With this he realized that he'd be remembered not for his accomplishments but rather for what others did with his accopmplishments. He instituted the Nobel Prizes in his Will to try to show he was not the merchant of death he had been accused of.

So, it goes to show that the best intentions can go very bad in the hands of the bad. I realize of course that dynamite is hugely different from little pink fish, but it makes reference to how we lose control of our creations once they get out to other people.
 
0morrokh
  • #15
Yup I totally agree. Seems if there's anything humans can exploit for their own good, they'll do it, and it'll always end up backfiring in the long run.
 
armadillo
  • #16
I think it's bad. We're messing with things without imaging all possible consequences. Am against it.
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #17
thanks for the replies guys. I have to agree with you. It's not a good idea for humans to start messing around with stuff they don't know completely, especially life and all. I personally wouldn't buy them, but my mom thought they were really colorful (exactlly what she's supposed to think) so I let her buy some for my tank and also got myself some normal zebra danios, though she drives me all the way out to the stores so I gave into letting her get some. I shall inform everybody if I notice anything different, lifespan etc. if anybody is interested. So far they have the exact same behavior as the zebra danios and interact with them.
 
0morrokh
  • #18
Yeah, I'd be interested to know if there seem to be any side affects of the color alteration.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #19
As far as I know, they are identical to regular zebra danios in an aquarium setting with all the needs, life expectancy, etc the same.
 
jsalemi
  • #20
One LFS around here is now carrying "purple passion danios". They look to be a bit bigger than zebras, and are a pale purple/lavender color. I suspect they're another genetic alteration, maybe to giant danios.
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #21
I will report of any abnormailities of them, though like cobc said there aren't supposed to be any.

Could be that jsalemi, though I wouldn't want purple zebra danios, yellow and red are strange enough to get used to looking at.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #22
As far as I know, the Purple Passion Danios are natural.
 
jsalemi
  • #23
As far as I know, the Purple Passion Danios are natural.

Really? I can't find a reference to them in any of the books I've looked in, including Axelrod's mini-encyclopedia.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #24
Looking at the picture, I think what they're selling as "purple passion danios" are a hybrid of "blue danios".
 
darkwolf29a
  • #25
I'm not a fan of hybrid fish or genetically modified fish. I equate this to Jurassic Park, only in real life. I mean....we do this to fish now, what's to stop us from doing it with other animals later? Nothing at all, because we've already broken through the moral implications. Fish are no different from dogs, cats, or people...The future is a very scary place, without adding scientists to the list of potential threats to our existence.
 
jsalemi
  • #26
Science has always been both the boon and bane of mankind. Science and scientists are not in themselves evil -- it's what some people do with what science and scientists discover that becomes evil.
 
andy65
  • #27
I was reading somewhere that thous fish are sterilized so they can not breed before they are put up for sale.
I am not sure how they would go about sterilizing them but my best guess and the way that would be the cheapest for the maker would have to be some kind of radiation.

DNA has LOTS of potential to do good ,but you can also say that the way things are ARE the way thing for a reason. The saying goes "If its not broke, don't fix it."
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #28
Well the fish do what they are supposed to do. I recently transfered my blue l.e.d. light and bought another one and put them in my 29 gallon and under them the genetically altered fish DO glow quite well.
 
Gozer_1
  • #29
the genetically altered fish DO glow quite well.


That's just funny.
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #30
Yes it's almost disturbing. I tried to get a picture but so far you can hardly tell they are glowing.
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #31
you can kind of seeing the yellow fish glowing here, it's hard to get my camera to pick it up so far.
 
Angel man
  • #32
I personly think that why change something that isn't broken. For example, what if we couldn't change the dna we would be happy with a regular zebra danio but since we know can change the dna us as humans with always want something new and eventually lead to a world full of cotaminated genes and problems because we as humans want somethings "new and unnatural!"
 
0morrokh
  • #33
I personly think that why change something that isn't broken. For example, what if we couldn't change the dna we would be happy with a regular zebra danio but since we know can change the dna us as humans with always want something new and eventually lead to a world full of cotaminated genes and problems because we as humans want somethings "new and unnatural!"

Well keep in mind that glofish were originally created to detect pollutants, not for marketing as aquarium fish. But I think you're absolutely right. It's a slippery slope for sure...first we create glofish for what seems to be a worthy purpose, but who knows what we'll be doing next.... Though that said, I still can't see anything inherently wrong with glofish specifically, although I wouldn't buy them myself.
 
neverendingninja
  • #34
I have to agree with 0morrokh. I've seen them in several different LFS, and they always seem just the same as any other danios. I agree that messing with DNA is a scary thing, but you know...so was going to the moon. And, for that matter, so was crossing the oceans for the first time. People are always going to push the envelope, no matter the inherent risks. And it doesn't matter if us consumers buy into it, there will always be someone with a wallet that's a bit too heavy, and a mind that is a bit too curious.

You know, Columbus was bound to sail off the edge of the world...(I know, I know...he wasn't the first to cross the Atlantic...but I bet whoever did indeed do it first, probably peed their pants more than once on that trek)

With that said, I wouldn't buy GloFish, simply because they're not my style.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #35
Look at human history and it's not hard to guess where playing with DNA will take us.
 
0morrokh
  • #36
Look at human history and it's not hard to guess where playing with DNA will take us.

You can say that again.....
 
atmmachine816
  • Thread Starter
  • #37
Look at human history and it's not hard to guess where playing with DNA will take us.

You could say that about many things....though we don't ever seem to learn do we.
 
COBettaCouple
  • #38
No, unfortunately we get more knowledge, but we don't get any wiser and always seem to use new knowledge to increase the problems in our world.
You could say that about many things....though we don't ever seem to learn do we.
 
Blub
  • #39
Hi!

This dosn't seem too bad... It's only genetics - the fish arn't harmed.;D



 

Similar Aquarium Threads

Replies
48
Views
3K
Debbie1986
Replies
8
Views
512
Bizarro252
  • Locked
Replies
25
Views
2K
MommaWilde
  • Locked
Replies
14
Views
1K
April R
Top Bottom