GloFish...The Truth

I was recently scolded on a post for posting information that GloFish are painted fish, similar to the glass fish. Apparently I was wrong, and the "Glo" is caused by something more natural and less harmful?

What's the truth? Should I try my hand at them? Would it be considered "abuse" when it comes to painting and stuff like that?

 

Hi!

Their eggs are injected with Jellyfish DNA. I think they can get them to breed true... But - don't breed them. The company who 'invented' them has a copyright over them or something so only they are allowed to sell them to the LFS I think. It's not cruel - perfectly OK.

 

I was recently scolded on a post for posting information that GloFish are painted fish, similar to the glass fish. Apparently I was wrong, and the "Glo" is caused by something more natural and less harmful?

What's the truth? Should I try my hand at them? Would it be considered "abuse" when it comes to painting and stuff like that?

Sorry for scolding you last night. I just did not want the person posting the original message to feel bad about her purchase. GloFish aren't really natural (genetic engineering), but the process isn't harmful to the fish in any way. Some of the food we now eat is actually a result of genetic engineering. Painting, tattooing, acid bathing, etc on the other hand are all abuse.

If you like Zebra Danios and can aford the cost, $6.99 by me, go for it. I love my Danios! I have 2 Zebra, 3 Long Finned Zebra, and 3 Long Finned Turquoise (Blue) Danios. I would like to get a few GloFish eventually. They are just as hardy and just as fun to watch as Zebra Danios, because they are Zebra Danios.

Again, sorry about the "scolding"

Hi!

Their eggs are injected with Jellyfish DNA. I think they can get them to breed true... But - don't breed them. The company who 'invented' them has a copyright over them or something so only they are allowed to sell them to the LFS I think. It's not cruel - perfectly OK.

You are correct. Although some have sea coral DNA too, the red (pink) ones I believe. Yorktown Technologies has them copyrighted in the USA. You can breed them, but are not allowed to sell them. They can reproduce, and actually transfer their DNA to their offspring. So if you want a bunch of them, and can wait awhile,you could buy a few and try to breed them for yourself.

 

So you're saying that if I bred yellow glowers, they'd have yellow fry?

will it work when you mix? (Yellow + Blue = green?)

 

Whether or not it's cruel depends on your definition of cruelty. I am bothered by the pain of the "failures" prior to the successful attempts.
Hatchet makes an excellent point in breeding. There should be nothing wrong with allowing them to breed in your own tank (though who knows if they're going to build a suicide gene into these fish at any point), but selling them could get you in a world of financial trouble.
Thus is the real problem (that nobody even really contemplated before we started manipulating genetics) of this area of scientific technology. Particularly in plants, these trademarked genes can spread, and courts have ruled that, though the genes spread unintentionally, they are still owned by the producing company, meaning that a corn crop cross-pollinated with a trademarked corn crop costs its owner a lot of money in law suits, for selling a trademarked product.
These cross-breedings, if the trademarked being (plant or animal) can also be devastating to an ecosystem if they are made particularly hardy or, conversely, if they've been built with a suicide gene.

 

just a question I thought I would post, to see how these are colored. I have been told that the colored skirt tetra are dye injected. Is this true? I have four in my tank, and I purchased them five years ago before I knew about the cruel process. They have never faded in color, which makes me wonder if these are genetically altered, or injected?

 

the albino black tetras I know for a fact are painted by injection.

 

So you're saying that if I bred yellow glowers, they'd have yellow fry?

will it work when you mix? (Yellow + Blue = green?)

Yes to the first question. I doubt it to the second. I am not an expert in genetics, but I would guess they would be either or. If that did work, I would expect there to be more colors of GloFish available.

 

just a question I thought I would post, to see how these are colored. I have been told that the colored skirt tetra are dye injected. Is this true? I have four in my tank, and I purchased them five years ago before I knew about the cruel process. They have never faded in color, which makes me wonder if these are genetically altered, or injected?

There are white and black skirt tetras. Any other colors, as far as I know, are dyed.

 

this must be the fish I had to correct someone on another forum, which had nothing to do with even being a fish forum btw about... They were telling people that all tropical fish neon tetras, cichlids, guppies were dyed in someway by fishstores.... I had to intervene! They said that the only fish w/ "color" was saltwater..
Obviously this lady did not know fish... I sent her a profile on the neons, which she listed as her "fav" fish that she even boycotted fishstores over??? I wonder who gave her that info? Obviously she was misinformed from someone... (once again, not on a fishforum)
I could see dyed, tatooed, etc...

I found this website on the glofish:
apparently they are using fighting pollution as one of the reasons for this fish? They are pretty... but I don't think I would want any for my tanks.. I don't like the "geneticly engeneering" ideas...

 

Neons and most other cichlids aren't dyed. The electric blue and blood red on the neon tetras are completely natural

 

Yes, steveangela. The original purpose was to use zebra danios (one of the hardiest fish out there) to indicate polluted waterways. They wanted the fish to fluoresce under stress. Stress would include pollution.
Like I said before, I'm not fully for or against genetic engineering, but as I'm thinking about it, I guess I can't get behind genetically engineered pets.

 

I found this website on the glofish:
apparently they are using fighting pollution as one of the reasons for this fish? They are pretty... but I don't think I would want any for my tanks.. I don't like the "geneticly engeneering" ideas...

If you eat any non-organic produce or especially meat, you are probably eating genetically engineered "pets". MMMMMMMM genome manipulation tastes so good.

 

If you eat any non-organic produce or especially meat, you are probably eating genetically engineered "pets". MMMMMMMM genome manipulation tastes so good.

See my above concerns regarding genetic engineering and food.

 

I own these fish, and personally have no problem owning them. They're good looking fish. Hybrids are genetically altered fish as well, may as well not buy those either. It's all a matter of personal opinion, but no one should get beat on the brow because they like them or not. If ya like em, awesome; if ya don't, you obviously prefer other fish!

 

For fish lovers who think GloFish is messing with God's creations:

You should also never buy any fish that has been cross, or selective, bred by humans to obtain pretty colors and/or fins i.e. guppies, swordtails, mollies, platies, danios, cichlids, bettas, goldfish, koi etc.

If God was against it he or she would have locked the genomes of all things, kind of like a copyrighted material lock on DVD's . Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in God. I just don't believe he or she is against science including genome manipulation. It's more about how they do it. Case in point...GloFish. They were originaly trying to get them to only glow when toxins are present in water, but that didn't work. They didn't kill all the fish because they didn't get the result they wanted. They sell them to fishkeepers, like us, instead. To be aqainst it because of some people not doing it humanely, is like being against questioning your government because some people do it the wrong way.:

 

For fish lovers who think GloFish is messing with God's creations:

You should also never buy any fish that has been cross, or selective, bred by humans to obtain pretty colors and/or fins i.e. guppies, swordtails, mollies, platies, danios, cichlids, bettas, goldfish, koi etc.

If God was against it he or she would have locked the genomes of all things, kind of like a copyrighted material lock on DVD's . Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in God. I just don't believe he or she is against science including genome manipulation. It's more about how they do it. Case in point...GloFish. They were originaly trying to get them to only glow when toxins are present in water, but that didn't work. They didn't kill all the fish because they didn't get the result they wanted. They sell them to fishkeepers, like us, instead. To be aqainst it because of some people not doing it humanely, is like being against questioning your government because some people do it the wrong way.:

Cross-breeding (even hybridizing) and genetically engineering creatures are two entirely different things. The former utilizes the natural process (though sometimes helped along in a rather unnatural manner) of sperm fertilizing an egg, while the latter involves injecting extra genetic material into a fertilized egg, or using enzymes to cut and paste genetic material in said fertilized egg.

I cannot presume to know how God works, so I can't really respond to the beginning of your longer paragraph.

The middle of the paragraph, however, seems to be saying that the ends justify the means. Because they had good intentions, genetic manipulation is okay. The intention does not determine if the method is ethically sound. The nature of the method itself determines this.

I guarantee you that there were tens of thousands (and probably into the millions) of culled fish, not to mention the fish that lived horribly painful lives due to bad genetics, before they got things just right so that these fish bred true.

Lastly, it's not that some people are doing it inhumanely that creates the moral problem for some people. The moral problem comes from the belief that it is wrong to mess with God's creations in this way, or to cause the pain of all of the failed attempts before you end up with an "acceptable" product, or to risk the environmental damage that messing with genetics can cause.

 

Cross-breeding (even hybridizing) and genetically engineering creatures are two entirely different things. The former utilizes the natural process (though sometimes helped along in a rather unnatural manner) of sperm fertilizing an egg, while the latter involves injecting extra genetic material into a fertilized egg, or using enzymes to cut and paste genetic material in said fertilized egg.

I cannot presume to know how God works, so I can't really respond to the beginning of your longer paragraph.

The middle of the paragraph, however, seems to be saying that the ends justify the means. Because they had good intentions, genetic manipulation is okay. The intention does not determine if the method is ethically sound. The nature of the method itself determines this.

I guarantee you that there were tens of thousands (and probably into the millions) of culled fish, not to mention the fish that lived horribly painful lives due to bad genetics, before they got things just right so that these fish bred true.

Lastly, it's not that some people are doing it inhumanely that creates the moral problem for some people. The moral problem comes from the belief that it is wrong to mess with God's creations in this way, or to cause the pain of all of the failed attempts before you end up with an "acceptable" product, or to risk the environmental damage that messing with genetics can cause.

"Entirely different" I disagree. They are both manipulating nature...period. Also, how can you guarantee there were so many losses and defects? Where you there, have you done some genome engineering yourself? Fact is that they weren't completly changing the genome, just adding 1 trait. I highly doubt, with the genome technology we have today, that there were many "rejects". They weren't trying to add another fin or head. If they were doing a genome overhaul I would totally agree. Not the same thing. Don't forget GloFish are the rejects.

The only real difference between crossing, hybridizing, and some genetic engineering (GloFish) is the control and speed in which you can achieve a desired result.

Also, did God create plastic, steel, or computer chips? No. These were created by man by manipulating what God has already created.

 

"Entirely different" I disagree. They are both manipulating nature...period. Also, how can you guarantee there were so many losses and defects? Where you there, have you done some genome engineering yourself? Fact is that they weren't completly changing the genome, just adding 1 trait. I highly doubt, with the genome technology we have today, that there were many "rejects". They weren't trying to add another fin or head. If they were doing a genome overhaul I would totally agree. Not the same thing. Don't forget GloFish are the rejects.

The only real difference between crossing, hybridizing, and some genetic engineering (GloFish) is the control and speed in which you can achieve a desired result.
.

Planting a tree where the seed wouldn't normally fall is manipulating nature, as well. To say that doing so is just the same as cross-breeding or genetic manipulation is one of the worst kinds of false logic, forcing links between two things that aren't linked.
Cross-breeding can happen in nature. Cross breeding can only work between two species whose genetic makeups are relatively similar. The furthest known difference between parents of a hybrid is family-to-family.
On the other hand, genetic manipulation can be between kingdoms. There is corn out there that has fish genes to make it more cold resistant. As far as I know, there are no recorded instances of cod sperm being used to pollinate corn plants to produce corn/cod hybrid seeds.

As far as believing that they probably got the whole glofish thing right pretty quickly, I think you might be looking at this as "they're just trying to change the fish's color." That's the sci-fI way of looking at it. Fine for telling a story, but not the whole thing.
The truth is that they are taking what they believe to be the gene responsible for fluorescence in an intertebrate and injecting it into a fertilized zebra danio (a vertebrate, which is a significant difference, DNA-wise) in the hopes that it will end up in a place that will allow it to change the fish's color without cutting apart a piece of genetic material that is needed for life. Every step of this procedure (isolating what they think is the color gene, developing an enzyme to cut the host's DNA in a suitable place, the actual insertion of the DNA) has to be done with live animals. Even if they get the splice right, there's the possibility that something in the color gene will react badly with the rest of the danio's genetics, or even that the chemicals that allow the fluorescence will be detrimental to the danio's bodies.

Yes, we are capable of doing a lot of things with genetics, but the truth is, we still know very little about what we do. With most animals, we don't know what the majority of the sequences do, and we never know what will happen when we cut and insert DNA (one of the extra bits could subvert the gene that builds heart tissue, making it useless). What we do is mess with a gene and see what happens.

I am not necessarily against this process. For that matter, I'm not against the existence of glo danios (it was an excellent idea, even if I don't like the number of creatures that suffered for it, and even if it failed). What I am against is the growing complacency that people are having in their attitudes toward genetics.
It seems that everyone is all the way on one side of the field or the other. In the beginning, this was fine. People either believed that it was an affront to God (you can argue that one all you want, but people are free to believe what they want, and no amount of comparing apples to golden tamarinds will present a logical argument for them to change their belief), or they looked at genetic manipulation as the laser of the 21st century.

Things have changed in the past decade or two. As I said in an earlier post, small farmers are being negatively affected by trademarked genes being spread to their crops from industrial crops miles and miles away. These farmers either can't sell their corn or end up with ridiculous lawsuits.
The cure for AIDS exists in genetics. It seems like nothing can be done to target the virus itself (at least nothing that is completely effective), but researchers in India have found a way to cut out the space in the DNA where the virus has planted its own code.
Crops are failing to produce viable seeds when they are pollinated with crops that have had a suicide gene built in.
The cure for cancer, it seems, may lie in genetics as well. There's Alzheimer's (although that particular cure may end up being found in the tea plant), diabetes, and numerous other genetically-carried illnesses.
Animals have been made that are capable of surviving in places that they shouldn't be able to survive in. So far, these haven't been introduced anyplace where they would be considered invasive, but it might happen.

What I'm getting at is that being at either extreme of the discussion isn't likely to be correct. This is not an area of science that we can let fall by the wayside, but to ignore the cost (not the financial cost, but the moral and ethical cost) and plunge ahead no matter what would be just as horrible.

 

The idea that nature is something that should not be manipulated is a ridiculous idea. Sirdarksol, you mentioned that you can't support genetically modified fish because of all the animals that were harmed in the process of the research. However, that is hypocritical because you are in the aquarium hobby. I would generalize that most of the market for aquarium fish is held by people who know little to nothing about keeping fish, and those fish live terrible, short, and sickly lives. Even though you properly keep your fish with all the hard work, your purchases of fish, filters, aquariums, lighting, etc. supports a market that is targeted towards people who probably don't even know that the nitrogen cycle is. There is little difference between the researchers and well-informed aquarists.

It also seems that your desire to raise money for breast cancer research is also in support of "the ends justify the means." What do you think the money for research is going towards. There is obviously testing on animals in this research to find better treatments for cancer. My point is that it's not a bad thing. Philosophically, there is little difference between this type of behavior and the damming that beavers do in rivers and streams. The attitude that it is different is a snobbish position that denies that fact that humans are animals, and--like all animals--the furthering of the species is the primary concern of that group.

Buying glofish supports a type of science that can have the potential to cure diseases, address starvation and malnutrition, and other problems that we as humans are facing. The modern environmentalist movement has become too afraid of science that does not hold the same values or ideas that it did back in the 70s. Unfortunately, I live in California and can't buy the glofish here. The fact that it is illegal is yet another example of too much government, but I won't dive into that aside......

 

Wow, Kyle.
Your arguments are so all over the board and entirely off base. Nowhere do I support an ends justifying the means.
Yes, I support breast cancer research (and your attempt at a low blow like this is another great example of horrible tactics in logical argument), but I also support research with minimal harm to animals. I would much prefer that these tests be done on willing human subjects, but, as of yet, the American government won't allow that, so there's little that can be done. I'm not going to say "stop trying to find a cure for cancer/AIDS/etc... while we figure out how to do this."

Further, likening buying GloFish to directly supporting disease research is ridiculous, but I'll try it:
Due to court orders, Big Tobacco is required to help fund anti-smoking and anti-drug programs, so purchasing a Big Tobacco product fights drug use.
Did that make sense?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I've never said that manipulating nature is bad. Despite the fact that I have stated the opposite, you seem to be looking at my statements as black and white. They most definitely are not. GloFish were created to find polluted waters: a noble task. However, its a task that, with a little bit of manpower, could easily be done without genetically manipulating a creature. Trying to go about things this way was an act of hubris and laziness. "We can do this, and it will make our lives a little bit easier, so we should do this"; a sentiment that you seem to share.
Since you decided to drag breast cancer research into this, we'll use that as an example of the other end of the spectrum. The tests that are done on animals in order to spare human life, not a small amount of human time. It's not a concept that I fully agree with, but it is a better trade than lives for a bit of time.

I'll throw one last note in: My whole point to this was actually to play devil's advocate. The point I was making was that some people consider such actions to be a religious crime against nature. It is nobody's place but their own to decide whether or not this belief is "ridiculous." To attempt to make this decision for them is, in my opinion, a type of fascism.

 

Here is my:
My experience with glo fish is I went out and bought a school of them knowing full well that these are genetically engineered fish.When I brought them home I did not put them in my quarantine tank like I know I should. after having them for a few days,I noticed one of the glo fish was sick with what I thought was ich,so I treated the tank for ich.The disease either was not ich,or the ich treatment did not work because I lost all but 3 fish in this tank.I think 12 died.
The fact that these are engineered fish should not upset people to the extent that it does.I had bought some painted glass fish many years ago,not knowing that these fish had been injected with dye.This is wrong and is what I consider animal cruelty.There is nothing wrong with engineering animals in attempts to help further the human race.We are all animals,and it really does come down to survival of the fittest.In the end,who knows,maybe humans won't end up being the strongest.But in the meantime,I'm glad there are people out there trying to insure that the human species survives for as long as possible,even if it means testing and engineering other animals for our survival.

 

So you're saying that if I bred yellow glowers, they'd have yellow fry?

will it work when you mix? (Yellow + Blue = green?)

I am not sure, but if I had to guess, the genes that make the protein for a certain glow color could be either recessive or dominant. The trick is to know which gene for protein color is dominant and which is recessive.
its pretty much like eye color:

Blue eyed parents (recessive, recessive) will give blue eyed offspring
One brown eyed and one blue eyed (Dominant, recessive) will give brown eyed offspring.
both brown eyed (dominant, dominant) will obviously give brown eyed offspring.


Now, there are cases like in "hazel" or "green" eyes in which the gene for eye color no longer controls the "COLOR" but there is another gene that controls the amount of coloration.... for example, green eyes are (I think) brown but with a lighter amount of pigment concentration. In few words, coloration is often controled by many different genes... which I don't know if is the case for glofish.

my hypothesis is that if, lets say, the "Red" pigment is dominant and the "green" is recessive (in glofish) then the offspring will be red. If there are more genes involved, then there might be mixed offspring (red and green glofish) or mixed colors in the same fish like "orange" (Like hazel eyes).

Sorry for the long complicated post... couldnt find an easier way to explain it...
maybe all of the skin colorations are dominant, or recessive, or mixed.

 

Is the genetic coloration Dominate or Recessive over normal zebra danio coloring? Does anyone know?

 

I believe that if it is a patent... most likely there will be few people willing to answer that question....

the problem like I said, is to know if there are more genes and/or proteins involved in the equation...
but, I'll try to find out for ya!

 

I was just thinkin' my normal danio school spawns about biweekly and if I could just get 1 or 2 glofish, and if that gene was dominate, I could have a school of glos in no time.

If the only way to find out is to try, then I guess I'll go buy a glofish

 

you could give it a try... I am also checking with my sources lol.

 

My use of the example of breast cancer research was NOT a "low blow" statement. I fully support all types of breast cancer research and research for all diseases even through the use of animal testing. I would much rather leave animals as the first in line during testing, than for some humans--even if fully willing--to be harmed. We are on the same line. My point was that it seemed to be hypocritical to support one side while condemning the other.

Also, my statement that buying Glofish supports research using genetic modification came from the fact that the company marketing Glofish uses some of that money to support other genetic modification research seeking to find cures for diseases. It's nothing like the example of Big Tobacco companies because you are canceling your support for drug education with support for tobacco. It's a RIDICULOUS comparison. [Not to mention that anti-drug campaigns are pointless and propagate further misinformation about drugs and tobacco. There are actually a lot less deaths caused by tobacco than those TRUTH commercials and the government would have you believe]. Also, I feel that the comparison with the aquarium market, which is supported by anyone--good intentioned or not--that buys any aquarium merchandise. Even if you buy your fish from a small reputable dealer, you are indirectly supporting places like PETCO or PETSMART by furthering the market. And again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but to deny it is being ill-informed.

The development of Glofish represents SO much more than the development of an animal to test for pollution. It truly represents a small step in the direction of further applied uses of genetic manipulation. Now that it is known that it is possible to combine insect DNA with fish, the possibilities are endless. This goes way beyond some pretty fish for sale in the aquarium store. The idea that this is wrong is inline with those that think stem cell research is wrong in the name of religious morals. THAT is the fascism. The nazis [the actual fascists, not someone called such because they disagree with you...] lost the war in large part because their government took on too much control of scientific research; they would silence dissenters and even went as far as to deny some of the fundamentals of physics and were never able to develop the atom bomb. My point in that long argument is that governmental intervention in scientific research is dangerous and limiting. I will stick with my original statement that the idea that modification is wrong on moral grounds is ridiculous.

 

My use of the example of breast cancer research was NOT a "low blow" statement. I fully support all types of breast cancer research and research for all diseases even through the use of animal testing. I would much rather leave animals as the first in line during testing, than for some humans--even if fully willing--to be harmed. We are on the same line. My point was that it seemed to be hypocritical to support one side while condemning the other.

Also, my statement that buying Glofish supports research using genetic modification came from the fact that the company marketing Glofish uses some of that money to support other genetic modification research seeking to find cures for diseases. It's nothing like the example of Big Tobacco companies because you are canceling your support for drug education with support for tobacco. It's a RIDICULOUS comparison. [Not to mention that anti-drug campaigns are pointless and propagate further misinformation about drugs and tobacco. There are actually a lot less deaths caused by tobacco than those TRUTH commercials and the government would have you believe]. Also, I feel that the comparison with the aquarium market, which is supported by anyone--good intentioned or not--that buys any aquarium merchandise. Even if you buy your fish from a small reputable dealer, you are indirectly supporting places like PETCO or PETSMART by furthering the market. And again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but to deny it is being ill-informed.

The development of Glofish represents SO much more than the development of an animal to test for pollution. It truly represents a small step in the direction of further applied uses of genetic manipulation. Now that it is known that it is possible to combine insect DNA with fish, the possibilities are endless. This goes way beyond some pretty fish for sale in the aquarium store. The idea that this is wrong is inline with those that think stem cell research is wrong in the name of religious morals. THAT is the fascism. The nazis [the actual fascists, not someone called such because they disagree with you...] lost the war in large part because their government took on too much control of scientific research; they would silence dissenters and even went as far as to deny some of the fundamentals of physics and were never able to develop the atom bomb. My point in that long argument is that governmental intervention in scientific research is dangerous and limiting. I will stick with my original statement that the idea that modification is wrong on moral grounds is ridiculous.

x
Totally agree.

 

First of all, I read your statement regarding my support for breast cancer research as an emotional attack in a logical discussion. If it was not meant to be so, I apologize. That was misinterpretation on my part. Still, it was a statement that had no context in the discussion, as it was attempting to take the incredibly complex issue of my support for the Susan G. Komen Foundation and reduce it to "if you support this, then you should support that."

My GloFish/tobacco comparison is only ridiculous if you make the presumption that the creation of GloFish and other such critters is not unethical. Since that is the very question at hand, we can't make such a presumption.
I wasn't, by the way, saying that buying GloFish was as bad as buying tobacco. I was merely pointing out a flaw in the "buying x product supports y research, so the purchase of x product is a positive," line of reasoning. If "x product," no matter what it is, is something that is harmful or unethical to create, supporting its creation is not a positive no matter what spin you put on it.
(By the way, don't try to pass tobacco off as the "poor maligned product" to me. I watched my grandfather die a horrible, week-long death that was directly due to his smoking. My father-in-law has numerous health problems directly related to his smoking. The woman whose memory I am honoring lost her husband, a heavy smoker, to lung cancer.)

Now, on to my main point, which you have touched on so well.
You say that GloFish represent a step in scientific progress, and therefore, no matter whether or not the creation of GloFish had a useful purpose, making them was good.
This is an incredibly dangerous path to walk on. It opens the path to explaining away any technology, no matter how unethical or dangerous, as "a step toward something better."
We haven't learned much of anything from the creation of GloFish, as they are merely an attempted application of a technology that we've used on crops for quite awhile. This is why I look at GloFish as "why bother? We can do the same thing without the fish."

I've never said that I supported governmental control of these creatures, but since you brought it up, I'm going to respond: No, I wouldn't support legislation regarding the control of these creatures.
However, I sure as heck want the government to keep their hand in scientific research. You mentioned the Nazis. Yes, on one hand, their scientific methods were influenced by the government stifling things. But on the other hand, their scientific methods were influenced by the government allowing things to go too far.
As with anything else, an all-or-nothing solution isn't the answer. "The government has no control over scientific research" is just as bad as "The government has total control over scientific research." Somewhere in the middle lies the answer that is best not only for humanity but for the Earth.
The same applies with the "buying from LFS supports Petco" argument. Yes, Petco does, in the end, gain a tiny amount if I buy from an LFS, but much less than if I buy directly from Petco. It isn't an all-or-nothing deal; it's the same as when I buy from the farmer's market or co-op vs. when I go to Cub or Rainbow.
(I agree, by the way, that religion should not be used to determine law, which is precisely why I never brought government control up in this discussion. Believe me, I'm right beside you in yelling at Bush and Congress regarding the whole stem-cell issue.)

Now, I'm just going to restate my point regarding the original meaning behind the thread:
Whether or not the creation of GloFish is animal cruelty depends on your own point of view. To say "your belief that messing with nature in this way is wrong/ridiculous" is simply toxic to the cultural environment. In addition to dictating religion (because by telling someone their moral beliefs are wrong, you're telling them that their religion is wrong), it brings an end to any sort of useful discussion and reduces things to what amounts to "Yuh-huh," "Nuh-uh," "Yuh-huh," etc...

With regards to the questions about GloFish and their coloration, Alessa's got it pretty much in the bag. There aren't going to be a lot of people willing to answer that question. For the most part, their answer will be "you don't need to worry about that because it's illegal for you to breed them." Therefore, the most likely way to find the answers to these questions will be to breed them.

 

With regards to the questions about GloFish and their coloration, Alessa's got it pretty much in the bag. There aren't going to be a lot of people willing to answer that question. For the most part, their answer will be "you don't need to worry about that because it's illegal for you to breed them." Therefore, the most likely way to find the answers to these questions will be to breed them.

;D I agree... If I had room I would get me a huge tank only for breeding purposes... although, I was offered an internship in the DNA lab at the Field Museum in chicago. I have always loved genetics but that's not my major... hopefully, an internship with them will give me the chance to understand these things better and learn... so that I don't have my house full of tanks with danios/glofish fry everywhere.

 

heres my two cents on the matter.

Any organism today that is not wild is "genetically modified." Mutations are common in all species and some are beneficial. Look at the cow. The ancient ancestor to the cow is extinct but we know it was about half the size and scrawnier than the modern cow. Same goes for the dog. GMO's (genetically modified organisms) are everywhere. Inputing a color gene into a developing egg hardly seems wrong.

As for the cross breeding, genetics are VERY complicated. The analogy of eye color is more of an understanding tool than an actual process. There are about a dozen fators with different qualities of dominant and recessive genes. In this case it is safe to say that crossbreeding two colors would not blend the colors as the gene types for the colors come from completely different species, you might get representations of both, although I doubt it otherwise you would have seen them by now.

 

K 2 cents.
For hundreds of years we as a race have been manipulating animals to do what we want them to. Cows, horses, dogs, sheep, pigs, goats, you name it and we've changed it. Very few of the species on the planet look the same as they did before we decided to use them. Fish have merely been lucky in this regard as water is not humanities area of expertise and they've mostly been ignored. This whole debate is occurring now because suddenly humanity now has the tools to manipulate our enviroment as we never have before.
New scientific break throughs happen everyday and most people never hear about them. However in 10 years these glo-fish will be old news.
The odds of these fish being released into the wild and infecting those populations is slI'm (how could a preditor miss them) so what's the harm? It's the same as all of our other live-stock (have you ever heard of a feral holstien?).
As for whether these fish we're "right". That's a harder question. Dogs are the decendants of predetors, today they are our pets and our families, yesterday they were our tools. Is it anymore natural for a wolf to guard sheep then for a fish to glow?
In the long run the idea behind these fish is the same one that humanity has been using for years. "Hmmm... fish live in water, we want to protect water, fish react to changes in water, changes in water are bad for us... fish can't talk so how can we use fish to check water..." A hundred years ago (if we'd even gave much thought to the enviroment then) if someone had stumbled across this line of thinking they would have had to spend years, lifetimes, to selectively breed a line of fish that would respond visably to changes in the water. You can argue that this is different that these are unnatural b/c these are Jelly fish genes. DNA is just protien in a specific pattern and Gene's are the pattern itself. In the long run isn't this safer and less stressful to the fish then a mutation that could affect hundreds of genes? All they're doing is adding one. If it was fatal the egg would die before developing much further. Yes there may have been things that went wrong but hybrid crosses go bad everyday. All Genetic Manipulation did was speed things up.

... Umm... yeah about the cows ancestor maybe we're looking at different breeds but it was acutally somewhere around twice the size of today's. They're smaller now b/c it's easier to work with them....

Ok so that was more then 2 cents. You get the idea.

 

If God was against it he or she would have locked the genomes of all things, kind of like a copyrighted material lock on DVD's .

Apparently you're just not using the right software.

I think these would look cool in a tank with black rocks and a black background with some of those gaudy neon plants with a black light. Sorta like a cave look.