"GloFish" the new Zebra Danio

[Bernie]

Just came across this topic and thought I'd post some of the latest info I have from
my end as a retailer:

First.... I am neither pro or con on this issue as yet.
Things are changing too quickly and there is to much rumors about....
with not much proven trials, so.... I'm kind of watching this thing.

Secondly, only two Wholesale suppliers with "licenses" to distribute these
"patented" fish here in the U.S. (Segrest and 5-D). They go on sale starting
Jan 5 as far as we're being told right now. I will probably get an order in...
just to see what they actually are!!??

The latest versions of these "red" fish have been changed to "show" luminescence
ALL THE TIME and "not like before... under certain lighting conditions".
The genes are those extracted from Sea Corals.... plans are to introduce
a yellow and a green later on.

This summer, a sterilzed version of this fish was introduced in Taiwan and
called "Night Pearls"....

The licensor of the genetic technology is Yorktown Technologies in Austin, TX.

They have stated that the Glofish danios have the same temperature sensitive
requirements and can therefore not reproduce in non-tropical climates.
This... I question because I think we all know the tons of fish that are "turned
loose" each year and are now breeding in the rivers and lakes of Fla.... just for openers!!??

They also say that they are otherwise supposed to be "safe" for the environment.

Calif Fish & Game has not actually ruled yet, but has given the indication that
they will NOT allow the Glofish into Calif.

I'm sure we all will be hearing and seeing more of this as time goes on.

I know I am watching all this quite closely too!!

Bernie

 

[Guppyman]

These fish were developed for serious scientific and aquaculture technology research. I would not jump the gun on this. There are two sides to every story, but unfortunately the possiblity that unscrupulous individuals could ruin the "good" reason for developing these fish does exist. This research is important - for both medical AND aquaculture uses. - Guppyman

 

[Smonkey15]

if they are going to genetically alter fish why dont they make all saltwater fish able to live in freshwater and tolerable to any water conditions? or better yet, give them legs and lungs so we can keep them in hampster cages and they can run in hampster wheels, or hampster balls. or why dont they give them vocal cords and bigger brains so we can have conversations with them and they can tell us what they dont like about their water. then maybe we can teach them to operate heavy machinery and pay them $.50 an hour for cheap labor. obviously thats not realistic though since the economy would go down the tubes. but where does it end?
steve
sorry, i went a little overboard

 

[fishfoo]

Humanity has been playing God since the first campfire, and over the ages it's been a very useful diversion.

Gregor Mendel was a geneticist, thank goodness. Without his work and the science it engendered, there's no way this planet would be supporting 1/3 the humanity that it does. While you might consider the planet 2/3rd's over-populated, the more `natural' alternative is bleak indeed, i.e., those lower `natural' human populations naturally enforced by widespread and utterly wretched Malthusian starvation. Add to that the near global environmental destruction that would be caused by starving people in search of anything edible. There's plenty of that anyway.

There is indeed a huge difference between selective cross breeding and modern genetics. Mendels selective cross breeding is crude as hell, and chock full of cruel failures in search of utterly random advances. Gene mapping and splicing is simply the next quantum leap up from Mendels stumbling ignorance, and a far more precise and useful tool than a hybridist could ever dream of. These fish might seem a trivial use of that tool, but then phosflourescent pets weren't the initial motivation for the research. They're a rather coincidental development.

They're also potentially rather charming. These fish aren't freaks or monsters. They're fish, and I hope they succeed fabulously. It might cut down some of the Luddite paranoia that compromises the most promising science of our new century.

 

[Sinuhe]

Fishfoo, thank you for your thoughtful, knowledgeable comment . It's something to the effect I wanted to say, but couldn't express my thoughts nearly as well.

I'm not a huge supporter of any random kind of genetic manipulation in general, but I hope what fishfoo said helps people realise that the GloFish wasn't originally developed for commercial purposes.

 

[Smonkey15]

then what was it developed for....light source? you guys obviously dont believe in any sort of god?
steve

 

[snapcrackler]

Man. Should. Not. Play. God.

AMEN!



SMonkey I am going to P my pants

Lungs and hamster wheels LMAO

hehehe......

 

[sweetsuvvyb]

I am a woman of science, I do not share the general fear/hatred of genetic engineering. I've made an effort to keep my nose out of most of these discussions because I actually find them personally offensive, implying that us people of science are unethical monsters. It always seems there is additionally some attacks on religious beliefs, which I think is so sad. Let us maintain the reasons behind this forum, to help one another, and save the religious judgement for another time, and another place.

 

[snapcrackler]

Speaking for myself I don't have any beef with any of the individual scientists, or you, and I'm pretty sure most others here don't ether.

It's the driving force of the matter, the whole ethics thing, and some folks feel that religion and science are tied together. I'm not going to keep quiet about what I believe just because I think it might offend someone. Nor so I feel I am doing the world or community a disservice by airing my views.

So don't take it personally, please, I am sure nobody here wants to get in your face. Everyone really has their right to voice their opinion in a respectful manner.

 

[AtodaJ]

People fear the unknown and often react with anger.... it's a natural reaction.

I'm not worried about scientists making up different colors of fish. I honestly don't think we have much to fear as a people from that. What I worry about are the genetic scientists screwing around with the Ebola virus and other infectious diseases. Now that is something to be worried about. It only takes 1 unscrupulous scientist to cause a global disaster.

 

[Sinuhe]

then what was it developed for....light source? you guys obviously dont believe in any sort of god?
steve

Did you check out the link? http://www.glofish.com/about.asp

I don't understand what this has to do with believing in God.

I'm not an expert in this, but I do have some experience in science, and I wish people would find out some facts before making such a strong judgement on something.

 

[snapcrackler]

IMHO what people are trying to say when they talk about God in relation to this stuff is, that they feel that genetic tinkering for the purpose of creating different/altered life forms is................

Something we simply should not do because God created the creatures in the first place and they are a gift. herefore by altering the creature we show disrespect. Kind of like if a friend gives you a beautiful dog for a present and next week your friend finds out that you have genetically altered the dog to meow like a cat or to glow or whatever.

It's also a mismanagement of resources IMO, and historically we have been very good at mismanaging resources. For instance, These fish were supposedly originally developed to detect pollutants in the water.... pollutants that we dumped there in the first place.. so we genetically alter a creature to detect pollutants.

So it's not a jab at scientists, obviously it wasn't the scientists that dumped the waste into the water. It's just the whole principle of the matter.

 

[Sinuhe]

Yes, I understand that, and I understand if people personally feel genetic manipulation is wrong. But telling someone else they can't believe in any kind of God if they accept genetic manipulation doesn't make sense to me. I can respect a different view, when it's presented like snapcrackler did, but I wish people wouldn't jump into judgements like earlier in this topic.

 

[Bernie]

Snapcrackler..... that was an excellent overview of the God vs genetic manipulation issue; ..... it becomes very difficult to decide where "human"
creations become "beneficial progress" or "disasterous intervention".
The "wheel" helped relieve our burdening of the horse and the donkey; but
not so sure about "splitting the atom"??

As far as fish goes..... I'm not sure either!!?? Time may tell, huh!?

Bernie

 

[snapcrackler]

I understand what you are saying Sinuhe.

For me, the hard part about posting text on a forum, is that off-the-cuff remarks end up being permanent, and somehow they also look more "mean" than they would have if you just said it out of your mouth because the context isn't there unless you put it there somehow.

This is something that I have learned the hard way because I have personally screwed up so many times on this forum, I tend to get fired up about things.

I would be willing to bet a bundle that SMonkey didn't intend to be insulting or mean, it's just that SMonkey feels REALLY strongly about the subject and just whipped out an off the cuff remark like that instead of counting to 10. If it would have been a conversation in a living room over a few beers it would have been taken differently I think.

Text just seems so much more serious than conversation.. it's almost dangerous... that's maybe why it was said that "the pen is mightier than the sword" hehe!!!!

(unless you're in a sword fight )

 

[snapcrackler]

arrgh, another tough part is when you are typing at the same time as someone and the posts get out of order, sorry bernie, and thanks.

LOL

 

[Smonkey15]

sinuhe, wasn't implying that a scientist can't believe in god. but i would like to know where god fits in when the fact of the matter is that if we go on a spree of genetically altering all that is "unnatural" to make it become "natural" then why do we need god? what purpose does he serve? i'm not talking about just fish here. this goes into so many topics that i'm sure nobody really wants to get into here i.e. stem cell research, cloning, partial birth abortions etc... i have no hostility towards anyone here and i am not trying to judge. but it is undeniable that this country(US) is becoming more and more godless as each day passes and there is only a certain point you can take science to until you are denying or ignoring the existence of god. sinuhe, if you are so apolled by the attack on scientists then i please ask you, in a non-hostile mannor, to share with me how you see god fitting into all these advances in science and technology. just because i want to understand your position, not because i think its rediculous. thanks
steve

 

[Sinuhe]

Steve, personally I don't think unnatural and ungodly go hand in hand. First, you'd have to draw an exact line between natural and unnatural, which is not easy at all. Do you accept modern medicine? Do you accept manipulating people's natural, God-given bodies with medication or surgery? Do you accept organ transplants and blood transfusions? Based on my personal experience about devoted Christian people, most of them do accept all of those. Are they natural? No, if you ask me. We're seriously messing with nature there, moving organs from body to another. Is it acceptable to me personally? Yes, because we may save a life when doing that. Without modern medicine, the average life expectancy in the modern Western world would be much shorter, somewhere around 30 or 40 (an estimation). The 100% natural way to deal with it would be to let people get sick and die, but most people don't find that acceptable. If we think about it from the natural/unnatural point of view, I don't see that much difference between standard modern medicine and genetic manipulation. In the first case we may not be messing with people's genes, but we are messing with nature, nevertheless.

As for where I come from, I grew up in a religious family and attended Pentecostal church functions since I was 4 years old regularly up until age of about 19 or so. I cam very familiar with Christianity, and growing up in a mostly (over 80%) Lutheran country, I became familiar with people from other Christian groups, as well. As I grew older, for several reasons, into which I'm not going here, I didn't feel Pentecostal church and its views anymore represented my beliefs. I have since mostly drifted apart from organized religion, but a lot of my basic values are still based on what I learned as a child, even if there are a lot of things I don't agree on with certain Christians. That is a personal choice, and a result from years of pondering. I'm not saying that I represent the one and only truth, and one thing I learned from my past is that there rarely is an issue even most Christians can agree on, and that things rarely are black and white.

 

[Smonkey15]

i totally agree with everything you said. Modern medicine is definitly unnatural. i guess i am sort of wondering out loud where we draw the line. i respect your beliefs and opinions, as i think that most all religions and belief systems do each have valid points.

I would be willing to bet a bundle that SMonkey didn't intend to be insulting or mean, it's just that SMonkey feels REALLY strongly about the subject and just whipped out an off the cuff remark like that instead of counting to 10. If it would have been a conversation in a living room over a few beers it would have been taken differently I think.

exactly. sorry guys, someone instant messaged me and told me to shutup and i'm giving christians a bad name. i'm not trying to make enemy's here. as snapcrackler said i just get fired up. not angry, but i do love debating. anyways, love this site, respect all of you guys, thanks for sharing sinuhe. thats what i was looking for, non-hostile arguments. peace
steve

 

[TerrellChris2k3]

i love you.