Genetically Modified Fish --> Just in time for Halloween

[Patwa]

I was watching a science show recently and I saw a snippet about a scientist who successfully created the first genetically modified aquarium fish - called the Night Pearl. The fish actually GLOWS int he dark....(albeit with the aid of a black light...)

Seems this scientist sliced a gene from a glowing jellyfish with the humble Zebrafish....hmmm sounds fishy..but it worked out.

"The so-called Night Pearls are likely the first genetically modified pets anyone will own. HJ Tsai, a professor at National Taiwan University, created the Night Pearls as a way to make fish organs more visible when studying them under the microscope. Tsai isolated a gene from naturally glowing jellyfish, extracted it, and inserted it into the DNA of zebrafish. To Tsai's surprise, the jellyfish gene made zebrafish glow."
Source: http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/6/26/72442/4245

Anyways.....I think it is in a pretty grey area when it comes to aquarium politics... ....sort of like the Painted Glassfish debate....but this is different.....these Night Pearl fish are not subjected to undue pain or turmoil as the Glassfish are.....and, more importantly, they are born that way.....they seem to carry on as normal Zebrafish do.

What do you think??? is beauty in the eye of the beholder??? or should we find this scientist and kick his a** for messing with momma nature??

Keep in mind, that for 99.5% of us, fish-keeping is more about showcasing the beauty and the uniqueness of the fish than protecting their genes/habitats/whatever (if the latter were the case do you think aquariums would be as big of a hobby as it is now???...hell no!).

Zach.

 

[Electrobes]

yeah there has abeen a lot of debate about that when it first appeared a while back. But like any argument is plit into different sides, like one usually called decorators love the idea of the unique fish while other sides like natures say it comepletely goes against naturalistic evolution and that it will harm the environment, etc etc.

 

[grimlock3000]

"To Tsai's surprise, the jellyfish gene made zebrafish glow."

Why would he be surprised? Did he expect the fish with the modified DNA to turn into a pumpkin?

 

[Electrobes]

HAHAHA

 

[Allivymar]

Just to be clear, these fish were not originally genetically modifed for retail. They were actually modified for scientific study; specifically for study on human disease. Personally, that I don't have a problem with; I don't think they should have become aquarium store fodder tho.

You can find more info about it here: http://www.zygogen.com/

 

[ferret]

Why... why the zebra danio though!! The horror!

Though I suppose it makes sense. Danios being hardy and all

 

[Sati]

I don't really know what I think... However, most all of our veggies are modified. If they could breed genetic issues out of popular dog breeds, they would. This stuff is going to be everywhere.

Based on looks alone, I like the fish, and I'd probably buy it.

 

[Allivymar]

Interesting.

Read a post by Bernie over at fishgeeks. Apparently California Fish n Game will be rejecting the permits for transgenic fish...

 

[madasafish]

I saw a pic on aquabid.com a few months ago of these fish. I believe they did this with mosquitofish originally. The pic I saw was a mosquito fish and the accompanying text stated the same. They were expensive, and the auction was for future ownership--they were selling the fish before it hit the market!

There was a thread on this topic about 2 months ago (started, perhaps, by E-Cat). Most of us put in our 2 cents and said we were appalled. I renew my opinion here. And yes, I've thought about the other "instances" of genetic modification--maize by Native Americans over 1000s of years, dog breeding, guppy breeding. These almost-natural genetic modifications can happen, and would in a natural environment given the right conditions. We have NO idea what altering genes in a laboratory can do to organisms and the organisms that eat them. I'm frightened that I have no choice in the matter when I go to the local supermarkets. Even "organic" products only need their main ingredient to be organic. The rest of their ingredients can be GMO and the label will still read "organic." I'm proud of the European FDA equivalent, which has taken a stand on this issue, and marks an item if it *HAS* GMOs in it, not if it *doesn't*.

 

[sweetsuvvyb]

The singapore aquarium (http://www.underwaterworld.com.sg) actually has an exhibit of transgenic fish.

I really don't have a problem with research like this, personally. I could spout off on why, but I mostly just came to share the link LOL...it's an awesome aquarium, btw. Singapore Zoo is also amazing.

 

[Patwa]

There was a thread on this topic about 2 months ago (started, perhaps, by E-Cat). Most of us put in our 2 cents and said we were appalled. I renew my opinion here. And yes, I've thought about the other "instances" of genetic modification--maize by Native Americans over 1000s of years, dog breeding, guppy breeding. These almost-natural genetic modifications can happen, and would in a natural environment given the right conditions. We have NO idea what altering genes in a laboratory can do to organisms and the organisms that eat them. I'm frightened that I have no choice in the matter when I go to the local supermarkets. Even "organic" products only need their main ingredient to be organic. The rest of their ingredients can be GMO and the label will still read "organic."

yah I totally agree....not sure to what level these scientists want to take these genetic modifications, but I am very worried....i'm very worried that certain people will start to like these fish....and then the demand would go up and then more scientists will say "eh...what if...." and the it just keeps on going....it's kind of scary to think about all the possibilities...because as we all know, genetics is one vast new frontier...so much is not known...

oh well.......i'm totally a naturalist....my uni degree is in Geography (mapping, GIS, remote sensing)....I love being outside, see nature the way it was meant to be....even though I have a tank, i'm content on knowing all my fish are all 100% pure...(whatever that means)...on those days when I just stare at my tank I usually end up thinking about where these fish came from......about the different species and how they all somehow interact.......each has their own place in this world...

but when I think of the Night Pearl...i'm dumbfounded....one part of me is curious as heck to see it..but the other is sort of freaked out.....it's a fricken test tube fish! how can that be?? was it meant to be??? hahah oh well......time for a beer.

oh well....you know what?...it's all in the name of research..what they learn now may be the key to some major development in genetic 20 years down the road......no one knows......

Zach.

 

[sweetsuvvyb]

I'm kind of hurt that there is this perception of "scientists" as ethic-less monsters that don't think twice about the impact of their research. It's why I chose not to chime in earlier...I don't want my personal feelings as a woman of science to get in the way of an un-biased explanation of why research like this is important.

I urge all of you to realize that there might be facets of the topic you might not have considered before you're so quick judge the researchers of the world.

:|

 

[ferret]

I think the true debate shouldn't be whether or not genetic engineering is bad, but whether or not they should be released to the public market and hobbists.

The research and original modification has a purpose, involved in possibly improving our lives by eliminating sickness, etc, etc. The real question is should these fish leave the lab.

 

[Sati]

Hmmm, I had a hard time navigating that site and gave up.

 

[Patwa]

I think the true debate shouldn't be whether or not genetic engineering is bad, but whether or not they should be released to the public market and hobbists.

The research and original modification has a purpose, involved in possibly improving our lives by eliminating sickness, etc, etc. The real question is should these fish leave the lab.

good point.....should they leave the lab??? well...no one can really tell the scientist to keep it locked down....some might just need the cash..some want the fame...and some might even work for an evil pharmaceutical company that wants both! (i'm looking at you Glaxo!)

I don't think we can ever hold these fish down, as long as the public demand for it is strong...

the best bet is to not buy it...or just ignore....and hopefully it'll just turn into a fad...here today and gone tomorrow....

Sweets: no, I don't think ALL scientists a ethic-less monsters.....i'm sure the great majority are kind and honest people.....but... I do guarantee you there are many bad apples all over the place.....people who just don't give a damn for the repercussions of their work in areas regarding nature, ethics, religion, etc etc.....

my dad is Doctor in organic chemistry...he's taught me a great deal about the need for research..the need for testing...and so forth.......i am all for it...but we've got to watch out.....some of these scientists are too quick to jump the gun on things (ie. human cloning)

ok back to work for me.

Zach.

 

[madasafish]

Sweets, I hope you didn't believe my message to state that scientists are unethical. I don't believe this at all. My concern is that shady gray area that exists between genetic research for betterment of the world and genetic research for economic gain.

In theory, genetic work is exciting and cutting-edge. It promises us a much greater understanding of all organisms, and gives humans the upper hand in dealing with pandemics, genetic diseases and other important biological issues. When this genetic research is in the private sector, it advances at a gallop. In the government, it sidles along. But there is still the huge problem of ethical conduct when understanding and altering organisms--including the human body. And in the private sector, I believe, this is not well regulated. Have you all heard about the scary patent war that's going on at the moment over genetically modified strains of soybean, human genes. A farmer in Canada was sued by Monsanto when the seed for one of their patented "round-up-ready" crops entered his field. His stock was corrupted, and Monsanto, instead of offering to remove the strain from his property, decided to sue him.

Monsanto also sponsors its own police force to deal with farmers who steal small amounts of Monsanto's grain, or who farm the crop in a way that differs from their proscribed method. Neighboring farmers are offered incentives to turn in offenders.

I get scared when I realize that most of America knows nothing about genetic modification. Though the media keeps these companies in check to an extent, how do we know how pervasive the influence of these huge conglomerates is? What ads do they sponsor; which products do they endorse?

And its important not to rant and rave about this--most environmentalists end up sounding like conspiracy theorists. Some are... I still think that not enough information exists about these issues, and that the goverment and the private sector are more concerned with keeping the US economy afloat than with the potential long-term effects and ethical ramifications of genetic engineering.......

Maybe the whole of the US could vote on these issues! Make us truly democratic.

 

[Allivymar]

Sati:

This is what I consider the most relevant bit of the Zygogen website: http://www.zygogen.com/zebrafish.asp

In it, it discusses how zebrafish are being used for human disease study, and how tissue specific flourescent tagging is helping with the studies.

 

[Sati]

Well it's very interesting, that is for sure. I personally don't think we can pick and choose what is modified and what isn't. It will be very hard to contain. Some people say it's OK to do it for food because we can feed a lot more people, and there are many in the world still starving. But that it's not OK for animals (fish). Some say it's OK for research, but not for the general public. I believe that eventually everything gets leaked. So the question is, is it safe for the environment. If the fish are just in research labs, *somebody* will find a way to get them outside a lab. And then somehow into the public, although not readily. The fish, for instance, would likely eventually be released into our rivers, streams, lakes, oceans, etc... What would the impact be on the "natural" fish species? Do we want these superspecies to take over? Everything gets out... some how, some way.

Things will change. You know those family's that have 3 girls all the while trying to have a boy? Soon they will have the embryo implanted that is already determined to be a healthy boy. Have any of you seen the movie Gattaca? http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ It is not a great movie at all, but it's interesting. I really see things ending up that way.

 

[ostrichkiller]

if man is involved in anyway there are going to be good and bad people working on things. you just have to hope that there is a form of checks and balances for the people working on them. some way forsomeone to make sure that they are not going to be used and geneticlly tested on for no damn good reason. if they are useing these fish and have found somethhing that they are letting out to you and me then there has to be a reason for it. and i think it is great. i don't think i will be getting one any time soon because i think have the fun looking at my fish is i could actually go out somewhere and actually see them in the wild in a river or something.

on the other note that has come up on this note so far referring to the painted glass fish i was the person that actually purchased them (w/o researching first i'm sorry) and after i found out i let the fish live there happy little lives out in my tank. they didn't hlive half as long as the others around their size but atleast there last days were good ones. i have also found another fish in my LPS tat has color added to it. they started to carry "rainbow barbs" now i could be wrong but generally in FW fish it is not natural for ones species to have a real reson to be purple,light blue, pink, green, red, yellow. and i'm not talking about normal shades of these colors either. i can't imagine a time when a fish is swimming up a river and to get away from a pretetor it would change neon purple to blend into its sourroundings??? i might be wrong but i am looking it up now...

adding color after they are born i think is wrong but if they are born that way i don't see a problem the fish doesn't know the difference does it???