"GloFish" the new Zebra Danio

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't want to speak for Allivymar, but I feel like sighing too. If she has the same reservations that I do, she is sighing because this is a genetically modified fish. Selective breeding is one thing, but genetic engineering has some scary possibilities.

I think these fish were originally bred for experimental purposes - but what if the pet industry starts messing with mother nature - just for commercial gain? Seems like a slippery slope to me.

At least the website is giving some responsible fish-keeping instructions: compatible tankmates, water changes etc...
 
whats realy pathedic is that the fish is trademarked, which means its not wild caught, and there injected with a flourecence gene, there a science freak IMO. :x
 
its just a company looking for money.
thre is no reason too buy a fish like that, there are more then enuff good looking fish that are made colorfull by mother nature not some guy in a white lab coat.
 
I don't agree with it at all.
There is huge public out cry over using genetics and gene therapy to culture organs and tissues but virtually none over garbage like this.

Exploiting naturally occuring things is one thing (ie; stem cells) but creating a entirely un-natural subspecies of something even as harmless as decorative fish is a recipe for disaster.
 
I figured this would trigger some debate. With the prevalence of the parrotfish hybrid, and the "painted fish," it doesn't look like this will go away. The industry has just eveolved from injections to genetics. While incredible, there is a disturbing feel to it all. Tampering with mother nature always gives me the willies.
 
There is a big difference, as was said previously, between selective/crossbreeding and injecting new genes into a species that it just should not have, no matter how harmless the effect is.


Man. Should. Not. Play. God.

Atleast in that sense... [ Since we do play god by simply keeping our little fish friends in their enclosed worlds ^_^; ]
 
There is a write up in Times on the fish a couple weeks ago (didn't mention any ethical concerns, more like .. neat new fish of the year!).

Although it is only avialable now in Asia & Europe, once everyone see it in Times, I'll bet there will be a demand for them in N. America.

I am not sure, however, if there is that much difference in selective cross breeding & genetic engineering. So you are crossing species barrier with the later, but in either case you are messing with the genes ...
 
but you are only selectivly picking traits [genes] that are already present in the species.


This is completly altering them with something that they never in 1000 years had.
 
California has already banned em, and I believe England has refused to let them in as well.
 
jsoong said:
I am not sure, however, if there is that much difference in selective cross breeding & genetic engineering. So you are crossing species barrier with the later, but in either case you are messing with the genes ...

you really think theres not much of a difference in selective cross breeding and geneticly engineering a fish. well heres one big difference for you.....one is injected or fed dyes and hormones, the other just mate. both are crap IMO
 
weill i believe if it "can" happen naturally it isnt that big of a deal ....but injecting or genetically engineering in this case is just taking it way to far just to make a dollar.
 
At the Glo-Fish site they claim the fish was originally develop for environmental purposes, to help detect pollutants in the water. They were only made commercially available later.

http://www.glofish.com/about.asp

They also say "For over a decade, fluorescent zebra fish have been relied upon by scientists worldwide to better understand important questions in genetics, molecular biology, and vertebrate development. Fluorescent zebra fish have been particularly helpful in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy."
 
Sinuhe said:
At the Glo-Fish site they claim the fish was originally develop for environmental purposes, to help detect pollutants in the water. They were only made commercially available later.

."

if thats the case then there not going too be good for beginers and thats who will be buying them, and there is no need for makeing a new fish too do that as the peters elaphant nose ishas already been used in germany for that purpose
 
i think what comes naturally is far more beautiful. zebra danios are beautiful fish - why anyone would want to change them is beyond me. i dont like anything in nature fiddled with just to make it 'look prettier' in someones view. why cant they leave things alone. i know its not as cruel as injected/dyed fish but its still not good & i WILL NOT be buying any of these fish.
 
e-cat wrote:

" you really think theres not much of a difference in selective cross breeding and geneticly engineering a fish. well heres one big difference for you.....one is injected or fed dyes and hormones, the other just mate. both are crap IMO "

Well, mechanistically, there is a difference. But ethically, is there? In both cases we (people) are selecting for genes that would otherwise not be selected in nature. So in both cases this is "unnatural selection". Dose it matter where the gene comes from? ... a natural mutation, an unnatural mutation (like exposing the fish to UV or chemicals or hormones), or by genetic engineering ...
 
Back
Top Bottom