Hybrids/Crossbreeds

[tarpon]

Actually, I'm not being rude. I'm defending the fact that you read too much into what I posted and you still are. I am discussing things in a perfectly rational tone. You are the one who insists upon pushing people on their opinions. If you want to report me as being rude for defending my stance, there's a nice little report button on here, have at it.

You can believe in adding extra genes into something, where as I believe that it is against the laws of nature to do so. And yes, when someone tries to tell me that I'm wrong when I think something is unethical I do get offended. Just as you would get offended if I stated I didn't agree with your beliefs.

Yeah, no ones opinion can be "wrong"

 

[tarpon]

I think gene splicing is freaking genius. They made glow in the dark monkeys too. Its driving forth new science. Think of the amazing applications this technology could have on humans

 

[DragonFish71]

I think gene splicing is freaking genius. They made glow in the dark monkeys too. Its driving forth new science. Think of the amazing applications this technology could have on humans

If it's something to better the life of something, like cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes etc I'm all for it, but to splice just because you want a glow in the dark monkey is nothing more than humans playing creator (god, goddess, allah, etc) Humans have caused more damage to each other and other species. I personally can not think of a benefit to mankind if we glowed. *Shrugs* Now, if making us glow killed cancer? Then heck yes I'd be on board.

 

[mfdrookie516]

^So, what if adding a gene to attempt making us glow if we got cancer was added? Wouldn't that be the same as adding a gene to a fish to detect water pollution? I mean, they really did have good intentions when they 'created' glofish... it just failed, so they decided to use that to make money.

 

[jetajockey]

^So, what if adding a gene to attempt making us glow if we got cancer was added? Wouldn't that be the same as adding a gene to a fish to detect water pollution? I mean, they really did have good intentions when they 'created' glofish... it just failed, so they decided to use that to make money.

Yeah, but unfortunately lots of detrimental things have come under the guise of a benign cause. I've no idea whether or not the true motive behind their cause was really something 'good', but at what point did they figure out that it was no longer something to benefit society but rather their checkbook?

This same argument could be made for embryonic stem cell research, is it worth the cost a few embryos if the result is some kind of great new medicine that pharmaceutical companies can become billionaires on?

 

[eco23]

Just to add my 2 cents (mostly because this is an intriguing conversation)...

I think a lot of it needs to be separated and defined into things which are beneficial, things that make no tangible difference for better or worse, and practices which are detrimental...and deciding where to draw the line.

Technically humans have been playing with and altering genetics for thousands of years long before the advent of modern science. I think using dogs as an example is a clear way to view the changes we make. By mixing different breeds we created different animals which technically is altering genetics / DNA over generations. Now this might be an animal which fits into all of the above categories. I view wolves (obviously where dogs originated) as the perfect design of the species. Evolution dictated how they developed into a capable species in their natural form. Now certain dogs like Huskies which are only slightly altered may be no worse off...but other breeds may be viewed as having an extremely lowered quality of life compared to wolves. For example, breeds which have extremely altered physical characteristics (Daschunds, Bulldogs, Chihuahua's, etc...) are prone to problems with everything from back problems to hip dysplasia due to the way humans have formed them. Yet I think there are very few people that are upset and demand we stop breeding these animals. Maybe just because they've been around for so long and are so common that we don't realize what their true nature is. Believe it or not, I bet there's a large population of people who have never thought about or realized that dogs are man made animals.

Even things like altering crops and vegetables are forms of hybridization...but other than potentially dangerous chemicals used to produce some...I think thats an example of using science to better mankind (they're obviously also not animals which have reduced quality of life...so not a valid point...but still an example). The argument could also be made that humans have intentionally altered each others DNA through selective breeding...but that's a completely different and touchy conversation I won't bring up.

I'm totally onboard and against dyed fish and ones so mutated they can't swim or eat correctly...but I do think Glofish are a great example of a fish worth debate. I feel like there is nothing unethical about how they came about...but whether they have reduced quality of life is worth an argument. Apparently Glofish are mandatory in my aquarium (thanks to the wife's demands)...but they're one of the fish I've had trouble keeping. They occasionally die off for no reason in pristine water, even though Danios are one of the more hardy species. I read an article recently about how insanely expensive they are to develop...but extremely cheap to mass produce. Since the first generation is so expensive...the breeding pool Is extremely shallow and they are simply not overly healthy fish. I guess the same could be said about tons of other fish in the hobby which are overbred...but I think Glofish would be the most extreme case because they are produced in a lab...and there's not an option of introducing more wild caught species into the gene pool. So whether science really makes no impact for better or worse is debatable here in my mind.

I think all of this added together really proves there is not a single right or wrong answer...and I think you'd have a very hard time finding an individual who could say they are either 100% for or against humankind altering the genetics of the world around us. Some are just more debatable than others...and other topics people have never taken a step back from and looked at it to realize how many things we have a direct hand in altering.

 

[jetajockey]

They may be able to introduce wild genes into the pool also, it just depends on how the genetics work. I'm far from a genetics buff, so its total guesswork by me, but I do know that with color and other different strain variants, you can breed in an outside source, like for something recessive like electric blue, the first spawn would not be electric blue, but carriers of the gene. If you bred one of these electric blue gene carriers to an actual electric blue fish, you'd result in a good percentage of electric blue offspring.

 

[tarpon]

If it's something to better the life of something, like cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes etc I'm all for it, but to splice just because you want a glow in the dark monkey is nothing more than humans playing creator (god, goddess, allah, etc) Humans have caused more damage to each other and other species. I personally can not think of a benefit to mankind if we glowed. *Shrugs* Now, if making us glow killed cancer? Then heck yes I'd be on board.

The whole monkey thing was trying to implement genes into monkeys so they can help develop cures for diseases i think. Like now they can genetically breed monkeys with diseases passed down so they have test subjects. I think thats what i read. Kinda messed up tho but i still want a pet glow in the dark monkey

 

[DragonFish71]

I think the point I'm trying to make on genetically altering a living animal/human is being missed. And mind you, this is just my view on it, everyone thinks differently.

If altering something genetically serves no purpose other than "we can do it" then what's the point? To get your name in some medical books? Seriously. You can make a monkey glow but you can't cure cancer? It's ridiculous to play creator and alter something for no benefit.

At least with stem cell research they are finding new things. I read an article a few months back that really hits home for me. When I was 15 I broke my back. I have extensive damage to my spinal cord (though I still have use of all my limbs) but I live in pain every day of my life. Just sitting here typing causes me agony, but I digress. The article was about them finding ways to heal spinal cord injuries and possibly help those who have lost the use of their limbs to regain some if not all use again.

To me that's a win. A glowing fish? Not so much.

 

[GodFan]

I think the point I'm trying to make on genetically altering a living animal/human is being missed. And mind you, this is just my view on it, everyone thinks differently.

If altering something genetically serves no purpose other than "we can do it" then what's the point? To get your name in some medical books? Seriously. You can make a monkey glow but you can't cure cancer? It's ridiculous to play creator and alter something for no benefit.

At least with stem cell research they are finding new things. I read an article a few months back that really hits home for me. When I was 15 I broke my back. I have extensive damage to my spinal cord (though I still have use of all my limbs) but I live in pain every day of my life. Just sitting here typing causes me agony, but I digress. The article was about them finding ways to heal spinal cord injuries and possibly help those who have lost the use of their limbs to regain some if not all use again.

To me that's a win. A glowing fish? Not so much.

However I would rather adisease or injury go uncured (no offense) if it means that babies must be killed. If the embryos are from miscarriages then so be it. But not if they are "donated".

 

[mfdrookie516]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm definitely not trying to argue or anything... but they didn't great Glofish because they wanted a fish that glows for pleasure. From their website (GloFish® Fluorescent Fish FAQ):

GloFish® fluorescent zebrafish were originally bred to help detect environmental pollutants. By adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish, scientists hoped to one day quickly and easily determine when a waterway is contaminated.

I completely get your point, and I agree that they shouldn't be doing things like this for pure pleasure, but when they're creating these to potentially save lives (of both people and fish... as well as other animals), I think that's perfectly fine.

 

[absolutangel04]

Wow, I was gone for a day a and I missed a lot! I am going to add that the gfp (green flourescent protein) is indeed from jellyfish and it was first used in labs when scientists attached it to other substance (diseases, viruses, all sorts of things) so they could track where that particular substance went in the body. The glowing rats/cats/primates were made for a purpose to try to help in decoding parts of the genome to see what could be played with for future disease curing. Most of those experiments were not meant to end at glowing animals. We may have the genome mapped, but do not understand everything about it. I am not making a statement about the ethics of those studies, just giving some info.
I actually do not like glofish either and I choose not to buy them. I don't know how true this is everywhere, but I have known them to have shorter lifespans than their regular relatives (I have friends who own them). I do not agree with creating them for sale.
Does anybody know where the money goes that is made from them? That is not something I was able to find out. People took the time to copyright the fish, but I am not sure if the money from their sales goes somewhere special.

 

[picture_117]

I don't think it's bad when they are genetically altered as long as quality of life is not affected.
The thing is when you bring religion into it, ie "creator", you get another discussion. The opinion is going to vary from person to person.

 

[absolutangel04]

I don't think it's bad when they are genetically altered as long as quality of life is not affected.
The thing is when you bring religion into it, ie "creator", you get another discussion. The opinion is going to vary from person to person.

Yes, it is. But all opinions vary from person to person. I did start the thread wanting people's opinions, so I am cool with that as long as people are respectful of each other.

 

[Critterlvrok]

I think the point I'm trying to make on genetically altering a living animal/human is being missed. And mind you, this is just my view on it, everyone thinks differently.

If altering something genetically serves no purpose other than "we can do it" then what's the point? To get your name in some medical books? Seriously. You can make a monkey glow but you can't cure cancer? It's ridiculous to play creator and alter something for no benefit.

At least with stem cell research they are finding new things. I read an article a few months back that really hits home for me. When I was 15 I broke my back. I have extensive damage to my spinal cord (though I still have use of all my limbs) but I live in pain every day of my life. Just sitting here typing causes me agony, but I digress. The article was about them finding ways to heal spinal cord injuries and possibly help those who have lost the use of their limbs to regain some if not all use again.

To me that's a win. A glowing fish? Not so much.

I completely understand your point and I agreed 95%. I think genetic manipulation for monetary gain is unacceptable. Making animals that are deformed for our visual pleasure is unacceptable. However, with out advances like glofish science will not gain the necessary knowledge to make scientific leaps in areas such as cancer and spinal cord injuries. As difficult as it is for me to accept at times, scientific breakthroughs like glofish are what is going to give us the knowledge to continue cancer research. There will however, always be someone somewhere who pushes just to far. It's an unfortunate quagmire for sure.

 

[WendiDell]

It's true that baby steps in genetic splicing, like glofish may lead to larger advancements toward curing genetic diseases.
But it is also true that no matter how good the intentions of those making these advancements, there will always be the unethical few that will use those same advances for profit.
I must admit that I hate the idea of using animals for medical research. But in some instances there is no other option.
If doing genetic splicing on a Danio to make it glo, can help lead to cures in genetic diseases like CF (Cystic Fibrosis). As a Respiratory Therapist I watched to many young children choke to death to deny the need for that type of research. Even with the unethical A......'. that will take advantage.
It would be nice if we could stop personal profiting from such things. But that's not likely to happen in our capitalistic system. But this can lead to a political discussion. Which is just as dangerous as a religious discussion.

But my 2 cents on cross breeding, to obtain physical deformities for aesthetic purposes. It's wrong, it's no better than dying or tattooing a fish, especially when those deformities impact their quality of life.
As human beings we have a responsibility to the life of and on this planet.

 

[Bubble_B0y]

I like the Flowerhorn cichlid.

 

[tarpon]

I like the Flowerhorn cichlid.

Hahaha. I like the flowerhorns too.

 

[DragonFish71]

I don't think it's bad when they are genetically altered as long as quality of life is not affected.
The thing is when you bring religion into it, ie "creator", you get another discussion. The opinion is going to vary from person to person.

I used "creator" so as not to point at one religion or another. Keeping it generic.

 

[mfdrookie516]

^And within the rules