# Designer Fish - Genetic Monsters or Cool Fish?



## Calmer (Mar 9, 2008)

The title says it all. Here's the look of the copyrighted designer glofish:
http://www.glofish.com/photos.asp
And here is the information:
http://www.glofish.com/about.asp
And here a normal Zebra Danio:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...n&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=3&ct=image&cd=1

I do not like the look of them or anything unnatural that is genetically altered. Same goes with tattooing fish and freshwater Parrot Fish. Ju-jube Danios anyone? They look as tacky as the purple seahorse in the background. Please vote and let us know how you feel about this.


----------



## twoheadedfish (May 10, 2008)

As a transhumanist supporter, i find this very interesting and am rather supportive of geneticly modified animals, though more so for a scientific purpose that hobbyist/aesthetic.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

As a researcher, I support genetic modification, as it is often the best way to study biological systems and create effective models for various diseases, etc. In that regard, I am a full supporter of genetic modification.

However, as a hobbyist, I am fully against them, as genetically modifying them or tattooing, etc, for our own enjoyment does not seem right to me, as it introducing a trait that is not naturally occurring.


----------



## twoheadedfish (May 10, 2008)

tatooed fish are a whole different story. that's just cruel.


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 21, 2008)

I fully support scientific research through Genetically Modified fish, but I feel that under no circumstances should any GM fish be available for possible release into the wild. A scientist can learn specific info from a controlled GM experiment, just as he/she can learn from hybridization. We've learned a lot about skin cancers from swordtails, for example. 

I believe what we have here is a learner's hobby, but we're learning about nature, ecology, and evolution. An observant aquarist learns how where a fish comes from expresses itself in how it looks and behaves. That is cool.
There are thousands of naturally occuring fish species to learn from.


----------



## Sunstar (Jul 29, 2008)

I am against the tattoing of animals.....within reason. I myself and tattooed and when I worked on a farm, we tattooed and notched as well as tagged to identify the animal's heritage. 

Glo-fish. I am personally interested in getting these. I understand why they are being altered and the alteration is yet complete. I think as long as the creatures can switch that bright neon sign off when they are in ideal conditions. 

Adding these to the natural world where they will be used? Two minds here as I think knowing where there are toxins would be good. It sucks that we'd have to rely upon fragile living animals to tell us. But there are many areas in our world where we require animals to aid us. Seeing eye dogs, Hearing ear dogs, Horses, oxen... a few of the larger beasts. 

Again, released into the wild...as I said I am of two minds. it depends on how the creature will impact the environment. In this case the zebra danio is just a danio with a little light switch that turns on. Granted this may have an impact upon the fish as suddenly it's a lightbulb to unwanted attraction. "here I am, I'm a tasty snack!" 

Then I say leave the natural world alone. But I would usually follow that if it's not broken, then don't fix it....it is broken. 

The trait is not for our enjoyment, it's just a between stage to a completed creature.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Sunstar said:


> I am against the tattoing of animals.....within reason. I myself and tattooed and when I worked on a farm, we tattooed and notched as well as tagged to identify the animal's heritage.


It's like me tattooing you neon green all over for personal enjoyment. Oh, and there's a good chance that you'll die from it. It's quite beyond reason.



Sunstar said:


> I understand why they are being altered and the alteration is yet complete. I think as long as the creatures can switch that bright neon sign off when they are in ideal conditions.


They can't switch it on and off. It's a pigment that they express because of DNA for a particular protein that has been inserted into it's genome.



Sunstar said:


> Adding these to the natural world where they will be used? Two minds here as I think knowing where there are toxins would be good. It sucks that we'd have to rely upon fragile living animals to tell us. But there are many areas in our world where we require animals to aid us. Seeing eye dogs, Hearing ear dogs, Horses, oxen... a few of the larger beasts.


To this point, I agree with you, but I'd say that if they can be used as detection tool (like Canaries used to be used) for contaminants, then it is a good use of technology that has it's merits as well as downfalls. But they certainly have no use or business in the 'natural' world. They are lab developed, and that is where they should stay.



Sunstar said:


> Again, released into the wild...as I said I am of two minds. it depends on how the creature will impact the environment. In this case the zebra danio is just a danio with a little light switch that turns on. Granted this may have an impact upon the fish as suddenly it's a lightbulb to unwanted attraction. "here I am, I'm a tasty snack!"


Although I'm sure they would never do well, as they would be snacks as you say, but no genetically modified organism (GMO) should be knowingly or willing released into the environment without a specific goal (ie targeted eradication of a pest using another organism), and even then it would be highly questionable.

All in all, we cannot live with out genetically modified organisms in this day and age. So much of our understanding of biological function relies on genetic modification. Hardly a paper is published with out some basis of a genetic model (at least in biological sciences). It's just too good of a tool to not use.

But like many things (but not all) we develop, the use of it outside of it's original intention becomes a problematic area when the proletariat gets a hold of it.

Anyways, that's enough from me, I'll get off the soapbox. I don't like em


----------



## Sunstar (Jul 29, 2008)

the turning on and off: They're aiming for that end. It's hasn't happened yet. 

I am not sure neon green would suit me.... But I want to get a couple more tats....Starscream on my leg perhaps, and my late iguana on my back.


----------



## twoheadedfish (May 10, 2008)

anyone else a trans-humanist (related to this thread)?

there's a little more to it than this, but it's an interesting read none the less:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism


----------



## I_dude (May 9, 2008)

My only question in all this is how do you prevent GMO's from entering the natrual world.
Its quite difficult to control I would think/guess despite a scientists best efforts - organisms are good at doing what they do best - breeding or spreading in what ever fashion possible to ensure survival of their species.

But mine is only a media fueled opinion formed by movies like Jurrasic park (Life always finds a way  )so take it for what its worth.


----------



## twoheadedfish (May 10, 2008)

I agree, I dude, but in some cases it's almost better for GMO's to be "released" into nature - at least, politically and econically (that's saying nothing for the environmental impact, though). 

What i mean is, take Monsanto, a company that's GM'd crop seeds and provided them to farmers in SA. The GM'd seeds are mules, unable to reproduce. as the farmers become more dependent on GM'd seeds, the companies profits rise. If the seeds were able to propogate, an enormous, morally questionably corporation may lose control over hundreds of farmers who Monsanto is profiting off of. 

That's sort of avoiding the real question here, but i still find it interesting.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

I am not against designer fish when it comes to something they are born with as glofish are. Although admittedly, Im not a huge fan of the deformed fish that come out of centuries of line breeding in China and Japan (thinking goldfish and parrotfish mostly). Tatooing and injecting dyes etc. I am 100% against because it harms the fish and usually shortens its lifespan.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Cory said:


> I am not against designer fish when it comes to something they are born with as glofish are. Although admittedly, Im not a huge fan of the deformed fish that come out of centuries of line breeding in China and Japan (thinking goldfish and parrotfish mostly). Tatooing and injecting dyes etc. I am 100% against because it harms the fish and usually shortens its lifespan.


With that said, are you against poodles or bulldogs? I'm fairly certain those comes from centuries of line breeding.

On an overall note - just leave stuff the way it is (humans too...actually especially humans). Don't the fish look cool enough as is?


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Im not against those fish, just not enthralled with the idea of fish that can barely swim and often ends up floating upside down due to swim bladder problems. As for dogs, all breeds of dog we have today are the result of line breeding, but most, as far as I know, are not born with genetic deformities that make it difficult for them to live so I wouldn't equate the two. Similarly, most fancy guppies are the result of line breeding but with the exception of those that have been too heavily inbred, most do just fine.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Cory said:


> Im not against those fish, just not enthralled with the idea of fish that can barely swim and often ends up floating upside down due to swim bladder problems. As for dogs, all breeds of dog we have today are the result of line breeding, but most, as far as I know, are not born with genetic deformities that make it difficult for them to live so I wouldn't equate the two. Similarly, most fancy guppies are the result of line breeding but with the exception of those that have been too heavily inbred, most do just fine.


Almost every purebreed dog line has distinct genetic problems associated with the breed. German shepards for example:
http://www.dogbiz.com/dogs-grp7/germ-shep/german-shepherd-health-issues.html

Bettas and guppies also are bred to have huge tails in some cases. And in the 'best' of these examples, their tails are so large, they can barely swim and must be isolated or they cannot compete for food.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

> Almost every purebreed dog line has distinct genetic problems associated with the breed. German shepards for example:


That is true, but I'm talking about issues as serious as the goldfish with twisted tails that can barely move and that often as not have shortened lifespans due to the traits they were selectively bred for. Furthermore, the conditions dogs often develop are not always there, they are just common whereas many of the designer fish mentioned are all born in that fashion. Obviously none of this is exhaustive, there are always special situations but I do think we're comparing apples to oranges here, not to mention getting a bit off topic.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Cory said:


> not to mention getting a bit off topic.


Pretty much each post gets farther from the opinion poll. Anyways, back on topic, and nothing more: I don't like em


----------



## planter (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't mind them. Not my style though. I don't see them any different then any other fish that's been modified for our pleasure. As long as their healthy and not suffering I really don't see the problem.

Kids seem to go nuts for them. Anything that can get kids around fish tanks and keeping fish is fine with me.


----------



## Sunstar (Jul 29, 2008)

To go onto the Selective breeding aspect here. Cherry Shrimp are not wild shrimp. they are selectively bred by breeders who have dedicated their time to isolating a trait and making it more promanant...like these dogs, and fish like betta. 

However....I am dead set against cutting off the tails of fish, such as the bleeding heart fish.... That's horrible. 

WIth that said, I have been in a position where I have docked tails of swine. But I also understand the reasoning for docking tails of swine is to prevent the animal's pen mates to chew on each other's tails. it happens. I also admit the animals, other than the boars, don't have much space. 

I would not mind selecting a few individuals of fish and trying to strengthen a trait I like....the trait I am after in anything is purple  I love purple.


----------



## Calmer (Mar 9, 2008)

Off topic can be good and sometimes opens up to new ideas.  It seems most people agree that it is okay to bend genetics as long as the fish are not harmed or discomforted in any way and that the genetically modified fish do not get out into the real world. As humans we have been modifying the environment and the animals to suit ourselves since our ancestors stood upright. The next threat will be nanobots on the loose and infecting our bodies. That will happen in October 2016. Ooops! But now I am offtopic lol


----------



## twoheadedfish (May 10, 2008)

Calmer said:


> Off topic can be good and sometimes opens up to new ideas.  It seems most people agree that it is okay to bend genetics as long as the fish are not harmed or discomforted in any way and that the genetically modified fish do not get out into the real world. As humans we have been modifying the environment and the animals to suit ourselves since our ancestors stood upright. The next threat will be nanobots on the loose and infecting our bodies. That will happen in October 2016. Ooops! But now I am offtopic lol


apparently possibly as early as 2010. if the nanobots don't get us, that universe ending large hadron collider will.


----------



## BillD (Jun 5, 2006)

twoheadedfish said:


> What i mean is, take Monsanto, a company that's GM'd crop seeds and provided them to farmers in SA. The GM'd seeds are mules, unable to reproduce. as the farmers become more dependent on GM'd seeds, the companies profits rise. If the seeds were able to propogate, an enormous, morally questionably corporation may lose control over hundreds of farmers who Monsanto is profiting off of.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Mosanto seeds do propogate and cross with genetically pure plants to create modified seeds. If that happens to you, Monsanto will sue you. There is a case that has been going on for a number of years, where Monsanto has ruined a farmer whose rape seeds became contaminated with Monsanto seeds. The Monsanto seeds are resistant to Roundup, and Monsanto sends helicopters around and drops Roundup on suspect fields. If the plants don't die, then you have Monsanto contaminated seeds, and they will take legal action. If they do die, your out that much of your crop. Monsanto has never lost a court case to my knowledge. So, Monsanto doesn't lose control over farmers by contamination, but gains more. Of course the other question is now, all genetically pure strains are in jeopardy.


----------



## Mr Fishies (Sep 21, 2007)

There's a report from the UK I read of GMO rape crossing with a distant relative that's a weed and also with some sort of turnip IIRC that have both shown to be resistant to herbicides.

I do agree that much good can come from the science and technology, but the possible bad is just as powerful if not more so. It is very much a double edged sword. Whether you consider things like DDT, Thalidomide, our recent history is marked with "innovations" that turned out to be mistakes, some with deadly consequences not evident until years down the road. If we rely on GMO crops and livestock in order to produce enough food to feed ourselves, what happens if we find 20 years from now that the corn, carrots, chicken and cows we are eating are killing us or causing third arms or stubs for legs...and there are no "originals" to revert to? Is anyone keeping a "Noah's Ark" of pre-GMO organisms just in case we're making mistakes?

As the recent Lionfish article thread showed, we can screw things up by transplanting natural organisms outside their domain - if we start dropping pesticide resistant, super fast growing, and other GMO organisms in nature...eeesh.

As aquarium keepers, we are aware that there is a limit to the number of fish that can be kept in an aquarium of a given size. If this GMO work is being done to meet food demands of a growing world population, perhaps more thought should be devoted to looking at our planet in the same way - after all, there is nobody to do water changes for us or change filter media etc should we soil our habitat too much.

Oh and BTW...I don't like the idea of GMO fish for fun either...forgot to say.


----------



## Calmer (Mar 9, 2008)

> Is anyone keeping a "Noah's Ark" of pre-GMO organisms just in case we're making mistakes?


Yes luckily there finally is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault


----------



## Shattered (Feb 13, 2008)

ameekplec. said:


> But they certainly have no use or business in the 'natural' world. They are lab developed, and that is where they should stay.


I think that is the simplest and best way to express my viewpoint as well. Bravo.,


----------

