# "Glo-fish"



## Tino (Sep 10, 2012)

Apparently these fish are not injected with dye, thoughts?

http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=830+2855+3026&pcatid=3026

I've read up a bit and I think these fish are not yet cleared to be marketed in Canada, but if you could get them, would you?
I'm curious to see what people think about genetically modified pets.


----------



## jediwiggles (Aug 29, 2009)

*Apposed*

Seems like a geneticist was watching an episode of big bang.

It's only a matter of time but I do not support this idea.

If u want fish that glows in the dark, get a gold fish and a night light.


----------



## AquaticPulse (Jun 19, 2011)

I'm pretty sure this was happening before the big bang theory show came out


----------



## Lee_D (Jun 11, 2010)

I don't see very much different between genetic engineering and normal breeding procedures. Breeders are producing some of the weirdest creatures without genetic engineering. Who would have thought of Blue Angel Fish and Red Pleco's without splicing genes?

Lee


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2012)

Tino said:


> I've read up a bit and I think these fish are not yet cleared to be marketed in Canada, but if you could get them, would you?
> I'm curious to see what people think about genetically modified pets.


They are illegal in Canada and have been for a few years. I personally think that the ban should continue and wouldn't put them in my tank.

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/health/glofish/

http://www.glofish.com/faq.asp page search Canada

the ban is still effect


----------



## Tino (Sep 10, 2012)

Lee_D said:


> I don't see very much different between genetic engineering and normal breeding procedures. Breeders are producing some of the weirdest creatures without genetic engineering. Who would have thought of Blue Angel Fish and Red Pleco's without splicing genes?
> 
> Lee


True, but breeders are still doing it the semi-natural way of actually breeding the fish, these guys are taking genes from coral (!) and deep-water jelly fish and inserting it into the eggs. It's much more complex, and many argue immoral.


----------



## Tino (Sep 10, 2012)

thinkshane said:


> I'm pretty sure this was happening before the big bang theory show came out


Correct, Glofish came out in 2004, I think Big Bang came out in 2007


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

I think they'd be pretty cool in a specific setting. Not a planted tank though, since the purpose of a planted tank is to look _natural_.

I don't see why they'd be an environmental or ethical issue. So they were genetically engineered. Nobody was complaining when they were being used for research purposes. Now that this new strain exists, why would it be immoral to breed them?

Of course genetic engineering is something that needs to be done with caution, but a knee-jerk reaction condemning any kind of genetic engineering as immoral is just idiotic. Probably a product of bad 80's science fiction.

As for the environmental impact, these are glowing fish, not super fish. Danios are a tropical species. If the glofish dies when the temperature falls below 60F, then it's a pretty good indication that it's not going thrive in Canada.



> There were too many questions, like what happens if somebody swallows one...


What happens if someone swallows a pea puffer? We don't sell those... right?


----------



## Tino (Sep 10, 2012)

Great response from Solarz, I'm inclined to agree (if you notice, I said some people find it immoral, not myself personally)
In fact, I would buy some if they were sold here, my daughter (and my wife) would love them!
On a side-note, I am against the dye-injected Tetras


----------



## solarz (Aug 31, 2010)

Tino said:


> Great response from Solarz, I'm inclined to agree (if you notice, I said some people find it immoral, not myself personally)
> In fact, I would buy some if they were sold here, my daughter (and my wife) would love them!
> On a side-note, I am against the dye-injected Tetras


Yes, so am I. I want healthy fish that I can keep for as long as possible. I don't like seeing fish die. Dyed fish don't tend to live long.


----------



## Lee_D (Jun 11, 2010)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If they genetically engineer a fish that is appealling in the aquarium, I'm sure they will start to thrive in the aquarium environment. That is normal natural selection in a wierd kind of way. I personally don't find green danios appealing so they won't survive in one of my tanks.

Lee


----------



## Fishfur (Mar 4, 2012)

I honestly can't argue against some of these genetically modified creatures, provided the manipulation does no harm to the creature being manipulated. But I am deeply disturbed by the practice of dyeing or tattooing fish.. that is harmful to the fish and is often done to cheat consumers into thinking it's a much more valuable fish. I feel the same about the painted shells sold for those little terrestrial hermit crabs. Bad enough they are harvested from the wild, but the painted shells can't breathe, and I suspect the paint is not so good either if they ingest it.. and it does chip off, so ingestion seems unavoidable at some point.

But if a fish that has received some other species genes is healthy and can reproduce itself, I can't see that it is immoral, no more than than the research being done with stem cells is, though that is also controversial. I have a much bigger problem with the genetic manipulation of food crops.. because no one know what effects they may have on us down the road and I dislike the idea of being an unpaid guinea pig.


----------

