Glowing Fish

[dan]

Does anyone know where I can buy one of the new genetically
engineered flourescent zebrafish. I understand that they are
supposed to be coming to the USA for retail soon, but I'm really
anxious to get one soon. Is there anyway that they can be imported?
Does anyone know when they will reach the states? I think this is the
coolest product the aquarium hobbiest has seen in years. If you have
any info please e-mail . ---

[richard reynolds]

> "Ron Hansen" > wrote in message >
> > Why? These fish aren't being harmed (unlike "painted" fish or
> > "Jelly-Bean" fish). Their ancestors are being genetically altered as
> > eggs in a test tube. From that point on, they're bred like and treated
> > the same as any other farm-raised fish. (I'll bet that every fish in
> > your tank is farm-raised.)
> >
>
> You're making a few assumptions here.

seems to me like you are making a few assumptions also ???

> A: These fish are not comparable to dogs. Higher life forms are less likely
> to interbreed, plus, St Bernards, to use your example, were bred over time
> to bring out natural desired characteristics. The zebrafish are being
> *genetically* modified. This is not the same thing. Call me a purist, but
> I'm in this hobby because I like nature, and like fish. I don't want a
> slammed, dago'd, neon pink car, and I don't want a flourescent danio,
> either.

these fish cant interbreed, and no matter how much "time" it takes its still genetic
breeding, breeding dogs with qualities that are desired and removing those from the gene
pool that lack those qualities. the list of animals and plants that have been genetically
adapted by humans alone is long, and the negative results are short purist or not means
nothing at all! you dont like it dont buy them!!! and just because you dont want one
doesnt mean I wouldnt.

> B: Although the genetic tampering will result in the majority of the fish
> being sterile, the danger remains of the genetically modified fish
> infiltrating natural stock. Yes, it can and does happen, and many marine
> researchers agree with me.
> Quote from a fishkeeping mag:

sounds like majority == assumption that some are not this isnt the case of a warm water
fish bread for cold water it doesnt fit either the danger of a non sterile fish getting
out is fairly low it might happen, I'd like to see real proof of it happening and 40 year
old data isnt going to cut it, these things are not done using 40 year old technology

> "And that is the scenario that worries British aquarium enthusiasts. 'One
> idea being explored is to add genes - taken from cold water fish - that will
> allow tropical fish to live in unheated aquarium,' said Derek Lambert,
> editor of Today's Fishkeeper. 'Just imagine what would happen if they got
> released. You could end up with strange coloured GM tropical fish in our
> waters.' "

a "You could end up with strange coloured GM tropical fish in our waters." interesting
like all the fish are not strange colored to begin with, ive read some of Derek Lambert's
stuff, even he has changed his mind in the past, some of it was flat out wrong, not that
anything I say is more or less than things HE says. though everything in and out of this
hobby evolves thats life.

> C:

--
richard reynolds

[Brian C. Attwood]

richard reynolds wrote:
> these fish cant interbreed, and no matter how much "time" it takes its still genetic
> breeding, breeding dogs with qualities that are desired and removing those from the gene
> pool that lack those qualities. the list of animals and plants that have been genetically
> adapted by humans alone is long, and the negative results are short purist or not means
> nothing at all! you dont like it dont buy them!!! and just because you dont want one
> doesnt mean I wouldnt.
>

There is a big difference between selective breeding for a particular
naturally occurring characteristic (which is basically a form of guided
evolution in a way) and taking the genes from one species and inserting
them into another. For example, a tomato and a fish would never
naturally exchange genes, nor could they forcibly be bred together, yet
there has been talk about inserting the antifreeze genes from fish (or
was it amphibians?) into fruits to protect them from frost. I think the
possibility of unintended consequences rises when such genetic meddling
is done. GM animals can effectively become a non-native species and
there are plenty of examples of how things can go wrong with those.
That said, I think there are some compelling uses for GM especially in
agriculture, but that it should not be used flippantly like in the case
of glowing fish.

[Dinky]

"Brian C. Attwood" > wrote in message >
> There is a big difference between selective breeding for a particular
> naturally occurring characteristic (which is basically a form of guided
> evolution in a way) and taking the genes from one species and inserting
> them into another. For example, a tomato and a fish would never
> naturally exchange genes, nor could they forcibly be bred together, yet
> there has been talk about inserting the antifreeze genes from fish (or
> was it amphibians?) into fruits to protect them from frost. I think the
> possibility of unintended consequences rises when such genetic meddling
> is done. GM animals can effectively become a non-native species and
> there are plenty of examples of how things can go wrong with those.
> That said, I think there are some compelling uses for GM especially in
> agriculture, but that it should not be used flippantly like in the case
> of glowing fish.
>

Exactly. Genetic modifications are fine IMO to do such things as prevent
humans from being suceptable to smallpox, or make corn resistant to disease,
but creating a new species of creature simply to fill a market niche and
make more money is just plain wrong. It's abuse of an unbelievably powerful
new technology that we don't yet understand the consequences of.
And to comment of the previous assertion that the species won't
interbreed, I call BS on that. If I have learned one thing in my studies
about the scientific world, it's that *nature finds a way*. It is foolish to
believe that we, humans, have the power to overcome the power of nature. We
simply don't know what we're up against. Some species of animals for
example, actually *change gender* in order to procreate in absence of one
gender or the other. To say "it can't happen" is egocentric and ignorant. It
happens. It has happened. It will happen again.

[Cichlidiot]

Dinky > wrote:

> "Brian C. Attwood" > wrote in message >
<snip>
>> That said, I think there are some compelling uses for GM especially in
>> agriculture, but that it should not be used flippantly like in the case
>> of glowing fish.
>>

> Exactly. Genetic modifications are fine IMO to do such things as prevent
> humans from being suceptable to smallpox, or make corn resistant to disease,
> but creating a new species of creature simply to fill a market niche and
> make more money is just plain wrong. It's abuse of an unbelievably powerful
> new technology that we don't yet understand the consequences of.
<snip>

Okay, obviously you two haven't even bothered to look into the history of
this fish. It was not created by marketting "gurus" (same can't be said
for the parrot fish for example). It was created by scientists, in the
pursuit of research. It probably wouldn't have even made it to market had
not some fish exporters seen the scientific research and went "ooo,
nifty". Now you might fault the researcher for working with the marketing
people once they caught wind of his research, but at least the original
intention for creating this fish was for scientific reasons.

Here's some links on the whole deal:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,978391,00.html
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/6/26/72442/4245
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11307166&dopt=Abstract
http://publish.gio.gov.tw/FCJ/past/03052382.html

Other transgentic scientific work with zebrafish:

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/centers/2000news/ctrnws2.htm
http://www.mcdb.ucla.edu/Research/ShuoLin/resource.html
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9712/18/t_t/greenblood.fish/index.html
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/biology/bdol98/updates/archives.php?iRef=30

So keep in mind when you keep ranting against genetically modified fish
that the issue here isn't the fish itself, GM fish have great scientific
uses, but the marketing of the fish to the public. Don't throw the baby
out with the bath water. There are many valid scientific applications of
this technology. Marketing it to the public is the issue.

Also, as for concerns of this fish in the local waterways.... it glows.
Remember why albino/yellow morphs are so uncommon in the wild? Their color
makes them easy for predators to spot. I'd imagine the same would hold
true for glowing fish, probably more so. Doesn't excuse any aquarium fish
making it into the natural waterways, but it is a more pragmatic view.

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>Are you objecting to the fact that they don't appear in the wild? If
>so, then I hope you don't like dogs. Every single dog species has been
>bred (genetically manipulated) by humans to enhance specific traits. A
>Jack Russell Terrier and a Saint Bernard don't resemble wolves very
>much, do they?

Fallacious argument. Selective breeding within species is not the same
as modifying one species with genetic material from an unrelated one.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>Get over it. Genetic modification using knockout genes isn't all that
>different from Mendelian genetic modification using selective breeding,
>be it animal or plant.

It's completely different. Selective breeding enhances or promotes
traits that already exist within the species. Genetic modification of
the sort we're talking about involves taking genetic material from one
species, and inserting it into a completely unrelated species.

>The methods are different, but the result isn't very.

Mendel never selectively bred a glowing bean.

>I suspect that you are afraid of genetic manipulation. MUTANT ANTS FROM
>OUTER SPACE are not going to start attacking.

No indeed, they aren't, since we're not talking about mutation, ants
or outer space. However, our science is in its infancy where genetic
manipulation is concerned, and we don't have the wisdom or knowledge
to predict the full results of these manipulations.

>Let me remind you of a small bit of genetic engineering that has
>touched your life directly. Have you ever had a flu shot? Have
>you ever wondered how the vaccine is produced?

Vaccinations are developed and handled under controlled situations,
are comprised of inert (dead) organic material, and aren't likely to
be offered for sale in pet stores.

>> the danger remains of the genetically modified fish
>> infiltrating natural stock.

>I can see the bio tope would be threatened if the danios glowed
>in the dark. Of course, you'd have to take the farm-raised
>glowing danios back to, where, the Amazon(?) in order to
>infiltrate the stock.

The problem isn't limited to merely damage to the original stock, but
also to genetically altered non-native invasive species. We already
have a problem with people releasing non-native species for reasons of
gross stupidity. Let's not add to it by tossing genetically altered
species into the mix as well.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>My point is: They are both radical changes from nature.

Again, that's incorrect. Selective breeding, while it has had some
unfortunate applications (such as the unhealthy dog breeds you
mention) is not a radical change from nature. It is using what nature
has already provided within a species. It is not in any way the same
as inserting material from a different species, possibly even one in a
different phylum or taxonomic kingdom.

>So, in your mind selective breeding is ok, but genetic
>modification is not?

>You accept one because it is all around you, but you reject the
>other because it is new. That is hipocritical.

Straw man. You are attributing motive which is not accurate.
Acceptance of existing selectively bred species has no bearing on
discouraging genetically altered species. Even if one accepts your
argument that selective breeding has the same cachet as genetic
alteration, I would counter that just because my house has already
been robbed doesn't mean I shouldn't put a lock on the door.

>You are condemning something with no known harm (glowing fish)

Lack of known harm does not equal or imply lack of harm.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>This genetic splicing is speeding up evolution by a phenomenal amount.

Not quite accurate. It is certainly speeding up *change*, but
evolution isn't merely change - it is change in response to
environmental pressure.

>Now, if luminescence already exists in fish, and danios don't already
>have it, it is obviously not an evolutionary advantage.

And you have just demonstrated clearly how splicing does *not*
represent speeding up of evolution.

>the relative lack of luminescence at the surface suggests that it is a
>liability. Therefore why do you assume that an accidentally released
>fish would survive and prosper? I would assume that it would be eaten
>the first night.

It would depend a great deal upon where it was released? And since you
cannot predict every environment such a release might occur in, your
argument fails.

>The risk from GM animals is lower than that from selectively bred
>animals and phenomenally less than the simple introduction of existing
>creatures into new biotopes.

The risk from GM animals has yet to be assessed. And even if one
accepts that it is a lower risk, it doesn't matter. I am at a lower
risk from holding a firecracker tightly in my fist than a stick of
dynamite, but neither is a very good idea.

>Who are you to decide when genetic engineering should or should
>not be used? Who died and left you in charge?

The same question could be asked of you. Or me.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with GM work in carefully
controlled circumstances for specific controlled applications. I'm
dubious of the wisdom of releasing genetically modified creatures as
pets to the general population.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Brian C. Attwood]

Ron Hansen wrote:
<snip>
> Less difference than you think. Are you familiar with parallel
> evolution? It refers to similar structures arising in different
> species/orders/genuses. I'm too tired right now to find some references
> for you, but there are mutations with similar results in disparate
> creatures.
>
> This genetic splicing is speeding up evolution by a phenomenal amount.
>
> This particular modification (glow in the dark fish) isn't even that
> different from the currently existing bioluminescent fish. The means of
> the luminescence is different, but the result is the same.
>
> Now, if luminescence already exists in fish, and danios don't already
> have it, it is obviously not an evolutionary advantage. In fact the
> relative lack of luminescence at the surface suggests that it is a
> liability. Therefore why do you assume that an accidentally released
> fish would survive and prosper? I would assume that it would be eaten
> the first night.
>
This would seem to contradict your statement that genetic splicing is
speeding up evolution if you are introducing traits not naturally
seleted for. I agree that a glowing fish would probably be eaten the
first night. A tropical fish engineered to live in cold water might
fair better though.

>
>>For example, a tomato and a fish would never
>>naturally exchange genes, nor could they forcibly be bred together, yet
>>there has been talk about inserting the antifreeze genes from fish (or
>>was it amphibians?) into fruits to protect them from frost.
>
>
> A. Tomatoes are not sentient.
> B. Is this less of an abomination than seedless grapes?
>
I was not saying it was an abomination, but that it was an example of
genetic engineering being much different selective breeding. I am not
particularly concerned whether the GM product is sentient or not,
provided the sentient creature is not suffering.

>
>
>>I think the
>>possibility of unintended consequences rises when such genetic meddling
>>is done. GM animals can effectively become a non-native species and
>>there are plenty of examples of how things can go wrong with those.
>
> The risk from GM animals is lower than that from selectively bred
> animals and phenomenally less than the simple introduction of existing
> creatures into new biotopes. Examples of the last are:
>
> Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes
> Armadillos in Florida
> Rats in Mauritius which wiped out the Dodo.
>
Did I not say "..become a non-native species and there are plenty of
examples of how things can go wrong with those."? Thank you for the
examples. Oh, and I guess if you say the risks are less from GM animals
then they must be. I still think that introducing a property in an
animal or plant that had not been seen before in a biotope carries more
risk than trying to bring out a naturally occuring one.

>>That said, I think there are some compelling uses for GM especially in
>>agriculture, but that it should not be used flippantly like in the case
>>of glowing fish.
>
>
> Why? Who are you to decide when genetic engineering should or should
> not be used?
>
> Who died and left you in charge?
>
You did not hear I was put in charge? Hmm...look for the word "think"
in my sentence above. It means I was expressing my opinion.

[Brian C. Attwood]

Ron Hansen wrote:

>>>Who are you to decide when genetic engineering should or should
>>>not be used? Who died and left you in charge?
>>
>>The same question could be asked of you. Or me.
>
>
> Not really. I'm not the one calling for the government to bad the
> importation of these animals, Vincent and Brian are.
>

Wow! Talk about putting words in my mouth. Care to quote where I said
that?

[Racf]

"Ron Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> "Brian C. Attwood" > wrote:
>
> >My main point though was that GM is
> >often way more unnatural than selective breeding.
>
> So, in your mind selective breeding is ok, but genetic modification is
> not?
>
> What makes selective breeding ok?
>
> Is it right to breed dogs with respiratory problems just for their
> looks? (Bulldogs)
>
> Is it right to breed dogs with chronic back problems just for their
> looks? (Dachshund)

Dispite their long wienne appearance, they are not subject to chronic
back problems. Bad example, showing that you are just making this
up......but thats ok.

>
> Is it right to grow seedless grapes?
>
>
> Flip side of the coin
>
> Is it right to genetically modify a mosquito to be immune to malaria
and
> introduce it into the wild to outcompete the natural version that
> harbors the world's deadliest killer of humans?
>
> Is it right to genetically alter a pig so that it's tissue is not
> rejected by humans, thus giving those in need of a heart transplant
true
> hope?
>
> Is it right to genetically alter a strain of mouse to be highly
> susceptible to cancer so that medicines can be tested on it?
>
>
> My point is: They are both radical changes from nature. Neither is
> better or worse than the other, just different methods. You accept
one
> because it is all around you, but you reject the other because it is
> new. That is hipocritical. You are condemning something with no
known
> harm (glowing fish), while condoning something else with proven harm
> (poor-health dog breeds).

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>>Selective breeding [...] is not a radical change from nature.

>Neither is a luminescent fish. There are millions of bioluminescent
>fish in the ocean depths.

None of which came about as the result of a fish breeding with an
invertebrate.

>I gather from your arguments that you are against the results
>and not the methods.

I'm sorry you've misread my arguments so badly.

>Au contraire. If you buy a bulldog, you are encouraging the breeding
>of them. If you buy a new breed, you encourage that new breed and any
>other new ones that breeders can develop.

Perhaps, but do you know the person you're responding to has bought a
bulldog? If not, then you're once again attributing unsupportable
motive (straw man) to him.

>Acceptance of existing selectively bred species has a great deal of
>bearing on discouraging altered species (genetically altered or
>selectively bred).

Acknowledging that one cannot change the past is no excuse for a
careless approach to the future.

>Taking your attitude would end all advancement in the sciences.

My attitude is that scientific advances must be tempered with wisdom
and caution. Creating new animals from dissimilar species and offering
them for sale to the general consumer shows neither trait.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[coelacanth]

>"Ron Hansen" >
>>The zebrafish are being *genetically* modified.
>Get over it. Genetic modification using knockout genes isn't all that
>different from Mendelian genetic modification using selective breeding,
>be it animal or plant.

Ron

Excuse my ignorance, but can you describe a natural
biological process which can target and knockout a
single gene? I never ran across that process in my
graduate work--all I ever heard about were _random_
mutations, transposons and retroviruses which have
_random_ effects. This contributes to population
variability, the sine non qua of evolution.

And could you define the term "Medelian genetic
modification"? Mendel never worked with genes--
he worked with phenotypes.

I think you strongly believe what your saying, but
you need to come up with arguments which are based
in reality.

I'm still waiting to be convinced that a very useful
scientific tool should be used so indiscriminately. But
if there's a buck to be made... *sigh*

-coelacanth

"Ron Hansen" >
>The zebrafish are being *genetically* modified.
Get over it. Genetic modification using knockout genes isn't all that
different from Mendelian genetic modification using selective breeding,
be it animal or plant.

[Dinky]

"Donald Kerns" > wrote in message
...
> <snip contentious bickering>
>

Despite the fact that I have already said my piece, and opted to sit the
rest out, and also despite my respect for you, I must disagree with your
request. This discussion is very interesting, with very good points being
made by most people involved on both sides of the argument. It's the whole
reason NG's exist, IMO.

billy

[Dinky]

"Donald Kerns" > wrote in message
>>
> My biggest issue here is that this thread is occurring in the
> marketplace group

Quickly conceded as well. I should have set the followup to freshwater.misc
on my first reponse.

>
> I'm being thin skinned, and will avoid this thread further and spend my
> time laughing at the www.userfriendly.org take on the same topic.
>

Thanks for the link:)

[Donald Kerns]

Dinky wrote:

>>
>> I'm being thin skinned, and will avoid this thread further and spend
>> my time laughing at the www.userfriendly.org take on the same topic.
>>
> Thanks for the link:)

Make sure you start at the beginning.

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030729

-D
--
"There is nothing so strong as gentleness, and there is nothing so
gentle as real strength." St. Francis de Sales

[richard reynolds]

> Ron Hansen > wrote:
>
> >This genetic splicing is speeding up evolution by a phenomenal amount.
>
> Not quite accurate. It is certainly speeding up *change*, but
> evolution isn't merely change - it is change in response to
> environmental pressure.

sure were the pressure and we said change :)

> >Now, if luminescence already exists in fish, and danios don't already
> >have it, it is obviously not an evolutionary advantage.
>
> And you have just demonstrated clearly how splicing does *not*
> represent speeding up of evolution.

many species have evolved and died off because of it, it to is nature

> >the relative lack of luminescence at the surface suggests that it is a
> >liability. Therefore why do you assume that an accidentally released
> >fish would survive and prosper? I would assume that it would be eaten
> >the first night.
>
> It would depend a great deal upon where it was released? And since you
> cannot predict every environment such a release might occur in, your
> argument fails.

quite possible, but doesnt yours also, you have pretended that a dano hasnt already been
released to that water, at least in all the waters near me, one would become fast food, in
this instance its just a glowing dano

> >The risk from GM animals is lower than that from selectively bred
> >animals and phenomenally less than the simple introduction of existing
> >creatures into new biotopes.
>
> The risk from GM animals has yet to be assessed. And even if one
> accepts that it is a lower risk, it doesn't matter. I am at a lower
> risk from holding a firecracker tightly in my fist than a stick of
> dynamite, but neither is a very good idea.

its been assessed people are just ignoring the data, or pretending it doesnt fit

--
richard reynolds

[richard reynolds]

"Brian C. Attwood" > wrote in message
...
> This would seem to contradict your statement that genetic splicing is
> speeding up evolution if you are introducing traits not naturally
> seleted for. I agree that a glowing fish would probably be eaten the
> first night. A tropical fish engineered to live in cold water might
> fair better though.

this HAS GOT to be on a case by case basis, or we would be really asking for it. and it
already is done on a case by case basis there is nothing new there. only that one case has
been allowed to be released to the public if only semi released evil animal brains kitten
looks :) sounds fun lets do it

> Did I not say "..become a non-native species and there are plenty of
> examples of how things can go wrong with those."? Thank you for the
> examples. Oh, and I guess if you say the risks are less from GM animals
> then they must be. I still think that introducing a property in an
> animal or plant that had not been seen before in a biotope carries more
> risk than trying to bring out a naturally occuring one.

and here is half the problem "I still think" while I dont blame you for thinking, and this
isnt an attempt at it, only that in thinking you are bringing things into the mix that in
the end do not matter. we humans have been releasing insects intentionally that have been
GM'd so they cant breed, its not that there F going to M or M going to F or any of the
mix, they do not have the genes to reproduce. its happening now, it happened last summer,
...... going a few years back possibly '95 (not for sure exactly but one could do research
if one cared on the exact date)

--
richard reynolds

[richard reynolds]

--
--
richard reynolds



> Vaccinations are developed and handled under controlled situations,
> are comprised of inert (dead) organic material, and aren't likely to
> be offered for sale in pet stores.

its a funny thing you have said that, because today my local petco is selling vaccinations
for dogs and cats :)

> The problem isn't limited to merely damage to the original stock, but
> also to genetically altered non-native invasive species. We already
> have a problem with people releasing non-native species for reasons of
> gross stupidity. Let's not add to it by tossing genetically altered
> species into the mix as well.

first off before making my remark its only to comparing the actions of stupidity
identified by yourself and agreed upon by me:) of people releasing non-native species I
would welcome these being stupidly released vs many other releases, as these would make a
fast dinner :) if a fish doesnt get them something else will, remember there carrying a
sign that says "HEY IM OVER HERE EAT ME:)"

[coelacabth]

Citations please. (Peer reviewed scientific journals only!)

-coelacanth

> its been assessed people are just ignoring the data, or pretending it
doesnt fit
>
> --
> richard reynolds
>
>
>

[richard reynolds]

> >We can make an educated guess [...] It should look and act like
> >a regular danio, just glowing. This is not much of a risk.
>
> "Guess", "should" and "not much"? Your level of certainty isn't very
> inspiring.

this is easy to test, and easy to confirm, should it be done before releasing sure, does
it delay release yea, significantly not even.

> >Suppose a danio [...] Does this fish pose a special risk?
>
> While I enjoyed reading all your carefully selected benign-sounding
> examples of GM fish, I note, once again, that you're missing the
> point. The point is that this is new technology, in a very complicated
> field, in which we have only the beginnings of knowledge. We simply
> aren't at the stage where we can answer the question with certainty.

are you sure we cant answer that question about this fish, remember its not the same if
you mix something different, then the argument has to be done all over again.


<snip>

> >I don't accept your arguments as facts. You have not proven them.
> >Based on that, your conclusion is not valid. You are welcome to
> >convince me otherwise.

I agree that conclusions have been made with un proven data its kinda a fact of life, itll
happen here, and in many other places, time and time again, as long as we cant tell the
future, and even then itll probibly happen again and again :)

> Let's review them again, then. Tell me, without resorting to
> misdirection, where you see non-factual points.

factual points or not, doesnt mean they shouldnt be released, there are factual points to
and against many things, and yet things happen think mtbe as a fuel additive

> 1) We do not have the experience to know if GM animals pose a
> special risk. -- Do you assert that GM is old science, the ins and
> outs of which are fully understood?

are you sure we dont have the experience to know if this GM animal poses a special risk,
where have you proven it? where have you suggested with some kind of backup that we dont
know enough? what do you consider a special risk, one could pretend that these bread like
rabbits did no harm except to feed every racoon on the W coast, one could conclude that
there that is a special risk, however the same thing could happen with my trash can if I
forget to put the lid on! I dont assert anything, but as new sciences go, this doesnt mean
we dont know what will go on with this fish (not that I ***know***, but i have to say ive
made a reasonable arguement for there release to the trade), ive been in this discusion
before, and i maintain that certain things happen one is that the decision must be on a
case by case basis

> 2) There is no compelling reason or need to sell them as pets at this
> time. -- What *compelling* reasons do you see? Please don't insult us
> all by answering "profit" or "people want them". Those are
> self-serving reasons, not compelling ones.

under that kinda on track but slightly skewed *sounding* logic there is no compelling
reason to sell AA batteries, as long as we allow AAA and C batteries, AA is not better
than C or AAA, you want more power go with C want smaller go with AAA, yet AA are very
very common and sold all over the place, is the argument to not sell something because it
has no compelling reason ??? if so many things can be removed from the market, and could
have been a while ago, but there not!!! profit is a compelling reason, but take that off
the list, the other side does it even need a compelling reason, I dont think so myself.
so in direct answer no I dont have a compelling reason, and feel I dont need one! and
would like to see some proof that I need a compelling reason before something before its
sold on a market, Ive got a camera that takes a very specific battery, it has no need to,
there are 10 other batteries the same size, same voltage, same amperage, the same!!! and
yet there round shaped like a N sized battery and mine is square go figure.

> 3) If experience ultimately shows that GM animals do not pose a risk,
> no harm will have been done by waiting. -- Identify the harm that will
> result if GM fish don't go on the pet market immediately.

ill leave that one alone, except to state that its not significant considering the rest of
your arguments and my responses. as it seems to sum a few of them up.

> 4)Once GM animals enter the market as pets, that action cannot be
> undone. -- Detail your plan for tracking down every GM fish that has
> been sold, spawned, placed in aquarists tanks, or released into the
> wild.

to divide my response to your statement by parts

awe spawned, remember case by case basis, and steralized, I think someone still needs to
prove they can breed w/o the ability to breed.

show me 1 piece of even a hint to a semi good reason to track them down <super
bold>IF</super bold> :) there in an aquarists tanks.

as for tracking a glowing fish in the wild, humm sounds kinda easy to me doesnt it to
you??? "hey is that a glowing fish?? NO its just nuclear waste" also the initial cost
might give a spin on its release into the wild, though might not, and I couldnt prove it
either way :)

> 5) If we discover afterwards that there are risks inherent in GM
> animals, it will be too late to put that genie back in the bottle if
> they've been sold as pets. -- Again, how will you undo it if you turn
> out to be wrong?

I tend to be a disbelever in a lot of things, and so the best i can say is what will prove
it to you

> --
> www.ericschreiber.com

--
richard reynolds

[Eric Schreiber]

"richard reynolds" > wrote:

Forgive me if I don't answer most of your points, but the simple truth
of the matter is that your writing style is so disjointed that I have
no idea what point you're attempting to make in most cases.


>are you sure we cant answer that question about this fish, remember
>its not the same if you mix something different, then the argument
>has to be done all over again.

On the contrary, I'm quite certain that with more experience in
genetic modifications, conducted safely in the lab, we will be able to
determine the risks involved in any particular GM animal.


>are you sure we dont have the experience to know if this GM animal
>poses a special risk, where have you proven it?

Here is an important thing to be aware of when debating - one cannot
prove a negative. The claim has been made that these animals are safe.
The burden of proof lies with the positive claim.

Understand that I'm not saying these animals *are* a risk. I'm simply
observing that they haven't been proven safe, and I'm taking a logical
position based upon that fact. I *want* these fish to be proven risk
free, because I think it would be cool to have a tank full of them.
But I'm quite content to wait until the ramifications of this new
science are better understood.


>show me 1 piece of even a hint to a semi good reason to track them
>down <super bold>IF</super bold> :) there in an aquarists tanks.

Because there is no guarantee that they'll remain in the aquarists
tanks. Remember the recent problem with snakeheads in a Maryland pond?
They didn't appear there spontaneously. The were released by an
ignorant aquarist.


>as for tracking a glowing fish in the wild, humm sounds kinda easy
>to me doesnt it to you?

Most of the rivers in my part of the country are murky. You couldn't
see the light of a hundred watt bulb two feet below the surface. You
certainly wouldn't be able to make out the dim glow of a GM fish. One
of those murky rivers is the Mississippi. It's 2300 miles long. If
someone dumped out a tankful of GM fish in it, do you really think it
would be easy to find any, much less all of them? Hardly!


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>In context, "The risk from GM animals is lower than that from
>selectively bred animals" simply means that selectively-bred animals
>generally have better evolutionary survival traits than GM animals.

Cite please. Especially since this in direct contradiction to your own
observations about the health problems of selectively bred dogs.


>What reasonable doubt? "I'm afraid of this new science." is not
>REASONABLE doubt. It's irrational doubt or uninformed doubt. Or it's
>"God didn't make 'em that way" religious outrage masquerading as doubt.

Despite your continuous attempts to portray objections that way, you
are incorrect. It is not fear, nor is it religious outrage. It is
simple caution in the face of a very complex science that is in its
infancy.

Perhaps you should give up putting words in others' mouths, inventing
absurd straw-man positions for them, and demonizing their arguments
with loaded terminology. You might have better luck.


>Chemicals? The fish have genes from a jellyfish. Jellyfish are eaten
>by other fish that can withstand the stingers

I didn't mention stingers, just the chemicals that produce the glow.
And it should be pointed out that the fish that eat jellyfish are
marine animals, who have *evolved* to eat jellyfish. Not freshwater
river and pond animals that haven't encountered one in potentially
millions of years.


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Ron Hansen > wrote:

>Fear of the unknown is not "reasonable doubt".

Tell you what, Ron. When you come up with a new argument, preferably
one that doesn't involve misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint, let
me know. Meanwhile, how about we don't bother continuing to repeat the
same things back and forth?


--
www.ericschreiber.com