Glowing Fish

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 . ---

"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

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.

"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.

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/high...978391,00.html
http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/6/26/72442/4245
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&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/...ish/index.html
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/science/b...es.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.

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

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

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

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

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 a

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.