Created via genetic manipulation using material from jellyfish, it's easy to understand why the Glofish fish sparks plenty of conversation. What do you think - should fish be genetically engineered? Should they be banned?
Are you nuts?
- Let me get this right. We are okay with permanently changing the genetic history of a species through selective breeding (balloon bellies, fan or lyre tails) or genetic modifying (GloFish, trans-genetic Atlantic Salmon) but against tattooing a few individuals?
No need to ban the glo's, just the dyed
- These fish were engineered for research to test water quality issues in the far east, the more toxins in the water, the more they glowed. These fish do not know they are different and have perfectly normal lives. When they are released in the wild, their high coloration results in almost immediate predation. I know this as I followed the research into their development, albiet from afar. I was working in the pet industry retail end and one of my suppliers had a family member on the research team. Just saying, it's harmless to the animals unlike dyes, tattoos and injections.
- —Guest RamJet
It should be banned, NOW!
- It should be banned cos it does no good for the poor fish to be injected with toxins or stripped of protective membranes. People who do this to fish or any other creature would do it to human babies if permitted to, they must be stopped immediatley.
- —Guest wardstar
They Are Bred After
- Once the first few GloFish were engineered, the colors are in their DNA. Each color can then be bred from parents. The process is harmless and the fish magnificent!
- —Guest Fish Lover
genetic vs others
- I have read lots these past few days, and I would never buy a dyed, injected or painted fish, but it seems as if the genetic altered fish which is born this way was from parents that were born this way than I guess that is alright. I do not see any suffering here. Keeping them out of wilds to me however is a different story. I can see where if released in large numbers where they could mate with unaltered of the same species, who knows then.
- —Guest Lee
It's unnatural and very unfair
- What we humans r doing? Should we call ourselves humans by harming creatures to make money.
- —Guest Zesty
No ethical issues with GloFish
- There's no reason for them to be banned at all, assuming there's no inbreeding going on from the folks distributing the little sweethearts. Painted fish, which are actually dipped in or injected with dyes, are extremely cruel. These live happily just like any other zebra fish, and I find no ethical issues with them. (Unless your religious beliefs, for one reason or another, would lead you to decide genetic engineering is intrinsically wrong.)
If you want brilliantly colorful fish for your tank, GloFish is the responsible choice. I've had a small handful of them who've lived long and happy lives alongside "ordinary" zebra danios.
- —Guest Patch
People need to reread the article
- The fist are not painted or Tattooed. They where genetically modified. You want to fight something California, you had your chance and voted to keep Genetically modified food in your stores. We all have it but you could have been the first to it. Thats where the real problem is. Cows pumped with steriods. We are all getting fatter, getting cancer and can't figure out why. Well all of our food is pumped full of GMO's from Monsanto. These fish are fine, people you need to wake up to what your eating everyday. O' vote out the republicons.
- —Guest Science guy
- If not banned they should have to post the fish is not that color normally and is dyed
- —Guest Rose
Think about it?
- After hours of research on these fish, they are not being harmed, they are not harming anything, and they hardly have any effect on something, if any at all, if eaten. I don't think that these fish are that bad...
- —Guest Guest em
Wow, so we are ignorant?
- Let's assume where this could go. Imagine a genome introduced to make glowing red people? Or High Cheek boned high metabolism people (as that seems to be desirable) how long before people start buying someone else's engineered version of right and start treading on perfection. I am not going to define the argument so you will have to think.
- —Guest clipprince
NO MORE DYING
- End the practice of chemically dying of fish. To help with this effort I REFUSE to buy ANY fish from ANY pet store selling these fish.
They are Cool
- I think they are cool. In no way have they been harmed they were genetically altered when they were eggs and it doesn't harm the jelly fish who have the gene naturally I would buy them
- —Guest guest g
- They are so beautiful, let people enjoy their beauty.
- —Guest Sandra
Of 2 minds on this
- Although genetic manipulation makes me kind of nervous, there are points in it's favor, especially with glofish;
1) The genetic modification was initially done to detect pollution.
2) Unlike dyed or tattooed fish, they can actually pass the trait on to offspring, so no further manipulation is required other than starting with a wide enough genetic base to maintain a healthy population. They can even be bred with normal danios to strengthen bloodlines.
That said, I would be opposed to genetic manipulation purely for the sake of the pet trade. Too much "wiggle" room for mistakes by the unscrupulous.
- —Guest Cholly