Ethics of Transgenic Pets

[Mendel's Balls]

The fish are cool looking, but nature has already made thousands of fish that look cooler than those. Plus I'm sure there are better ways to detect pollution than engineering man made fish and releasing them. I'm sure there will be a few benefits along the way, but I don't think they outweigh all the negative possibilities.

I'm not sure if there is a better way to monitor pollution, I'm no expert in this area--Are you?

I know that many people use non-man made organisms to monitor the health of ecosystems. It's called bio-monitoring.

[Spaniard]

If humans didn't tamper with "mother nature", then we would have no pets or technology. If we leave things up to "mother nature", why do you assume we would be better off? Chance-filled Mother Nature doesn't look out for us or any other species for that matter.

Tamper is too broad a word and I guess I shouldn't have used it. Tampering with nature has proved to be very beneficial for humans. Many of the alternate energy sources out there harness nature to produce for humans. This is great and I'm all for positive advances in technology that harness nature.

When we as humans start to play mix and match with the genetic make up of things in nature, how can we possibly foresee the outcomes? Even in controlled laboratory settings things have gotten out into the public that shouldn't have.

Even if the produced outcome is what scientist hypothesized, what about long term effects? How do we know glofish aren't going to evolve and wipe us out as a result of our genetic altering?

I never said we'd be better off if we left things up to mother nature, but I do think mother nature would be better off if we left it up to her.

Chanced filled mother nature may not look out for us, but that does not mean we should not look out for her.

It could be very beneficial or it could be devastating; when given those two evils I'd rather give up the benefit than experience the devastation.

[Mendel's Balls]

When we as humans start to play mix and match with the genetic make up of things in nature, how can we possibly foresee the outcomes? Even in controlled laboratory settings things have gotten out into the public that shouldn't have.

Like what? Name a genetically modified organism and provide some references on how it damaged the environment. Bt corn supposedly damaged the caterpillars of monarch butterflies, but that has since been disproven. See http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.full

Even if the produced outcome is what scientist hypothesized, what about long term effects? How do we know glofish aren't going to evolve and wipe us out as a result of our genetic altering?

There is a harsh reality of the modern, technological and global capitalistic society we live in. We often introduce new technologies before evaluating their full impact on our lives and health.

Take cell phones for example. It is really unknown about their long term impact on human health and cancer risk. Yet many of us use them constantly and some even let there very youngest use them frequently.

Furthermore, we have let synthetic organic chemicals out which are more likely to harm us since our bodies and other creatures bodies have no evolutionary history in which they encountered these synthetic substances. That's why they are often so hazardous and toxic!

Furthermore, That why there is a whole new branch of chemistry called Green chemistry to find industrial chemicals that are more like the chemicals in our bodies and found in the natural world.

Transgenic organisms, on the other hand, usually involve gene products that are part of the natural world. That have a place in the tree of life that is evolution. So I think the situation you describe above is very, very far-fetched.

I never said we'd be better off if we left things up to mother nature, but I do think mother nature would be better off if we left it up to her.

Depends what you mean by mother nature. If you mean wild-life and living things, then I would say mother nature is better than humans in killing off species and thinning biodiversity. After all, something like an estimated 99% of species were extinct before humans even evolved.

Another example, the Sahara use to be a lush forested paradise full of life during a period called the African Humid Period. Then
the climate changed rapidly from non-man made causes. Some anthropologists even think this is the basis for the Garden of Eden story in the bible.

Chanced filled mother nature may not look out for us, but that does not mean we should not look out for her.

I can agree with this to a certain extent but it is hard since "mother nature" is such a vague term itself. And whatever way we look out for her is likely to be very anthropocentric and based on human values and aesthetics. Not that that is a bad thing.....

[PythonWallace]

Never heard of this...is this just hearsay? A few reliable references would help here.

I just saw this about a week ago. It was probably a headline on Yahoo news since I don't know where else I might have seen it, but I'm sure it is hearsay since they don't seem to really know what's causing the disappearance of all the bee colonies, plus I didn't even read the article. I used it more as an example of some possible things that can go wrong. Still, you can't argue that if man-made bees did actually have something to do with the mass dissappearence of U.S. bee populations, that that alone could potentially lead to more disasterous effects than any good that using engineered bees has done.

There are good and bad uses for any technology. Since most powerful technology has the potential to use both--I dont think this is a realistic or good reason for not utilizing a technology for good. The technology will probably be used for evil, but that will happen in secret rogue and government labs anyway. Why not use the technology for good as well?

That's all true, I just have the opinion that certain technologies have more potential for serious harm, like nuclear arms and genetic engineering.

You assume that the technology can only be used to make an organisms look different or "cool". What if the technology could be used to decrease the chance of cancer by 30% in dogs, for example? Or make hypoallergenic animals as many groups are trying to accomplish?

I'm aware that it's not only being used to make things look cool. If that's all it could be used for I might not have any problems with it. Like I said, I'm sure there are positive and benefitial achievements in it's use, but I just worry about the potential for disasterous misuses and side effects.

And dont underestimate the importance of appearance in our culture. Sometimes it can have far reaching consequences. The development of bioluminescent Christmas tree that expresses a luciferase would probably cut down on fires around Christmas time.

I'm more worried about Uncle Jim with the turkey fryer.

I'm not sure if there is a better way to monitor pollution, I'm no expert in this area--Are you?

No, not at all. I don't argue the reality of benefits that come from genetic engineering, I just worry about the potential for disasterous misuses and side effects.[/B]

I know that many people use non-man made organisms to monitor the health of ecosystems. It's called bio-monitoring.

[Mendel's Balls]

Another question...that might hit a little closer to home for everyone on here...how can we possibly predict all possible economic and ecological outcomes of importing exotic snake species into the US?

I don't think many people on here realize that snakes often carry nasty parasites (ticks, protozoans) that can harm domesticated farm animals that play a huge part in many of our agricultural businesses and in many people's livelyhood (cattle ranchers, farmers, etc) Furthermore, our domesticated animals have no exposure or evolutionary history with these parasites.

Funny how it is that many people so opposed to genetically modified food and animals despite undergoing numerous safety trails from governmental regulatory bodies think that they are unsafe and messing too much with mother nature. But soon as you talk about restricting their rights to import animals they say the government is stupid and has too many laws and regulations.

See Rodents as intermediate hosts of Hepatozoon ayorgbor (Apicomplexa: Adeleina: Hepatozoidae) from the African ball python, Python regius? There are several links to other articles in there as well.

I'm not for any outright bans on the reptile trade...I think with proper risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis... sensible restrictions can be made to lessen the risks, protect other industries such as agriculture, and maintain the growth of the reptile industry.

But I do find it funny how people like to come up with all encompassing bans for things that they are not willing to give a chance too! Or willing to take the time to learn about and understand! Whether it be reptiles, snakes, genetically modified food, transgenic pets, etc! Just like distaste for all snakes is not a good reason to ban them, distaste for GMO is not a good reason to ban all of them!

[Mendel's Balls]

Still, you can't argue that if man-made bees did actually have something to do with the mass dissappearence of U.S. Bee populations, that that alone could potentially lead to more disasterous effects than any good that using engineered bees has done.

I'm not even sure what you mean by man-made bees.

[PythonWallace]

Another question...that might hit a little closer to home for everyone on here...how can we possibly predict all possible economic and ecological outcomes of importing exotic snake species into the US?

I don't think many people on here realize that snakes often carry nasty parasites (ticks, protozoans) that can harm domesticated farm animals that play a huge part in many of our agricultural businesses and in many people's livelyhood (cattle ranchers, farmers, etc) Furthermore, our domesticated animals have no exposure or evolutionary history with these parasites.

Funny how it is that many people so opposed to genetically modified food and animals despite undergoing numerous safety trails from governmental regulatory bodies think that they are unsafe and messing too much with mother nature. But soon as you talk about restricting their rights to import animals they say the government is stupid and has too many laws and regulations.

See Rodents as intermediate hosts of Hepatozoon ayorgbor (Apicomplexa: Adeleina: Hepatozoidae) from the African ball python, Python regius? There are several links to other articles in there as well.

I'm not for any outright bans on the reptile trade...I think for proper risk assessment and cos- benefit analysis... sensible restrictions can be made to lessen the risks, protect other industries such as agriculture, and maintain the growth of the reptile industry.

But I do find it funny how people like to come up with all encompassing bans for things that they are not willing to give a chance too! Or willing to take the time to learn about and understand! Whether it be reptiles, snakes, genetically modified food, transgenic pets, etc! Just like distaste for all snakes is not a good reason to ban them, distaste for GMO is not a good reason to ban all of them!

I see what you're saying, but as far as outlawing the importation of ball pythons to prevent bringing in foreign germs and parasites, it's almost a non-issue as long as we keep bringing in boats with rodent, fish, mollusk, insect etc stowaways from every continent, animal and produce food products from all over the world, lumber, foreign and American vacationers from all over the world, etcetera, etcetera. Look at all the invasive species and diseases we have now, and the harm they've already caused, probably 99% from methods other than the pet trade.

And I'm not arguing with you, Mendel. I know when I'm out matched, and I know you are a lot more informed on these topics. I'm ignorant to a lot of this, but I still have opinions.

[PythonWallace]

I'm not even sure what you mean by man-made bees.

I should have said engineered bees. Sorry.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=engineered+bees

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/37759

[Spaniard]

What I was thinking of when I mentioned stuff getting out was this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in578660.shtml

I remembered this story about vials of the bubonic plague being misplaced by a lab. The article above references it. It was many years ago and I couldn't find an article before the whole government scandal events mostly detailed in the one above.

My point being nothing is ever 100% secure.

I know your citing skills are amazing so I'm not going to debate with you. I'm undecided on the topic; but it doesn't sit right in my stomach.

[Mendel's Balls]

I see what you're saying, but as far as outlawing the importation of ball pythons to prevent bringing in foreign germs and parasites, it's almost a non-issue as long as we keep bringing in boats with rodent, fish, mollusk, insect etc stowaways from every continent, animal and produce food products from all over the world, lumber, foreign and American vacationers from all over the world, etcetera, etcetera. Look at all the invasive species and diseases we have now, and the harm they've already caused, probably 99% from methods other than the pet trade.

Good point.

And I'm not arguing with you, Mendel. I know when I'm out matched, and I know you are a lot more informed on these topics. I'm ignorant to a lot of this, but I still have opinions.

No problem...arguing and discussing in a civil manner is what these forums are about......I may challenge you....but I only do it to learn and help others learn new things. I know it can make me seem like a bully at times when I am trying to argue my point of view...but I really do enjoy learning about other people's viewpoints and am thankful when anyone on here is willing to discuss topics like this one in a civil manner. Again I often learn things in the process.