Ethics of Transgenic Pets

Do you think owning/making a transgenic or genetically engineered pet is wrong?

FYI, in case anyone didn't know, a transgenic organism possesses a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species using recombinant DNA technology. The transgene(s) can be from very distantly related organisms (different Kingdoms). This is not science fiction anymore-the world's first transgenic pet, Glofish (a transgenic zebrfish), has been on the market since 2003.

For those of you who answer "Yes-For Another reason"....feel free to post that reason if you desire.

I am undecided! :P

Wops I probably should have posted this in the "General Pets" forum. We get so many new forums and subforums here it hard to keep track! :)

The biggest question that will solve most of the worlds problems....

Are pigs going to fly?

Spider pig spider pig does whatever spider pig does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

The biggest question that will solve most of the worlds problems....

Are pigs going to fly?

---

Or better yet pigs that will help real envirnomental problems such as large algal blooms in lakes, river, etc.....ever hear of Enviropigs?

I think it's okay. In the future it could benefit humans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Wops I probably should have posted this in the "General Pets" forum. We get so many new forums and subforums here it hard to keep track! :)

---

Looks like some nice moderator or administrator answered my prayers. Thank you whomever you are!

BTW there is a patent to make transgenic reptiles.


See http://www.google.com/patents?id=ttq...ansgenic+snake

or

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/US20080005807.html

I think that as long as they are infertile it's fine. Who knows what impact an escaped genetically engineered pet would have on the natural ecosystem if it were able to breed.

I don't know.
I personally think that messing with these things could lead to a lot of pain to animals. If they screw something up, and it turns out bad, I really don't like that.
Also, this really bothers me about what it could do to humans. In the future if you decide to genetically modify your baby to be blond, strong, athletic, green eyed, you end up with a super race which instantly forgoes a new reason of prejudice and hate... on everyone that wasn't genetically modified.
What's even worse about this, is when people start messing with diseases. If you look at what has evolved already disease wise, all of the antibiotics are slowly becoming useless towards more and more types of bacteria as they become immune and mutate into something new.
This has a record with many types of diseases, bacterias, viruses..
If we genetically remove all of the birth diseases, something new will come. Something will mutate so that it can't be genetically removed, and it will be much worse to the point where theres no stopping it, and it can't be treated nearly as well as the previous diseases.

Wow I went slightly off topic.. but there you go. It's not all guaranteed scientific stuff, but it's a large possibility, one I would personally not like to create or take a chance for my grandchildren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

What's even worse about this, is when people start messing with diseases. If you look at what has evolved already disease wise, all of the antibiotics are slowly becoming useless towards more and more types of bacteria as they become immune and mutate into something new.
This has a record with many types of diseases, bacterias, viruses..
If we genetically remove all of the birth diseases, something new will come. Something will mutate so that it can't be genetically removed, and it will be much worse to the point where theres no stopping it, and it can't be treated nearly as well as the previous diseases.

---

You did go off topic a bit...genetically engineering humans and animals/plants are really two separate issues.

Also it seems like you are confusing genetic diseases and infectious diseases. A infectious disease is caused by a pathogen while a genetic disease is caused by inherited factors. And while there is some overlap between the two (for example there is genetic resistance to HIV strains), there is certainly a distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ncbloods

I think that as long as they are infertile it's fine. Who knows what impact an escaped genetically engineered pet would have on the natural ecosystem if it were able to breed.

---

Just to point out the issue you raise is not specific to transgenic pets....it really applies to almost any pet. Releasing any pet, especially a non-native exotic pet, can have negative impacts on a "natural" ecosystem. Though most ecologists now question the idea of a "natural ecosystem". And "natural" doesn't necessarily mean "better" in any sense.

I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reason for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...

Beside problems like that, I basically don't trust humans enough to think we should have these expanding engineering capabilities. Even if everything goes fine, what happens down the road when there's no limit to what we are capable of doing with genetics, and someone like Hitler comes along? A super race of engineered humans? Man made germs and diseases used to accomplish eugenics or genecide?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reson for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...

---

I thought the question was about transgenic pets?

edit: As far as "playing God" with animals, didn't we do that a long time ago with selective breeding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icygirl

I thought the question was about transgenic pets?

---

Yes it is. My answer was implied.
Answer: Yes it's wrong. Reason: other.

I'm undecided. I think there would be pros and cons just like anything else. I'm leaning towards the "Yes its wrong" just because tampering with nature is never good, especially if you just want a unique pet. However if this genetic engineering could improve the environment in anyway or further mankind in a benenficial way then I would be more inclined to be in favor of it.

What scares me is if this stuff got into the wrong hands. Terrorism could become very sneaky if you could genetically engineer bugs to devour a countries food source or create biological weapons from mosquitos.

I think the possibilities would be endless and thats a very scary notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I don't think it's right to mess with that kind of thing. They're already saying that man made bees could be the reason for the dramatic decline in natural bee colonies. If that's true, one of the first signs that maybe we shouldn't be messing around with genetic engineering could be disasterous on a global scale. No bees > no pollination > no new plant growth > no food > ...

---

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

Quote:

---

Beside problems like that, I basically don't trust humans enough to think we should have these expanding engineering capabilities. Even if everything goes fine, what happens down the road when there's no limit to what we are capable of doing with genetics, and someone like Hitler comes along? A super race of engineered humans? Man made germs and diseases used to accomplish eugenics or genecide?

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaniard

I'm undecided. I think there would be pros and cons just like anything else. I'm leaning towards the "Yes its wrong" just because tampering with nature is never good, especially if you just want a unique pet.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaniard

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

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. :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

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.

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I should have said engineered bees. Sorry.

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

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

---

Thanks was even having trouble finding info when I googled man-made bees. I'll check those out as well as Spaniard's link.

I think I would own a transgenic pet as long as it wasn't mutated to the point of being harmful to the animal....if later on down their lineage it was going to be harmful for the animal, then it's not a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I should have said engineered bees. Sorry.

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

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

---

I read the ENN article. I'm not sure "engineered" is the best word for the commercial bee populations they talk about.....they certainly don't seem transgenic or genetically modified using the newer techniques that frighten some people. The only "engineering" I can figure they had is domestication/selective breeding in a captive/agricultural setting. Not a very well-written science news article if you ask me.

At this point I am surprised how many unsure/undecided there are in the poll and how there are no "Yes it is like playing God" votes.

Hopefully, the poll will get more votes soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

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.

---

"Genetic engineering" just has a bad ring to it! They should call it "enhancement" or some other nice word, maybe throw in the word "natural", and people would be less opposed right off the bat. Besides, who can trust those crafty engineers?

:rolleyes:

Today I was at a Petco in downtown Chicago and was looking at some fish that I wouldn't see at my normal petco.

I saw some glofish, a good portion of which were dead and floating, extremely fast and full of energy, or hardly moving.
They were very bright and unnatural looking colors.. pretty.. but it's like eating an artificial fruit smoothie.. it tastes too fake.. and looks too fake.

And not natural. :]
Not mine:
http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2007/...er/glofish.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icygirl

"Genetic engineering" just has a bad ring to it! They should call it "enhancement" or some other nice word, maybe throw in the word "natural", and people would be less opposed right off the bat. Besides, who can trust those crafty engineers?

---

Or maybe people should just become more cognizant that the definition of a word and the connotation of a word are two different things? Furthermore, only in a technologically advanced, yet scientifically illiterate society where people are so devoid of contact with wilderness, wild-life, and nature do people give "natural" such a good connotation! (There are other deeper philosophical reasons....people's preoccupation with "natural law" in the west due to the influence of the Catholic church using the term.)

But it really boils down to people looking at people looking at so much of our technology as magic. If a technology gets labeled "black magic", many people have trouble ever seeing it rationally.

However, your point about names does ring true somewhat. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imagaing) machines are really NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Imaging) machines, but when NMR machines where applied to medical diagnosis a group of doctor clever about public relations realized the stigma behind the word "nuclear" and changed the name.

Though I don't think "enhancement" is much better. Sounds kind of tacky, like a bad boob job or some other plastic surgery. A never thought "engineering" was a bad word......since most people really on the work of civil and mechanical engineers everyday to get to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

I saw some glofish, a good portion of which were dead and floating, extremely fast and full of energy, or hardly moving.
They were very bright and unnatural looking colors.. pretty.. but it's like eating an artificial fruit smoothie.. it tastes too fake.. and looks too fake.

---

1.) Just because they are transgenics doesn't mean they wont die if not properly taken care of. Your statement implied that because the fish where genetically modified they were unhealthy despite zero evidence of this. We have all seen everything from mice to ball pythons to ferrets not properly cared for at various Petcos.

2.) The color is produced by a gene product found in nature, GFP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

I saw some glofish, a good portion of which were dead and floating, extremely fast and full of energy, or hardly moving.
They were very bright and unnatural looking colors.. pretty.. but it's like eating an artificial fruit smoothie.. it tastes too fake.. and looks too fake.

And not natural. :]

---

3.) Again natural doesn't necessarily mean good. And unatural doesn't mean bad....Many bp breeders cut eggs carefully to let the snake come come out. This is in no way bad if done properly.

4.) Do you eat tomatoes, corn, or yogurt? None of these are natural foods that ever existed in nature. In fact, the more we use up land for agriculture the less nature and wilderness we have. But maybe you do eat Teosinte instead of maize?

Many people think the lush vineyards of France are natural......but these are in no way "natural ecosystems"...they are unatural products of human engineering! They were created by man for man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

4.) Do you eat tomatoes, corn, or yogurt? None of these are natural foods that ever existed in nature.

---

I want a yogurt tree! :tears:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Do you think owning/making a transgenic or genetically engineered pet is wrong?

---

Man playing god has resulted in both modern corn, bananas, pure breed dogs and cats, and the entire ball python hobby.

I personally don't see any problem with our playing around with genetics to our heart's content. Sure we may stumble a few times, but invention is, and has never, been an exact science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

I want a yogurt tree! :tears:

---

I just want more people to vote.......a lot of views but not a lot of votes right now! Come on people voting is anonymous!!!!!!!!! I dont care what you vote for.......but if you view...vote!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

I just want more people to vote.......a lot of views but not a lot of votes right now! Come on people voting is anonymous!!!!!!!!! I dont care what you vote for.......but if you view...vote!

---

Unfortunately I think it's because it's in a much-overlooked forum that's way down in the list. I actually found it on the recent threads list on the home page...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icygirl

Unfortunately I think it's because it's in a much-overlooked forum that's way down in the list. I actually found it on the recent threads list on the home page...

---

Yea I guess that's my fault because I asked the mods to move it to General Pets rather than keep it in off-topic cafe. Blast...why do I have to try to keep things so neat and organized?

Well I guess it is good exposure for this subdivision. I try to look over at all of the sub-divisions on here....you never know what interesting things you may find.

Some pretty good videos of them out there on You Tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4HVd...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iagas...eature=related

Something called TK-1 Fish appear even more fluorescent and actually appear to be a truer "Glow in the dark" fish.....but I dont think they are available in the U.S...only in Asia right now.

https://ball-pythons.net/gallery/fil.../tk_1_fish.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08jf_...eature=related

I think that this definately needs to be researched and controlled. If we don't look into it in our country, and find out the pros, cons, and ins and outs, then other countries will do it. They could then be lightyears ahead of us if it Does turn out to be a beneficial technology to mankind, or worse, use this ability against us.

Just got some glofish......here's a pic of them in their tank under fluorescent LEDs:

https://ball-pythons.net/gallery/fil...htanksetup.jpg


And under a blue and black lights:

https://ball-pythons.net/gallery/fil...blacklight.jpg


(This really doesn't do justice for them.

How much did they go for mendel? They would be an intresting nightlight!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangs13

How much did they go for mendel?

---

I bought these as a kit from 1800GloFish. It comes with aquarium equipped with fluorescent, blue, & black LEDS, gravel, filters, air pump, some food and water conditioner as well as 6 Glofish. The whole kit was $64.99 w/o 2D shipping. The kit is pretty nice so far for a starter aquarium but DHL took forever to get it here. (Came very late the second day....~6:00pm)

Each glofish if bought separately in retail pet stores like Petco or Pet Supplies Plus costs anywhere from $6.99-$7.50 per fish. Non-transgenic wild-type zebrafish Danio rerio go for $0.98-$1.50 around here. As you can see the transgenic fish are much more expensive. A small 1.5 gallon aquarium like that goes for around ~$35. So I probably didn't save too much if anything by buying the kit, but it came nicely packed.

I've had the tank since Thrusday. One of the Green fish today started not looking so good. All of the others look very healthy. And are vibrantly swimming about the tank. I tested the ammonia levels and it was a bit high so I did a quick water change. I'm hoping too avoid "New Tank Syndrome" as best as I can. I still pretty new to this...but Danio are pretty good starter freshwater tropical fish. Right now in PA its warm, so I will also soon have to buy a small heater for the tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangs13

They would be an interesting nightlight!:D

---

Glofish like all fish need regular cycles of light and dark so you cant leave any of the lights on all night. The black light emits UV radiation which if exposed to it for extend periods of time would hurt your eyes as well as the fishes' eyes. Also the UV light may be good to kill some unwanted bacteria growth in an established tank, but nitrifying bacteria need to spread and populate themselves in a new tank and the black light left on for long might hurt this. That's the way I understand it at least.

Some of the "morphs" of zebrafish can be viewed below.....

http://www.pnas.org/content/vol105/i...889800001.jpeg

Glofish are actually genetically modified (transgenic) albino zebrafish (second one down from the far left).

Reminds me of this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Or better yet pigs that will help real envirnomental problems such as large algal blooms in lakes, river, etc.....ever hear of Enviropigs?

---

That is the coolest thing ever.
Pigs bred for their poo.