Ethics of Transgenic Pets

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.