Mad scientist, Genetic Engineering, Playing God, Blah, Blah, Blah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Putting a Pastel ball python with a spider ball python to make a python that exibits both the traits of the spider AND the pastel is mearly selective breeding, using ingredients that nature itself has provided. I feel very strongly that people making bumble bees should never be refferred to as a mad scientist or playing god ect.

---

I don't think you should pick and choose. What's the difference if the mutation is done naturally or artificially? What if I injected a normal python embryo with the genetic material in order to get a bumble bee? Would that make it wrong? What if I manipulated the genetic material to get rid of spider wobble or caramel kinks? In the end, it's all genetic manipulation whether it is done naturally or by more advanced methods.

There will always be people out there that will refer to morph breeders as "mad scientists", but I couldn't care less. In the end, you have to decide what is morally right for you to do. However, to chastise science and scientific methods on one hand while defending your own actions because it's "natural"; you become what you criticize.

Mike with you it’s always Black or White when in reality a lot of things are more in the grey area.

It’s always one extreme to another and what we do as breeders is somewhere in between.
Are we playing god or are we mad scientists? Well it depends on one’s definition of those terms.

Of course we are playing god to a certain extent, we do when we produce 2, 3 ,4 ,5 etc genes animals unless you really think designer combos are as common in the wild than they are in captivity.

When using ultrasound machine to know if pairing should/can be stop or not is also playing god to an extent.

When animals emerge out of the eggs and fails to eat on it’s own and we assist them for a few weeks or even a few months we are playing god too to a certain degree as well giving a chance to an animal that would die in the wild.

Breeders put every chances in their corner (pairing, ultrasound, assisting hatchlings etc) to achieve the best outcomes possible, best possible looking animals possible and ensure that those animals are thriving, and that is no longer just letting nature play it’s course but us manipulating nature to a degree.

Now are we producing GloPython yet? Of course not but don’t think it’s not something you won’t see in the future, you already see it in fish so who knows?

Now what I really can’t wrap my head around is why someone gets overly sensitive when words like playing god or mad scientist are used but I guess that’s for another debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Injecting a snakes embo with something to make the snakes glow in the dark... THAT would be an example of being a mad scientist or genetic engineering or playing god. THAT IMHO would be crossing the line... doing something we have no right to do. That deserves the use of terms such as mad scientist, genetic engineering, playing god, ect.

---

Glow in the dark ball python? I'll take six.

Lol nice avitar deborah :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

I don't think you should pick and choose. What's the difference if the mutation is done naturally or artificially?.

---

There is no difference. Taking the sperm from a spider and injecting it into the pastel to make her gravid is fine. That is still just selective breeding via invetro fertilization. That is not genetic engineering. Generic engineering would be adding an extra ingredient like glow in the dark genes that did not come from a naturally occurring ball python.

Nursing a sick baby to health is not what I am talking about. Using sonograms to fine tune selective breeding is not what I am talking about.

The reason I am "so sensitive" is I have strong beliefs against genetic engineering. It is becoming more common for people to refer to what we do as being genetic engineering and it just isn't an accurate term to describe what we do.

People can say what they want about what we do, but when it's a cat or dog...Suddenly it's okay? Look at all of the dogs and cats bred for specific traits and purposes. IMO it's no different than what we do. It just always seems to be okay when it has fur.

Is it possible that you are blending geneticaly engineered with geneticaly modified? Cause between those two there is a difference.. We do not make gmo snakes.. But i belive we genetically engineer them..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemmBalls

People can say what they want about what we do, but when it's a cat or dog...Suddenly it's okay? Look at all of the dogs and cats bred for specific traits and purposes. IMO it's no different than what we do. It just always seems to be okay when it has fur.

---

Kinda like when all these people make MUTTS and call them designer dogs and charge hundreds, even thousands of dollars for them? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simplex

Is it possible that you are blending geneticaly engineered with geneticaly modified? Cause between those two there is a difference.. We do not make gmo snakes.. But i belive we genetically engineer them..

---

No.

Here is a definition straight from Wikipedia:


Biology portal •v · d · e
Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest. The introduction of new DNA does not require the use of classical genetic methods, however traditional breeding methods are typically used for the propagation of recombinant organisms.
An organism that is generated through the introduction of recombinant DNA is considered to be a genetically modified organism. The first organisms genetically engineered were bacteria in 1973 and then mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994.
The most common form of genetic engineering involves the insertion of new genetic material at an unspecified location in the host genome. This is accomplished by isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence containing the required genetic elements for expression, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Other forms of genetic engineering include gene targeting and knocking out specific genes via engineered nucleases such as zinc finger nucleases or engineered homing endonucleases.
Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including research, biotechnology, and medicine. Medicines such as insulin and human growth hormone are now produced in bacteria, experimental mice such as the onco mouse and the knockout mouse are being used for research purposes and insect resistant and/or herbicide tolerant crops have been commercialized. Genetically engineered plants and animals capable of producing biotechnology drugs more cheaply than current methods (called pharming) are also being developed and in 2009 the FDA approved the sale of the pharmaceutical protein antithrombin produced in the milk of genetically engineered goats.

Things like this are always where do you want to draw the line and everyone wants to draw it somewhere different.

I could argue that nature provided us the resources to do the gene splicing, all we did is put it together and make it happen. There is no such thing as playing god, we are here and able, this is nature at its finest.

I could argue that designer morphs are unnatural and most morphs are defects that wouldn't survive in the wild. The fact that you keep your animals in a cage is playing god, controlling the life of another.