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

I can't stand when people refer to what we do as being a mad scientist, genetic engineering, playing god, or anything similar.

These are all very negative terms and for starters I think they are completely and totally inaccurate in regards to what we do. All we are doing is taking the ingredients that nature has provided us (in this case different ball python pattern and color traits) and selectively breeding them with one another.

We aren't cloning anything. We aren't using microscopes and needles to change anyting. We aren't doing anything scientific to alter the naturally occuring trates that we are working with.

Now I am right on this, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. :D So let the debate begin.

I'm concerned that perhaps you started this to target a specific member and get them riled up, based on comments made in other threads. :(

I really don't care what people call it, as long as they are enjoying what they are doing and they're making pretty snakes. I didn't get into ball pythons caring what anyone else's ego is about. I just look after me and mine, and if I make critters that other people want, then that's just icing on the cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

We aren't cloning anything. We aren't using microscopes and needles to change anyting. We aren't doing anything scientific to alter the naturally occuring trates that we are working with.

---

Yes, but how many in the reptile community wouldn't be opposed to using microscopes and needles to get that Super Pastel Clown Champagne Whirly Wizz Bang Ball if they could?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

Yes, but how many in the reptile community wouldn't be opposed to using microscopes and needles to get that Super Pastel Clown Champagne Whirly Wizz Bang Ball if they could?

---

I'm sure that there are some who would, but for me, that would just take the fun out of it.

The "mystery" of what's going to hatch out is part of the fun of breeding, at least it is for me.

I am more thrilled about the clown that I PRODUCED than I would have been had I just flat out purchased one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

I'm sure that there are some who would, but for me, that would just take the fun out of it.

The "mystery" of what's going to hatch out is part of the fun of breeding, at least it is for me.

I am more thrilled about the clown that I PRODUCED than I would have been had I just flat out purchased one.

---

I agree, but it seems that Mike is trying to make it seem that many breeders are above using other techniques other than altering the "naturally occurring traits". I think a lot of people in the reptile community would gladly use advanced methods to get the same results. Also, I'm not sure it wouldn't be just as rewarding to the "mad scientist" to create a special morph using genetic engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

I agree, but it seems that Mike is trying to make it seem that many breeders are above using other techniques other than altering the "naturally occurring traits". I think a lot of people in the reptile community would gladly use advanced methods to get the same results. Also, I'm not sure it wouldn't be just as rewarding to the "mad scientist" to create a special morph using genetic engineering.

---

Good point - that I missed!

We are to a certain extent doing all the above.. IMHO. However i dont see an issue with it... But id like to see it stay where it is and not go any further.. Genetically engineered crops started as cross breeding strains and progressed to chemically engineering them with specific traits. I dont want to see this happen. But we are taking rarely naturally occuring morphs/mutations and breeding them in VERY controlled settings to achieve a specific result. This to me is science and gentics.. Call it what you will. But we are breeding based on the end result. Choose are pairings based on what we want to come out.. This control to me is where some can see the negative..

Unless we start housing our snakes communinly in 10,000qt tanks with many females and males.. We are doing something... And to me it can be refered to as all the above terms...

Just my .02

And I 1000% bet that if zoomed released an all in one pregnancy style test that determins if a het is actually a het.. They would be rich as heck!!

Selective breeding is NOT being a mad scientist/playing god/etc., whether you're doing it with snakes or doing it with dogs. The AKC wouldn't be here without selective breeding.

I don't see it as playing God personally. He put the genes in there; we're just bringing those hidden traits to light so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

I'm concerned that perhaps you started this to target a specific member and get them riled up, based on comments made in other threads. :(

---

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

---

Agreed.. I can see how this was brought over from the other thread. But its a standalone discussion all in its own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xdeus

I agree, but it seems that Mike is trying to make it seem that many breeders are above using other techniques other than altering the "naturally occurring traits".

---

Close.

I am saying that all I am doing is selectively breeding naturally occurring traits. This by definition is NOT genetic engineering. I absolutely believe that many breeders "are above" resorting to the use of science to alter the naturally occurring traits. I for one think it would be flat out wrong to do, and would look down on anyone who did it.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

LOL, conspiracy theory huh?

I'm concerned that perhaps you are putting a little too much thought into this. It is an interesting subject that should be an interesting conversation. Kinda the point of a forum right? :gj:

---

No sir - I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

You and snake lab were pretty aggressive with each other in his thread - it was a natural leap.

I wouldn't be opposed to artificial insemination with snakes(same as is used with dogs and horses). This is again, just using what is already IN the snakes, and selectively breeding to achieve the breeder's "ideal python". It's not combining ball pythons with any other genes, only using the genes already present. It's doing a breeding loan, just not moving the actual male.

All domestic animals are produced by artificially manipulating which animal breeds with which and which babies are kept and which culled from breeding. All domestic breeds, dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys... even llamas and camels, all made by selective breedings.

I'm not certain what anyone would consider genetic alterations in ball pythons. If you inserted outside genes(like the mentioned glow-in-the-dark idea) then THAT would be altering the genes. Breeding snake to snake is not genetic engineering. It's selective breeding.

If there could be genetic tests that showed errors like kinking genes, spinning genes, fatal genes or could show het traits, then those would be good. Those do not alter the animal, merely show what is already IN the animal.

Using science to combine the genes in embryo? That's artificially selective breeding and still not changing the genes of the snake, just one step past artificial insemination.

Using science to add in genes outside of the python sub-species? That's genetic engeneering and is just about the same as hybrid breeding, but can be taken way past hybridization. It would also be extremely expensive.

Technically if you consider breeding morph combos to be "genetic engineering" then ANY breeding of any animal in captivity is "genetic engeneering" even if it is normal to normal. After all, YOU are choosing which normals to breed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

You and snake lab were pretty aggressive with each other in his thread - it was a natural leap.

---

:) fair enough. For the record, this was not to upset anyone.. or attack anyone. It was to address something I have seen a lot of lately, and feel strongly about...

Now back to the conversation... play nice kiddies.

Im with mike. I hate that term sooo much its not funny, i went camping this weekend and i had a dog breeder who crosses 6 difffrent types of dogs with poodles to make ugly hybrids. He said he was a breeder but i was playing god. After i knocked him over the fire pit for that verbal assult, I explained nice n loud that we r finding naturally occouring genes in our animals not crossing animals of different size, wieghs, body types and hair/fur to make something new. Then we talked about how he could be a mad scientist for have 3 ginger children. He shut up after that and apologized the next day. Chalk one for the snake breeders.

(should also add out fished him, out drank him and beat him in lawn darts and horse shoes ;) so he wasnt impressed with me to start with.)

We are selective breeders.

Genetic Engineering.. Here is the definitions taken directly from www.dictionary.com

genetic engineering 
noun Genetics .
1. the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population.
2. a technique that produces unlimited amounts of otherwise unavailable or scarce biological product by introducing DNA isolated from animals or plants into bacteria and then harvesting the product from a bacterial colony, as human insulin produced in bacteria by the human insulin gene.

I think the problem is people misread number 1. the key term is "direct manipulation of genetic material". This isn't talking about breeding a pastel ball python to a spider ball python to make a bumble bee ball python. This is talking about using a scientific method to manipulate or change the spider gene itself to make some new man made gene....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

We aren't cloning anything. We aren't using microscopes and needles to change anyting. We aren't doing anything scientific to alter the naturally occuring trates that we are working with.

---

Speak for yourselves! Muahahaha! :rolleye2:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/m...Farnsworth.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Cavanaugh

Genetic Engineering..

I think the problem is people misread number 1. the key term is "direct manipulation of genetic material". This isn't talking about breeding a pastel ball python to a spider ball python to make a bumble bee ball python. This is talking about using a scientific method to manipulate or change the spider gene itself to make some new man made gene....

---

I dunnnnno... Seems like were splittin hairs.. I read and reread that and i still see how it fits with what we do...

Direct manipulation... If u control exactly what genes are present or not present in a population that seems like direct manipulation to me...

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.

Saying that breeding different morphs together is "genetic engineering" is akin to me telling anyone who has children that they "genetically engineered" them.

Of course, everyone has a line they draw. "I'd never assist feed a hatchling, if it dies, it was meant to die." "I'll never cut eggs, if they don't pip they weren't meant to live." "I'll never own a mixed breed dog, they're mutts." "I'll never own a purebred dog, they're all inbred"

It's always easy to be kennel blind and think that YOUR way is the right way. It is right FOR YOU. It does not mean that everyone else is wrong.

In opinions, there is no right or wrong. If you don't like morphs, then don't buy them. What is wrong is when someone starts talking nastily about someone else's opinion or belief. Saying that someone breeding a morph combo is wrong and unnatural, while keeping your snakes and breeding them is rather ridiculous. Your snakes would not be together if you didn't pick them out. "Those morphs wouldn't combine in the wild" is an invalid argument unles you're allowing your snakes to wander an area and pick their own mates, while also being exposed to parasites and predetors etc. Any pet is not "in the wild" and therefor is "unnatural". So it's merely where YOU draw the line at "unnatural".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

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.

---

OOOOOH SNAP

OH NO HE DIDNT

Haha but seriously..valid point

Quote:

---

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

---

It's actually nothing like playing God. If that is the case, is adotping a child playing God? You are basically taking a child out of foster care and giving them a chance. Is protecting an endangered species playing God, no it isn't. Playing God would be more like recreating an extinct animal. Alot of you misconstrue what Mike is talking about, what we do is selective breeding. So much different from playing God or Geneteic engineering, by the way poeple selective breed. We choose to be with someone and "mate" to ones that have attractive traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MidSouthMorphs

It's actually nothing like playing God. If that is the case, is adotping a child playing God? You are basically taking a child out of foster care and giving them a chance. Is protecting an endangered species playing God, no it isn't. Playing God would be more like recreating an extinct animal. Alot of you misconstrue what Mike is talking about, what we do is selective breeding. So much different from playing God or Geneteic engineering, by the way poeple selective breed. We choose to be with someone and "mate" to ones that have attractive traits.

---

Of course a child would not be in a cage(hopefully :rolleyes:)

I agree with both points. I think it's important to conserve and protect the species we love. I have my pets because I feel I can give them the best care. Part of that IS playing god a little. If I chose, my ball python would die. I could let him starve, or die of dehydration. He could drown. All of this is under my control. He could also live the best life he could possibly live, given proper heat gradients we fully control, given food to let him thrive, and given veterinary care to ensure he gets to live a long healthy life. We get to make every decision for our animals. Same goes for houseplants. I could go pluck my succulents right now, force them to reproduce by using cuttings/leaves, or over water them.

A child gets to grow up, make decisions, move out, run away, make friends, meet others, etc. It's a very different situation. Yes you could force your child to starve to death, keep him in a cage, etc, but good lord, SANE people don't do that.

I think that's why I consider most animals to be more 'pets' and less 'companion animals'. A pet is an animal that an owner is fully responsible for. It could die in our care, or thrive in our care, and that is fully in our hands. That's why it is our responsibility to provide the best care possible for an animal. In the wild, this creature might survive, it might not. In a cage, if you give it bad care, it WILL die. We need to be responsible for our actions like that. That's why ignorance is unacceptable in reptile care, and we need to constantly be learning. We can't force them to be in a cage if we are going to end up depriving them of something needed for their survival. If we are going to give them a better life than they would have...then by all means, take care of your pet :) and have fun!

Playing god just means the control. yes there are more extreme ways to do it(genetically forcing genes together, putting hybrids together in a test tube situation that would normally fail even for hybrid breeders), but this is a lesser form of that complete control!


Not against breeding or caring for captives, but I do think that we need to be aware of the control we have over a living thing. :P

Lmao this thread is pretty entertaining. Whatever you want to call it, its all splitting hairs. The number one dominant gene is the normal gene. Weve seen naturally produced morphs such as albinos which albinos are consistant in alot of species in the wild of various animals. But 90% of morphs we have today were created by breeders selectively putting genes together to produce new animals. So that would not technically be considered genetic engineering by dictionary definition. But it would be closer to playing god if you first believe in god and not evolution.( I AM NOT TOUCHING THAT DEBATE. ) we are creating characteristics in an animal that nature did not create and in most cases would never be able to create. So this would be closer to playing mad scientist as well. Unless you want to jump all over the , we arent using science argument, and mike if you started this thread with me in mind im flattered, if ya didnt then i guess im just arrogant lol either way a very entertaining thread.

If you want to try and make us as breeders into something other than breeders, how about artists? To be sure, those who just toss any old morph in with six normal females to pump out babies don't really get to fit in that category, and I think those who breed more for the fascination and joy of coaxing a species to reproduce in captivity often lean more towards the biologist/scientist (not "mad," just scientist) aspect of things.

However, for those of us who are doing this with a specific goal, a vision for an animal that we want to see that doesn't quite exist yet -- if we want to be something loftier than just breeders, how about artists? ... I think that's what draws me towards breeding animals as opposed to just owning or collecting them -- I can love and appreciate the animals I have, but I also get to think of them as a means for creating something new and exciting. If you wanted to, you could take that creative aspect and use it to call yourself an artist.

... This thread is about semantics, ultimately; what name, other than "breeder," do we get to rightfully call ourselves ... Some other points have been raised, though, that I think justify a new thread ... :P

I would take the "mad scientist" term with a grain of salt. Kevin Mccurley refers to himself as this. I personally see that one as more of a playful title. I do agree with the playing God and other comments as being more critical.

Genetic engineering, sounds fun. Where do I sign up?