» Site Navigation
0 members and 766 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,910
Threads: 249,115
Posts: 2,572,187
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, coda
|
-
BPnet Veteran
Genetically Engineered Snakes
I'm wondering; if someone were to produce an 'artificial' ball python, a morph that can't occur in nature, would you be interested in owning one?
I know that there are many people opposed to hybridization of ball pythons with other snakes, so my first instinct is that an artificial morph wouldn't go down very well, but what do you think?
Scientists have put the gene for fluorescence (which came from jellyfish and coral) into things like pigs, cats, mice and plants. They've put a gene for pest-resistance that originally occurred in bacteria into corn and rice plants. With that being said, it wouldn't be very difficult to put a gene that produces blue or red coloring (from, say, a blue tree monitor and a blood python, respectively) into a ball python.
So, lets say that tomorrow someone came out with a solid-blue ball python that they produced by splicing tree monitor genes into it. The gene is simple-recessive inheritable. What would happen?
0.1 07 Normal "Bigsnake"
1.0 08 Lesser "Congo"
1.0 12 Piebald "Pixel"
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
I personally wouldn't like it. That's cheating in my book. Ball pythons have given us enough to work with genetically, and who knows what's out there that hasn't been discovered yet. Keep it natural in my opinion.
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
Provided it didn't give the ball some wierd personailty or abnormal / unuseual issues of any kind, I would totally want a blue colored BP! But that's just me. Be sides, the less that is given to chance i.e het the more affordable they would be. I personally wouldn't breed a geneticly made BP to a naturally bred morph though.
Last edited by boyyoyo; 06-17-2010 at 11:25 PM.
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
If it works, why not! Not as fun, though.
Most questions are answered here.
GENERATION 25:
The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
1.0 '10 cinnamon bp
1.0 Coluber constrictor constrictor
1.1 gargoyle geckos
0.2 normal bp
0.1 beautiful normal bp RIP
1.0 '04 het pied bp RIP
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
I would say no. I am totally against the production of hybrids in captivity. There are too many irresponsible people that would allow them to fall into the wrong hands, where they would pollute gene pools.
...and incidentally, just because a genetically engineered "mutant" like a blue ball python could appear to not be altered physically and behave normally does not mean it is not altered negatively in other areas.
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
If the ball python was healthy (neurologically and physically) then I can't see the problem. People already breed "natural" mutations that are known to have ill effects - caramels & spiders. And I really don't think a lot of the mutations we create in captivity are "natural". When I look at some of these animals showing 4+ mutations I don't see something natural, do you? These morphs are genetic abnormalities that we decide are valuable. We, in a way, are already genetically engineering ball pythons. We may not be using test tubes in a lab, but we are building unnatural animals through breeding.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to ColdBloodedCarnival For This Useful Post:
-
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
 Originally Posted by KingBowser
...and incidentally, just because a genetically engineered "mutant" like a blue ball python could appear to not be altered physically and behave normally does not mean it is not altered negatively in other areas.
True, but this can be said of naturally-occurring mutations as well. I would hazard to guess that whatever genetic mutation causes the spider pattern knocks out something important in the neurological system as well. I'm sure there are other morphs that also have "occult" deficiencies, it just either A. doesn't affect them enough to manifest clinically, or B. they're dying a little young, but nobody's caught on yet because the mutations are so new (mostly <10 years old, while the theoretical lifespan of the ball python is 20+).
In fact, depending on how the mutation was engineered, and the level of control and knowledge, it may actually have less potential for deleterious side effects than naturally occurring "knockout" mutations. For example, insertion of the GFP gene into a big chunk of non-coding repeat wouldn't be likely to do much except give the snake the GFP gene (the "glow-in-the-dark" fluorescence gene that Ash mentioned). Other knockout mutations very well might, but again, they're no more likely to do so than the naturally-occurring ones.
Any and all of these ball python morphs are already ineligible to participate in species survival programs or be used to repopulate wild populations. In fact, I think most people who work with various species for potential re-release already despise color mutation breeding. To those concerned with maintaining a captive pool for potential re-release, mutation breeding is almost (though perhaps not quite) as bad as hybridization and genetic engineering would probably be viewed as no different -- bad, to them, but no worse than the whole "morph industry" itself.
The one thing that genetic engineering has (as does hybridization, to a lesser extent) is an ethical "ick factor" -- it's perceived as "meddling" in a way that the propagation of naturally-occurring mutations doesn't, for some reason. IMO, however, this is really just a stigma and isn't based in any real fact, because as ColdBloodedCarnival points out, selective breeding already IS meddling ... A lot.
That having been said, I can appreciate the stigma against the genetic engineering "ick factor." Hollywood has done a lot to propagate it (mad scientists! Oh no!) and there HAVE been some very unfortunate incidents with GMO plants cross-pollinating with wild populations. Ball pythons aren't plants, and if you believe that they can colonize the USA then you must be working for USGS ... But I still can see why people would be more opposed to GM snakes than naturally-bred mutations.
And I don't have time to proofread this, so ... Apologies in advance for spelling errors or lack of clarity. 
PS. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a pet GFP axolotl named Glowy and almost took a job with Genzyme. So ...
-
-
Registered User
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
 Originally Posted by Serpent_Nirvana
I have a pet GFP axolotl named Glowy
SRSLY? Where can I get one?
1.0 300g Cinnamon Ball Python {Moose}
0.0.1 Black Racer Hatchling {Moe}
0.0.2 Gargoyle Gecko {Bis & Treble}
1.0 Crazy yet Awesome Boyfriend (Stevepoppers)
RIP Cash and Honey. I'll never forget you.
-
-
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
 Originally Posted by Ash
I'm wondering; if someone were to produce an 'artificial' ball python, a morph that can't occur in nature, would you be interested in owning one?
Heck, yeah. lol
I love genetic engineering, I think it's fascinating, and I would totally breed fluorescent pieds.
-
-
Re: Genetically Engineered Snakes
 Originally Posted by cboocks
SRSLY? Where can I get one? 
I got mine from Michael Shrom -- he is a very reputable breeder of axolotl morphs as well as rare salamanders and newts. He I know he vends at the White Plains NY show (which is where I got Glowy) as well as Havre de Grace and Hamburg, but he's also got adds on KS as well. (Probably not safe to ship 'phibs in this heat, though!)
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|