Quote Originally Posted by KingBowser View Post
...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 ...