First Genetically Engineered Pet!

[leftchick]

Yikes....

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A8C63AD7-7F1B-4D5B-95EF-0368AFE3ACFC.htm

<snip>Originally bred to help detect toxins, a little tropical fish that glows fluorescent red is set to be become the world's first genetically engineered pet.


The Texas-based Yorktown Technologies has licensed to sell as pets the zebra fish, originally developed to detect environmental toxins.

"These fish were bred to help fight environmental pollution," company spokesman Alan Blake said on Friday.

"They were bred to fluoresce in the presence of toxins," he said.

Scientists have for decades used a gene called green fluorescent protein, taken from jellyfish, to help in research.

The fish, sold under the trademarked name GloFish, carry similar gene taken from a sea coral that makes it glow all the time.

Blake said there is no evidence the fish will pose any threat to the environment.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. If that picture is what they consider "glowing"

then this isn't nearly as cool as I thought.

[Sparky McGruff]

13. The picture isn't right

Those aren't zebrafish. Zebrafish are about an inch long, with stripes.

[frustrated_lefty]

19. Here's an example.

There's another example of a gfp expressing transgenic rat at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/23/14931.pdf on page 5, figure 5E.

The animals have to be exposed to ultraviolet light for the protein to flouresce, which may explain why the fish don't seem to be doing much, although the eye of the red fish does appear greenish....

[ahimsa]

22. um, i wonder how often you ..

..have to replenish the toxins in their tanks to keep them glowing?

:eyes:

[havocmom]

2. Wasn't the first genetically engineered pet

likely to have been a litter of wolf pups from parents humans put together because they had traits the humans liked?

[Ediacara]

4. shhhhhh!

Don't say that, the frankenfood fanatics will go ape-shit about how selective breeding isn't genetic engineering, even though everyone on Earth says it is.

[DUreader]

8. How cute, a FUDdite, premptive, disinfo, flamebait reply.

What a pleasant surprise.

"Everyone on Earth"

hmm.... I guess you told them.

[Ediacara]

12. and what a typical reaction

"selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering."

Well, I can't argue with that so I'm going to call you names and say you're lying and offer no data whatsoever to support frankenfood claims!!!!!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DUreader]

16. Now you accuse me of hate when your semantics fail. GM or GE?

Finally you get to the real point.

There is a difference between restricting and encouraging breeding,

and Modifying life at the Genetic Level.

I'm glad you see something disturbing going on here, at least we have

some common ground. Unintended consequences. Unregulated Industries.





Your broad smear about 'frankenfood fanatics' definitely pissed me off

That is the root of my response to you.

[Ediacara]

20. well you've missed the point again

GM is part of GE, but you've offered no data to support the idea that GM is bad. It's pottentially troublesome yes, but not inherently bad. No frankenfood (that's a word that YOU guys made up btw, so if you don't wanna hear it then get a time machine) activists have been able to give any sound argument why GM is bad, just that it's bad, no thought required.

The only thing that's come close is proprietory genetics, which is troublesome, but isn't actually 1) killing anyone or 2) killing off other varieties of the same plant and 3) can be outlawed without destroying food supplies.

And again you ignore the FACT that selective breeding IS genetic engineering, and will continue to be, for the foreseeable future, the major producer of genetically engineered organisms.

[DUreader]

21. Why such flakey arguments? Toss around the word "FACT" some more.

I didn't make up anything.

Eat the shit if you want to.

Show me some evidence that it is safe. Oh yeah, it is all secret evidence

so I guess you can't show me.

Keep on playing your little word games all you want.


Hope you get the FrankenBug out of your butt.

(I made that one up, not too original)

Chow Down Homey!

[NickB79]

28. "Show me some evidence that it is safe"

Isn't that like the Bush argument for Saddam to prove Iraq free of WMD (which was ridiculous)? You could work for years and not be able to say with 100% certainty GM foods are TOTALLY safe, unless you tested every single person in the world who eats it. As long as one person exists that hasn't eaten GM food and been tested for potential side effects, you could never say it was totally safe.

[Ediacara]

30. whatever

The crux of this thread is this: can you demonstrate that GM food isn't safe? The answer is no. No matter how many names you call me, or flimsy strawmen you support, you are not winning this argument.

Give it up.

You don't have data.

You don't have logic.

You don't even have complete sentances!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shamanstar]

24. you go right ahead and eat it then.

enjoy.

[NickB79]

29. Um, do you live in the US?

Cause something like 70% of all of our grains grown and eaten in this country are GM crops. Anything with corn, soy, tomatoes, potatoes, and a host of other foods are commonly GM-crops. Even soda has corn syrup in it from GM corn. So, you too are eating GM foods every day, and probably enjoying them as well.

[not systems]

27. "selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering."

This is true in only a very limited way.

Engineering is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=engineering&r=67

Selective breeding doesn't imply "scientific and mathematical
principles" the selection criteria may be aesthetics or subjective
like personal taste.

Unless the selection criteria is scientific like the level of
a certain protien produced or the weight of the yield then
selective breeding is not genetic engineering.

They are different and non-interchangeable terms.

You are diluting the precision of language for a political end it seems.

The implication the directly modifing the genetics of an organism
through modern gene splicing and synthisis is the same in type and
class as the historic selective breeding done by people though out
time is bogus in the extreme.

[Ediacara]

31. selective breeding is selecting traits

Not just for aesthetic or subjective means (like CORN for example). Additionally, the application of selective breeding uses scientific principles, those outlined by Gregor Mendel over 200 years ago. Perhaps you've heard of him.

To claim that selective breeding is not done for the same purposes and does not use the same scientific principles as genetic modification is invalid.

On the contrary, it is you that are diluting the language and creating a frankenfood boogeyman where none exists.

[not systems]

32. What?

"On the contrary, it is you that are diluting the language and creating a frankenfood boogeyman where none exists"

I said nothing of the sort.

I don't think you understood my point.

Yes. I have heard of Gregor Mendel.

That is what I would consider the beginning of scientific genetic selection.

Which is different from synthesizing new proteins and splicing them in to living organisms.

Feel free to eat all the "frankenfood" your little heart desires.

I hope the government orders labelling so you can be enabled as a consumer to select the food of your choice, new and exciting.

[Ediacara]

33. look buster

Long before Mendel discovered the scientific probablities of breeding, people were selecting traits for things other than "aesthetic" reasons. Reasons like TASTE and YEILD and NON-VICIOUSNESS.

I UNDERSTAND that gene splicing is DIFFERENT from selecxtive breeding, but the PRINCIPLES are the same. BOTH are genetic engineering however.

[not systems]

34. Gene splicing vs. selective breeding?

Which goes better with a good red wine?

Is spliced food better with white wine?

Naturally selected food better for families with children?

In case the children have protein allergies?

[Ediacara]

35. naturally selected food?

Find me some, and get back to me.

Well some berries I guess aren't artificially selected, and wild game of course; but in the grocery store every day of the year, you'll be hard pressed to find any food products that are in the same form as they were 50,000 years ago.

Try your sentance fragment arguments somewhere else...

[not systems]

36. I consider people natural.

So humans selection of plants and animals is natural.

I eat food that has been shaped by peoples tastes over thousands
of years of natural selection.

You?

When do you believe the human world became "artificially"?

Because that is the implication of your non-existant arguement.

[Ediacara]

38. because those are the terms that people use

If humans selectively bred traits in an organisms, that selection is refered to as artifical selection. Perhaps you should read up on biology before you shoot another sentance fragment "argument" at me.

[snowFLAKE]

17. Perhaps you should have said

"even though everyone on Earth who is scientifically literate says it is"

Reading through this thread, and another one that's ongoing on vaccines, it would appear that many readers of this webset lack a basic understanding of science.

In any event, I suggest that we defer to the judgement of the world's premier scientific magazine, namely "Science" who published an article in the November 14, 2003 issue entitled "Agriculture. Prehistoric GM corn" - this article describes ancient genetic engineering/modification of maize.

[calimary]

26. No. the first genetically engineered pet was laura bush.

[Sufi Marmot]

3. Allergen-free pets are under development...

By Transgenic Pets, LLC who is creating them by genetic engineering.

[phaseolus]

5. Nice they can recoup some of their investment...

...since there's obviously no money in fighting pollution in Texas.

[arcane1]

6. was that the same thing they used in the Hulk?

there were jellyfish there, too

[Lefta Dissenter]

7. How 'bout Latest Breaking Myth forum, instead?

I would think that fluorescent kittens are along the same line as bonsai kittens - just some morons having fun with a web site.

I haven't done a search on the fluorescent ones yet, but here's a link to debunk the bonsai kittens.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/animalworld/bonsai.html

[NickB79]

9. Who's talking about kittens?

The link is about genetically engineered, glowing fish, not cats. And bonsai kittens, huh? Where did that come from?

[Lefta Dissenter]

10. OOPs sorry - I should have checked the link!

I thought it was a repost of what was posted the other day, kittens that had flourescent... well, flourescent genes or whatever, bred into them - so that their feet and faces were flourescent colors.

Oh well, next time I'll double check to make sure it's the same link!

...back to your discussion... just ignore me... :)

[NickB79]

11. No prob

I'm sure I have my fair share of mistakes floating around here :-)

[Lori Price CLG]

18. Who, Bush? (for Cheney)

:)-Lori Price

CLG_Revolution_Tactics
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CLG_Revolution_Tactics/

[shamanstar]

23. oryx and crake-margaret atwoods new one

is all about this. all these genetically engineered (supposedly for the better) creatures roaming the earth. it is a good read.

[Dragon Turtle]

25. Zebra fish?

The fish in the picture look a lot like Garibaldis.

[treepig]

39. don't forget about these cute candidates for gm-pets!