Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Glowing Fish are First Genetically Engineered Pets

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the favorite-stoner-pets dept.

Biotech 361

securitas writes "It was bound to happen. Texas-based biotechnology company Yorktown Technologies will start selling a 'genetically engineered aquarium fish that glows in the dark.' The trademarked GloFish -- 'a tropical zebra fish infused with the gene of a sea anemone that makes it glow fluorescent red' -- is first genetically engineered pet. The possible consequences of introducing a new trangenic species into the environment has touched off a debate that has critics such as the National Academies of Science and the Center for Food Safety calling for a ban on the sale of the fish unless the FDA regulates and approves it. The fish go on sale in January 2004. You can see photos of the GloFish here. Cool, but it's no Blinky." M : I think these guys are marketing the fish for a Taiwanese company.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yumm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537033)

Yummy fisheys! I wonder if they're poison to humans...

Re:Yumm (0)

aNtiBiOteK (676660) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537037)

Time to add some new fish to my aquarium!

A name (1)

essreenim (647659) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537299)

I think I'll genetically engineer one and call mine Nemo. Nemo will have the gift of breathing when not in water. Then I will engineer the water to be breathable by humans and we can visit each other!! Maybe then I'll engineer a cow into a horse. Yeah sure, why should I have to buy an animal that someone like God created. What would he know??

FP? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537034)

Glowing Fish Post!!

Where (-1)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537035)

are the 3 eyed fish?

Is this safe? (0, Offtopic)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537043)

I mean, what if they accidentially engineered it with some buthane generating cells, so that it catches fire... Oh wait, it don't burn anything...

Bummer (5, Funny)

Durin_Deathless (668544) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537044)

From their FAQ:
What if a fluorescent zebra fish is eaten? Eating a fluorescent zebra fish is the same as eating any other zebra fish. Their fluorescence is derived from a naturally occurring gene and is completely safe for the environment. Just as eating a blue fish would not turn a predator blue, eating a fluorescent fish would not make a predator fluoresce.

Bummer, I was hoping to see fluorescent cats!

Re:Bummer (2, Interesting)

I Be Hatin' (718758) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537102)

Bummer, I was hoping to see fluorescent cats!

You have seen the Fluorescent bunny [ekac.org] haven't you? Its fluorescence doesn't come from eating a fluorescent fish, though. It was genetically modified to expressed GFP.

Re:Bummer (1)

juhaz (110830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537181)

Of course there would probably be nothing that prevents cat with same genes that bunny had... except colors, perhaps, you'd have to find albino cat to modify like that bunny was.

Re:Bummer (4, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537230)

We breed fluorescent mice at my work. Cute little critters, have no idea that they glow. But they probably do wonder why people are always picking them up and sticking them under funny-colored lights and making "ooh, aah" noises. ;)

Re:Bummer (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537260)

Well, it's quite easy. You just have to get your cat to breed with the glowing fish. Voila - glowing fish-kitties...

A Real Challenge (5, Funny)

crass751 (682736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537048)

Now if only someone could genetically engineer a fish that didn't die within a week.

I've had about 5 fish, only one of them lived longer than a week.

Re:A Real Challenge (5, Funny)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537100)

Or genetically modify people to look after fish better. :P

Re:A Real Challenge (1)

storem (117912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537171)

Same here!

First I though they *jumped* out...
...but it seems I have a (bad) cat!

Re:A Real Challenge (1)

arcanis (209781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537202)

Ya know, you have to feed the fish in order for them to survive.

Re:A Real Challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537207)

Very helpful info for starting an aquarium (they should give out copies of these at PetCo ... :-)

http://faq.thekrib.com/begin.html
http://faq.th ekrib.com/begin-cycling.html

Ultimate Case Mod (5, Funny)

herulach (534541) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537049)

With a few of these and one of these [slashdot.org] you'd have a way cool case.

Who needs cold cathodes?

Slashdotted (0, Offtopic)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537050)

Looks like they were running the server on a Glofish.

Novelty Item (5, Insightful)

KD5YPT (714783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537051)

You know, this has gone too far. Genetic engineering just for the heck of it? What purpose do a glowing fish have?

Re:Novelty Item (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537071)

You can see them in the dark.They are aesthetically pleasing.Everthing doesn't have to have a "purpose" whatever the hell you mean by that.

Re:Novelty Item (5, Funny)

Richard_L_James (714854) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537076)

What purpose do a glowing fish have? 1) No need to install lights in fish tanks/ponds 2) Makes nightime fishing easier 3) You can actually see your food during the candle lit dinner with your girlfriend.... :-)

Re:Novelty Item (1)

NivekEnterprises (309259) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537088)

RTFA [cnn.com]

Re:Novelty Item (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537109)

The thing is, its this sort of off the wall development that can spark great never-before-possible ideas.

For example they would make a way cool lighting system if you had transparent walls or tanks inserted into walls for bars or very expensive houses.

Re:Novelty Item (1)

PierceLabs (549351) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537223)

I think having to deal with dead fish in the walls of my house would spoil any chance that I would seriously want to consider it.

Re:Novelty Item (4, Insightful)

Morgahastu (522162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537113)

The lessons learned in engineering a new breed of fish can be used in the future to say, engineer cancer fighting genes.

This is just a side effect of a useful experiment, why not make some money from it and raise awareness for genetic engineering?

Re:Novelty Item (1)

dumllama (715921) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537263)

There has been extensive research on zebrafish, long before these fish were made. Nothing was learned from making these fish.

Stuff like this is just inviting a backlash against genetic engineering and science in general.

Re:Novelty Item (5, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537286)

Yep. Grandparent is a troll, but his question is common enough that it's worth answering.

Genetic engineering is hard work. Just as mechanical engineers build prototypes to test their ideas before going into full-scale production, so do genetic engineers (and, actually, every other type of engineer I can think of.) As I mentioned in another post, we breed glowing mice at my work; it took about five years of basic research and another three years of trial and error to get a strain of true-breeding* GFP** mice.

Are these mice useful for anything in themselves? Well, actually, they are; it turns out the GFP gene is a useful marker for other genes that don't express quite so dramatically. But that really wasn't the point. The point was to learn how to implant certain genes -- say, genes that are a risk factor for certain kinds of cancer, or genes for resistance to AIDS, or genes to produce useful drugs -- in a true-breeding strain of mice. Now that technology is understood, and it can usefully be applied to all the examples I gave and many more.

No one gets upset when Ford builds a concept car, for God's sake.

---
* True-breeding means that the children of parents with these characteristics will reliably have the characteristics themselves.

** Green Fluorescent Protein. IIRC, originally found in jellyfish.

Re:Novelty Item (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537232)

You can take the plastic fish out of your Lian-Li Aquarium side panel, and put these in - great if you're already building a UV computer!

Re:Novelty Item (1, Informative)

langles (192276) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537245)

I agree, this type of genetic engineering is totally unnecessary!

On the other hand, they look pretty cool. More photos here [segrestfarms.com] .

I think I'll add them to my Christmas wish list. :-)

And to go with these red-glowing GloFish, maybe I'll add some of these green-glowing Night Perls from Taiwan:
news story [guardian.co.uk] picture [mongabay.com] .

Re:Novelty Item (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537304)

Yeah, this really is horrible. It's almost as bad as buying a general-purpose computer just to play games on it!

I saw this the other day (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537053)

The fish are sterilized. No Problems here...

GlowFish? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537059)

Ahh, so this GlowFish will replace OpenBSD's BlowFish and be the new mascotte? Way cool.

Re:GlowFish? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537188)

Actually, I prefer the
[mongabay.com]
green ones better.

Thinking about he food chain.... (3, Funny)

Richard_L_James (714854) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537060)

Glowing Fish are First Genetically Engineered Pets

I bet cats will indirectly become the second ;-)

Note the Seattle Times article (1)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537317)

researchers are working on others, including an allergen-free cat.

They've already done fluorescence with mice, I believe. And glow-in-the-dark cats would be useful, so cars can see them as they dart across the street.

Old news (5, Informative)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537061)

This is old news. These may be other glowing fish, as they are from Taiwan, but you can get the details
Here [enn.com] or here [mongabay.com]

Re:Old news (1)

fleener (140714) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537193)

Wait a minute, are you implying that our beloved corporate media is slow at providing us news; that we have read their news weeks or months earlier through non-U.S. media sources on the Internet? I remind you to hold your lip young man, lest you jeopardize our access to our God Given Right of a 24-hour Michael Jackson Watch and hourly updates on Britney's breast size. Damn you! I will not have you question our democracy and endanger our very way of life! Love it or leave it! Please, the exit is to your left.

Dont forget the Original (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537310)

Glowing pets seen Here [mystiesplace.com]

Excellent news for cat haters (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537063)

This should torment cats at night.

Trangeny (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537065)

Trangeny
When the feeling's gone and you can't go on
It's trangeny
When the morning cries and you don't know why
It's hard to bear
With no - one to love you you're
Goin' nowhere
Trangeny
When you lose control and you got no soul
It's tragedy
When the morning cries and you don't know why
It's hard to bear
With no - one beside you you're
Goin' nowhere
When the feeling's gone and you can't go on

Transgenic, perhaps? ;)

I'll wait (1, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537066)

Till they come out with a 5 assed monkey thank you very much.

1 monkey.
5 asses.
is it so much to ask for?

Offtopic?!?! (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537107)

Ermm, maybe the moderators need to RTFA!?!?
Last I checked 5 assed monkeys were a GM pet.

Re:Offtopic?!?! (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537250)

Of course, it should be modded underrated as much as it has OT - Funny doesn't help Karma, OT hurts it, Underrated is used when a message should show up, the moderator has a point but it still needs to show up, or it's funny, and it was unfairly modded down (not using M2)

Well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537081)

I, for one, look forward to our new glowing fish overlords

Dumbass get your simps ref straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537095)

I ,for one, WELCOME our new glowfish overlords.

Dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537110)

according to the Me Boy Pedo Site [me-boy.com] , you are wrong

Oh Great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537084)

Frankenguppy.

Can they make this fish glow? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537094)

The first? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537105)

I suspect the first genetically engineered pets were dogs or possibly cats.

Re:The first? (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537187)

Weird isn't it? Noone complains when biologists create new races of animals by selecting and breading. Yet once you use some more effective means, you're suddenly an evil scientist.

Beside if those glowing mutant fish ever got free, they'll probably get extinct in a matter of a few generations. Glowing animals are easy to spot and easy to spot animals tend to get eaten.

Re:The first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537217)

The difference is those "more effective means". That's what's not acceptable about this.

Re:The first? (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537302)

That's what's not acceptable about this.

If you find it 'not acceptable' then please, don't buy one.

Re:The first? (1)

Treacle Treatment (681828) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537314)

Actually I think dogs and cats genetically engineered themselves in order to survive. It's the pets that own us, not the other way around, contray to popular belief.

Honolulu technique (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537114)

This sounds a lot like what happened here at the Univeristy of Hawaii. They cloned mice and threw in a little jellyfish in the process to make the mice flourescent. "Four of the mice are fluorescent; they glow green under black light. The glow comes from modified gene protein from jellyfish, which "is a quick demonstration that they are transgenic," said researcher Istefo Moisyadi."

http://starbulletin.com/2001/02/06/news/story11. ht ml

red eh? (3, Funny)

DaBjork (575727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537120)

Couldn't they have chosen a better color than red? I just have this image of a kid curled up in bed at night, unable to sleep staring at this ominous red glowing fish all night.

Why fish? (1)

FueledByRamen (581784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537122)

I'm waiting for a cool genetically-engineered pet, like a saber-tooth tiger (preferrably, to borrow a line, "Identical in every way, but 1/8 the size"). Now that would be worth having!

Re:Why fish? (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537185)

A Sabre tooth!!

Why pray tell would you want a powerful predator for a pet? Even at 1/8 size it will still be a vicious beastie with sharp pointy teeth and quite capable of inflicting serious damage on you.

Re:Why fish? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537254)

I've already had one of those.

Sparky the half Manx/Siamese. He weighed 18 pounds and had 0% body fat.

Cross-eyed as you can get and his fangs were so long the tops and bottoms clicked togeather when he yawned and closed his mouth.

Sweetest damned cat you could image for a killing machine.

Re:Why fish? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537255)

because its awesome!
jeez.

Re:Why fish? (1)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537296)

a vicious beastie with sharp pointy teeth and quite capable of inflicting serious damage on you

So is my cat.

Re:Why fish? (1)

FueledByRamen (581784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537309)

Before domestication, both your friendly neighborhood dog and cat would have been vicious beasties with sharp pointy teeth, and they were quite capable of inflicting serious damage on you (hell, you should see my current cat when the vacuum cleaner comes on). What makes you think it can't be done with another powerful predator?

And to actually answer your question, It'd be a cool, unique pet, and I already like cats a lot. Plus, why not? I suppose in a worst-case scenario, it being 1/8 normal size plus the clumsy (but cool!) oversized canine teeth would make it hard for it to wrap its mouth around more than my fingers or the side of my foot. As long as I can convince him to spare my mousing hand, I think I'll be fine :)

Re:Why fish? (1)

Psarchasm (6377) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537311)

Yeah. Kind of like a house cat.

My house cats are 'serious' predators and often take out rabbits and the occasional village of chipmunks (often leaving a nice head or fluffy tail as a present for me at the back door.)

Fact is MOST 'domesticated' (???) cats are still serious predators. So why NOT a Sabre Tooth?

Take your average house cat at 7-13 pounds. X8 it up, and you have a nice large man eating feline.

GloFish not as cool as Dopefish (2, Funny)

Gathers (78832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537128)

GloFish, eh? I think I'll wait for Dopefish [dopefish.com] to be available as pet.

QUAKE!!!! (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537281)

Ahhh the good ol' days. Quake I mods and the houngan helpers, shub hat and death orb. THE DOPEFISH RULES

Nice!... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537138)

YES YES YES!!! I want some of these....
That's great. That's what genetic engineering should be used for, instead of creating the megaton cow... glowing fish... how nice. Nuke them till they glow and fish them in the dark.

Illiad saw it coming! (3, Interesting)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537143)

Look here [userfriendly.org] (and following cartoons :))

Uh no (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537305)

This has been known about for quite some time. This is just an article about people bitching about it.

Wrong. (4, Insightful)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537149)

The trademarked GloFish...is first genetically engineered pet[sic]

The methods used may be different but just about every breed of dog known to Man has been 'genetically engineered.' For example, I have a Boston Terrier. The Boston was created in 1857 as a dog fighter by breeding English Bulldogs and English Terriers. Therefore, the Boston was engineered. Take any dog and you'll find that someone wanted a dog that could do this or that or was such a size so they went about selecting different existing species and breeding them to create their perfect dog. So many people think that genetic engineering is done with test tubes but any time two species are brought together artificially you are engineering genetics. Mendel was a genetic engineer and he lived in the 1100s.

Re:Wrong. (1)

mattyp (720004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537235)

yes, wrong, indeed: Gregor Mendel [wikipedia.org] was born in 1822.

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537242)

So, Mendel could cross breed a tomato and a north sea cod. How was it possible for him to do that, exactly?

Re:Wrong. (2, Informative)

onthefenceman (640213) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537261)

Did you mean Gregor Mendel [accessexcellence.org] (1822-1884)?

Furthermore, Mendel worked primarily with traits of pea plants, which clearly could intermingle in nature. The same is true with dogs - I think if you look around you will find they are not terribly particular about who, when, or where they, ur, cross-breed with.

I think that the questions most people have about altering DNA stem (pun intended) from the fact that humans are creating results that could never occur in nature.

Re:Wrong. (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537262)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Gregor_Men de l.html

http://www.mendel-museum.org/

Re:Wrong. (2, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537270)

they went about selecting different existing species and breeding them to create their perfect dog.

Really? That'd be a neat trick. If you are successful in breeding different species you get infertile offspring - that's what species are, different groups that don't crossbreed to produce fertile offspring. Like crossing a donkey and a horse to make a (normally infertile) mule.

Now taking two different breeds of dogs (which are both from the same species) and crossbreeding is a type of artificial selection, but that's nothing at all like taking parts of two different species and combining them into a new one.

No (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537319)

"Species" is really more of a 'soft' term then any strict definition. After all, we use the word for asexually reproducing organisms as well.

Re:Wrong. (5, Informative)

dgp (11045) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537273)

You make a good point but I believe the title refers to the fact that this is a "transgenic" engineering. That is a different ballpark that cross-breeding.

From m-w.com:
transgenic - Having chromosomes into which one or more heterologous genes have been incorporated either artificially or naturally

heterologous - derived from a different species

The article says: "a tropical zebra fish infused with the gene of a sea anemone that makes it glow fluorescent red." Im no fish expert but i dont think you can breed fish with sea anemones.

For your analogy to work, you would have to say something like english bulldogs received genes from a silk spider and now has silky smooth dog turds and can walk up walls.

Not dogs: Zebra fish + sea anemone != offspring (1)

tessaiga (697968) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537278)

The methods used may be different but just about every breed of dog known to Man has been 'genetically engineered.' [...] Take any dog and you'll find that someone wanted a dog that could do this or that or was such a size so they went about selecting different existing species and breeding them to create their perfect dog.
A small nitpick regarding your terminology: two organisms that are able to breed to produce offspring are by definition the same species. While you could argue that the Boston Terrier breed was engineered, it certainly isn't a new species.

That aside, the reason these fish are being trumpted as "genetically engineered" while dogs are not are because tropical zebra fish cannot breed with sea anemones in nature; the genes have artifically introduced in order to produce the new "glowing" variant.

Re:Wrong. (1)

juhaz (110830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537288)

Well, that's "genetic engineering" rougly in same sense nailing things together is "nanotechnology".

The properties of final "product" may derive from genetics (or properties of very small particles in case of nanotech) but those haven't really been fine tuned. Engineering, sure, but not genetic engineering.

And different dog breeds are NOT different species. Different species can not, by definition, interbreed and produce fertile descendants (though there are rare exceptions). All dogs of all breeds fall into species Canis familiaris, though that's probably an artificial barrier... genetically most are probably still gray wolves, Canis lupus.

Not wrong (2, Insightful)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537322)

There's a difference between breeding which requires two animals that can naturally have sex with each other to mix genes naturally...

(Two people of a different race having children isn't genetic engineering.)

And genetic engineering which completely removes the neccessity for having two creatures have sex to mix the genes. The entire process is dependent on human intervention.

The former is natural selection. The latter is intelligent design.

This fish was given genes from a species it could never naturally mate with. Dogs were mated with other dogs they could naturally mate with.

Ben

Damn Engineers (0)

Blair16 (683764) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537158)

Now if only they could engineer themselves up a server that could take more than 100 hits/minute.
Holy crapola

Not "glow-in-the-dark" (4, Funny)

Corgha (60478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537159)

I'm a little disappointed. These aren't bioluminescent-type glow-in-the-dark fish like the ones that live in the deep sea. They're fluorescent glow-in-the-UV fish like the ones that live in the rave.

Attack of the mutant fish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537161)

The possible consequences of introducing a new trangenic species into the environment has touched off a debate that has critics such as the National Academies of Science and the Center for Food Safety calling for a ban on the sale of the fish

What? Do they expect the glofish to jump out of aquariums and wreak havoc everywhere?

Re:Attack of the mutant fish (1)

Bagels (676159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537233)

You'd be surprised - all it would take would be a fish being prematurely flushed down the toilet or thrown into the ocean (or just some wierdo intentionally releasing them). Of course, *glowing* isn't really a very useful trait to have in the ocean, unless it's used to lure other fish in, so it's debatable whether or not the fish would even survive long enough to reproduce (if they weren't sterilized).

Not new, just worse (1)

maiasaurus (643547) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537184)

While injecting aquarium fish to change their colours is not new, (as we see here [bellaonline.com] ) nor is breeding them into untenable forms, the direct genetic manipulation producing the glofish poses more far reaching concerns. Animal cruelty is a serious issue, don't get me wrong. I think that GMOs are far more of a threat. The company claims that the glofish will not harm animals that eat it, nor secrete into the water any harmful substances. Let's see the 10 year study.

Re:Not new, just worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537229)

You are right everything should be forbidden until a 10 year study has been completed.That will spark some SAFE innovation.

Re:Not new, just worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537231)

Geez man, lighten up, it's not like they're breeding Urak-hai now is it.

What about... (1)

ear2ground (719594) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537224)

Pet Rocks? [super70s.com]

Soooo... (1, Interesting)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537246)

..if the genetical information of these fish are altered to produce this glowing behaviour, what happens when they breed with "normal" fish or even fish from a different species (as it happens sometimes). Would these have this glowing behaviour as well? What if this new behavious helps these fish to get eaten less by predators (glowing / strong colors often means "dangerous, I'm poisonous" in the animal world if I recall correctly), could it then be that these fish quickly replace their "unenhanced" counterparts?

Re:Soooo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537274)

what happens when they breed with "normal" fish or even fish from a different species (as it happens sometimes)

I hate to be the biology nerd here, but if two animals can breed successfully, aren't they /by definition/ members of the same species?

Re:Soooo... (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537291)

I'm no biology nerd at all. But I strongly believe that I heard of animals from different species breeding with each other succesfully (even if not always). But I'm just a computer geek so I might really be wrong.

Anyways, while your comment is probably correct, it would still be quite fascinating to see these glowing fish replace their ordinary brothers in the wild, _if_ the glowing aspect gives them any higher probability to survive.

Re:Soooo... (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537318)

I checked using google ("breed different species") and it offers several results of people succesfully breeding different species of birds (for example). Altough they do not recommend it as it sometimes produces birds which cannot reproduce or have other defects. But it seems to be possible.

Why we make glowing animals (5, Informative)

corvi42 (235814) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537257)

My girlfriend is a molecular biologist who worked for a time in a lab where they made glowing animals like this ( mostly worms, but they had some rats also ). The reason, scientifically, for making these creatures is not just for the sake of seeing if you can make them glow. Rather, if you attach the genes for the glowing proteins adjacent to the genes for some other protein you'd like to monitor in the animal's DNA, then the glowing protein will become attached to the target protein, and you can get a snapshot of how active that protein is in the organism by simply turning on a UV light. This is a very useful tool for seeing how a particular gene is expressed in the active biology of the organism, because you can watch where, when and how the proteins which that gene codes for are expressed, and in what cells. The glowing pets is just some creepy Frankensteinian commercial spin-off of this research tool.

What I find most apalling... (2, Insightful)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537280)

It's relly to bad that some won't have a single geneticly altered item without rasing havoc. We have been altering plants for centuries by cross breeding. This results in a new type of plant that the changed genes are not controlled. I find that far more disturbing than changing one gene that has a known effect on an organism.

I realise that there will be things that are genetically altered for the worse. They will either be an experiment or from the mind of someone who intends to do wrong. this is where the line should be drawn... for those who intend to do harm with genetics. Otherwise it is intended for the betterment of society.

All of the stories you've heard about the genetically altered badities - the Hulk, the tenage mutant ninja turtles, the monkey with 4 asses... are just that, stories. Until the haze of negativity is lifted from genetics we can only make small steps, like making fish glow.

modders take note... (1)

hookedup (630460) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537282)

i'll keep these fish in my Cubequarium, quite the neon case mod if you ask me.

Evil Fish! (2, Funny)

cyclist1200 (513080) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537290)

We all know that these genetically engineered glowing fish are evil [userfriendly.org] !

Anchovies (2, Funny)

Treacle Treatment (681828) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537294)

I want glow-in-the-dark anchovies so I can watch LOTR in the dark and still eat pizza!

Huh? (1)

buddha42 (539539) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537295)

calling for a ban on the sale of the fish unless the FDA regulates and approves it.

Huh? The Food and Drug Administration needs to approve pets?

Control (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537301)

What would be really neat would be to be able to control the glow, so cat walks on by and fish pulses (extra kudos if the pulses go -X-X-X--X-X-X-X--X-X--XX-, X=pulse, repeating) and gentle mac-standby-button pulsing for normal behaviour :-)

Simon

michael... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7537315)

M: I think these guys are marketing the fish for a Taiwanese company.

That your new way to tell us this is a dupe?

These DO NOT glow in the dark (4, Informative)

banks (205655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7537321)

There seems to be this weird misconception going on here....


These "GloFish" DO NOT glow in the dark. They fluoresce red under a black light (UV radiation, for those of us who care). But from everything I've read, they don't emit any light at all in the absence of external UV. None. So, that pretty much makes them "Glow-in-the-LIGHT fish."


Now, I'm not entirely suprised that the NYTimes doesn't understand that difference, but slashdotters should be able to.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?