Glo- animals

[asfouts]

In a recent thread "glo-fish" were brought to my attention as an ethical battlefield. And not just glo-fish, but all glo-animals (axolotls, angel fish, rats, monkeys, cats, glassfish, zebra danio, etc. etc.) As of current, there are no documented health issues (that im aware of) that can be attributed to the addition of the gene...

I would like people to put in opinions and share facts on the issue. As for my opinion, I stand on the "for" side of things, although if there are health issues for the animal I would swiftly be against it. If there is no harm in it then I say "why not?".... However, I would also like to say I would never add these animals to my personal collection for 2 reasons: I like natural beauty more than artificial and the cost of these animals is 3-4X that of a "normal" specimen.
I don't really know the pros and cons of its economical worth, but from a purely scientific point of view this succesful gene splice between jellyfish and many other animals helps us understand genetics that much more...

Anyway go wild in this thread I want to see what everyone thinks.

 

[jane1187]

I am afraid I'm anti-glo-animals.

I do not disagree with the progression of science in terms of genetics. I have no disagreement with using these techniques to further our understanding and potentially cure terrible genetic diseases in the future.

HOWEVER...

I am very much against providing these unnatural (for unnatural is what they are) animals into the pet trade. Imagine if you will the scenario that someone acquires these animals with or without the knowledge that they are genetically modified. This person, like many others before them, decides they no longer want the pet and release it into the wild. If they know about the genetic 'enhancement' then they likely do not know its potential impacts on the ecosystem. A healthy individual released into the wild can interbreed with others, potentially releasing this gene into the wild population. This is unnatural.

I am not arguing this from the perspective of animal welfare for, as you have already pointed out, there is no documented health or welfare repercussions of creating animals with this gene. However where do you draw the line? Imagine scientists insert a gene which creates a different trait in the animal, say resistance to some disease or the ability to metabolise a certain chemical or foodstuff. Imagine if this is then released into wild populations. The ramifications are unfathomable. It is tampering with nature, which lives in a fine balance as it is.

I draw on the example of the recently created bacterial strain which is able to produce diesel as a result of metabolising its food. I know this is not a pet but the process whereby this was done involved genetic manipulation along the line and so I draw a parallel with this example. Imagine if this strain became loose in the environment and started creating diesel oil slicks all over the place. Not good. Now you may think 'well creating diesel is not a natural thing, whereas the gene for glowing came from a jellyfish which is natural'... to this I give the counter argument of 'yes it is natural... for that jellyfish only'.

These animals, though useful in the advancement of science for (potentially) the common good of humanity, are not suitable as pets.

I am interested to hear other people's views.

 

[asfouts]

Im glad you brought up environmental impact. I was thinking about adding it to my initial thread, but decided it be best if someone else brought it up down the line (not so I could insult or anything) but I wanted to see if it was brought up at all.... Anyway I was thinking along those lines too and I dont know what to think. On one side the fish would be taken out relatively quickly as they have no natural defense or camouflage. But there is also the issue with rats who breed like crazy and could maybe outcompete predation and cause havoc. So I dont think fish or axies will have anymore of a repercussion then a non-native species of animal, HOWEVER the larger animals that could pass this on like rats and monkeys could cause serious damage. So will there be a ban in place for the larger more threatening glow animals? I dont know this topic is very touchy I leave it open for others

 

[asfouts]

Just read an article that makes the rat problem void... Within the rats they used a fluorescent gene approach where the gene would become inactive in the F1 generation. Therefore if they were introduced to the pet trade and released their offspring would be regular rats with an inactive extra gene.... Just thought I would share that detail


Now I leave the topic open!

 

[Tappers]

These animals are banned from import into the EU for commercial purposes and so the few danios that I've encountered have received a culling order and hence my sympathy. This may well colour my opinion but I feel that compared to fancy goldfishes, hybrid cichlids, dogs such as pugs, bulldogs and other physiologically handicapped breeds, GM fish and axies are not a big issue. More ecological damage is inflicted by the keeping of free-roaming domestic cats and it seems people are blind to that (hurrumph, hurrumph!). They certainly escape the unspeakable practice of injecting dyes or tattooing to increase their commercial appeal.

What I do find offensive is the application of copyrights and trademarks to living organisms and I feel that this degrades our view of them as species in their own right. Fair enough if this is to protect the investment of laboratories using these animals for their original purposes but to treat them like coca cola, wrangler jeans or the hard-rock cafe is just crass IMHO.

As for environmental impacts, as you said, I can see that flourescent fishes would be far less likely to survive to breed when so conspicuous and for species that find themselves feral alongside closely related taxa this might be a blessing. By contrast, regular selective breeding often fixes undesirable behavioural traits which would be far more deleterious to untainted wild populations - these are often a side-effect of breeding for certain colours or confirmation. Using a dog example, what would be more harmful to a threatened population of wolves - a 'glo' gene or bad hip scores?

Looking at the above it seems that I'm pro-glo but I guess it's because I'm using other abuses as my yardstick. In a world where companion animals often pay dearly for their status they are merely another insult that they'd do better without but in the real world they're just another way that humans can use animals for commercial gain.

I guess in the most long-winded way of saying it, I come down on the neutral side of things on this issue. Not offensive but not a patch on natural wild phenotypes which is why we cherished many of these animals in the first place. My favourite example is the gouldian finch, where domestication seems to have brought an urge to breed individuals far less attractive than the forms that evolved in the wild. You've got to wonder why...

 

[Azhael]

I´m less willing to tolerate it...
I agree with Tappers that there are more worrying phenomena than GFP animals, but nevertheless i find them unacceptable. There are two main reasons which are the most direct, and several others that are more indirect. The main two are that introducing the gene obviously causes animals to glow, which is not harmless. I´ve said this so many times already that i feel like a broken record, but creatures like axolotl, which are low light environment inhabitants and who can suffer stress when expossed to light, may very well be stressed by finding their own eyes glowing from the inside. Several people report their animals darting away and showing obvious signs of stress when made to glow, which is not surprising at all.
The other main concern is that in order to glow significantly, they have to be exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light. Even if exposure is just for short periods of time and the wavelength of the blacklight is the least harmful, this cannot be benefitial and must have some potential dangers.
Among the more indirect concerns are the treatment of animals as commercially profitable fancy objects (which is not unique to GFP), like Tappers pointed out, the increase in the "wow" factor that is more likely to atract unprepared people who are only interested in the "cool thing", and others...

In short, i´m against this because the only benefits are purely cosmetic and purely for the enjoyement of the keeper, whereas the consequences or potential consequences are paid solely by the animal. Therefore i find this morally objectionable. Yes, there are more worrying things, but i strongly object to them too.

As for the impact in the wild, i think it´s not a likely scenario but still one of the many concerns. Bare in mind that while rats have been spliced with a gene that inactivates in the F1, this is not the case in axolotls or other commercial glo-things, and even if it were the case, the gene doesn´t disappear, it´s passed along in an inactivated form that is susceptible of being reactivated by mutations.

 

[Lamb]

Generally, I agree with some of the points brought up by Azhael and Tappers. I prefer "natural" morphs, and I put natural in quotations because even though breeders manipulate pairings to produce albinos, leucistics, etc., many of these morphs can be found in the wild, though typically only in low numbers.

However, I view this subject as a spectrum of genetic manipulation. Many herp keepers are ok with chimera morphs, or the hundreds of morphs of ball pythons, etc. This is all a result of genetic manipulation, of controlled inbreeding. It is all for cosmetic purposes, all visual, and in that way no different from the "glo" animals. And perhaps there are records of negative impacts on the health of a portion of the population of the albinos, etc., perhaps in reduced hatching numbers. Nevertheless, this is the portion of the spectrum that we seem to be comfortable with. But when we use heterospecific DNA in genetic manipulation, like that from jellyfish, then the whole process becomes unsettling. So it seems that using DNA from other species to control the visual appeal of an animal is the extreme.

Another interesting point is the idea that the glo animals become agitated when "made to glow." How much evidence is there for this? If it is true, do animals that are exposed to regular amounts of UV lighting when young become more comfortable with the light they produce? And I do agree that this genetic manipulation is somewhat bothersome because for its effects to be seen, the animal has to be exposed to UV light, which is not typical for most amphibians and can lead to health issues (especially in embryos).

Also, although I was initially concerned when I considered what might happen if the gene got in to wild populations, I wonder if that would be a problem? Larval salamanders often stay buried in substrate or beneath cover objects, sometimes coming to the surface of the substrate to feed at night. UV light tapers out very quickly, depending on the ion/dissolved solids concentration of the water. Under some conditions, UV doesn't penetrate past 10 cm. This is one of the potential evolutionary benefits of laying your eggs a bit below the surface, which many species of amphibians do. Consequently, UV may not penetrate to the bottom of many aquatic habitats, and therefore perhaps the released glo larvae wouldn't be made to glow. As for adults, many are semi-fossorial or remain hidden beneath the leaf litter, coming to the surface to forage at night. Again, their glowing may not be visible to visual predators near the surface. So perhaps the gene could persist and be passed on, but I don't think it would decimate populations directly. Recently, I've wondered if the incidence of natural albinism or leucisism is somewhat higher in amphibians because they tend to be so secretive and nocturnal, traits that make a bright, lack of color potentially less of a concern.

 

[CymriLynne]

We've had experience with the glo-fish and now a gfp axie, and they don't seem to even notice the difference with the black light being on or off, their non glowing tank mates don't seem to care either. I don't see how modifying the critters to glow is that much different from selectively breeding other traits into animals. Either way, what we are creating would not be found in nature. It's not any different than dog breeders breeding pugs or cockapoos, and there isn't much controversy surrounding that.

 

[Azhael]

However, I view this subject as a spectrum of genetic manipulation. Many herp keepers are ok with chimera morphs, or the hundreds of morphs of ball pythons, etc. This is all a result of genetic manipulation, of controlled inbreeding. It is all for cosmetic purposes, all visual, and in that way no different from the "glo" animals. And perhaps there are records of negative impacts on the health of a portion of the population of the albinos, etc., perhaps in reduced hatching numbers. Nevertheless, this is the portion of the spectrum that we seem to be comfortable with.

And that´s exactly what i meant by more worrying phenomena than GFP animals. I´m not comfortable at all with cosmetic artificial selection. I´m aware that the vast majority of herp keepers/breeders are (and very much so), but i find this appalling.
I don´t think GFP is acceptable in light of all the other manipulations that are done to captive animals, i just find all of those unethical.

By the way, there certainly are numerous records of obvious and significant negative repercussions brought about by cosmetic selection, from neurological dissorders to blindness, spinal deformities, sterility...

 

[SludgeMunkey]

Genetic manipulation for research purposes (like tagging a specific gene with an FP) or tagging a methylation to express GFP when it activates or deactivates is fine by me.

What I tend to see though is a trend in cosmetic FP manipulation done strictly to garner the "Oh, cool!" factor and cut a profit. (Look! Red puppies! Orange Rhesus! COOOOOOL!!!!) It really sets me off to see non FP animals sold as FP animals when in reality they have been forcibly injected with dyes (any number of species of danio, tetra, or barb), or have been subjected to multiple acid baths and dye washes to achieve a color(JellyBean cichlids).

In the case of the trademarked and patented "Glo-fish" they were never intended as pets. They were developed as water treatment and pollution testing specimens that were easier to catalog and quantify. Their introduction into the pet trade was a result of the company the researchers worked for. I in fact think the process should be outlawed. Truth is they are just manipulated Zebra Danios.

GFP axolotls are from a similar background. While I do not know the details, I remember when the first specimens were made available for embryological and regeneration research. The animals we have now in the pet trade are members of these lines that were smuggled out of labs. I will add it is my understanding that the GFP axolotl line was developed primarily for embryology research of which the axolotl is one of the standard models.(Could be wrong about that though, I'm running off my Developmental Biology and Embryology classes for that and we all know how far some textbooks can be from reality...)

So, ethically I am on both sides. Do I own GFP axolotls? Yes. Do I own them because they add wow factor to my amphibian seminars for local schools? Yep. Do I like them? Darn straight I do....go figure....I have a soft spot for amphibians...

As for the Glo-fish, I find people that buy them as pets hysterical. They will spend 3-10 dollars for a zebra danio, which is an extremely common, easy to breed fish that I used to use as feeders for my predatory fish.... Three to ten dollars! Heck of a mark up for a 15 cent feeder.

 

[jane1187]

It's not any different than dog breeders breeding pugs or cockapoos, and there isn't much controversy surrounding that.

I have to disagree with you entirely here. There is much controversy surrounding pedigree dog breeding, in fact the RSPCA has been campaigning for years about the poor health and welfare standards of many pedigree dog breeds, including the pug, cavalier KC spaniel, boxer, dalmatian. Selective breeding damages our species beyond recognition and beyond what is healthy. I am in no way suggesting that the health of these GFP axies is undermined as with these dog breeds, but I would just like to point out that your statement about controversy-free dog breeding is too sweeping a statement.

I don't see how modifying the critters to glow is that much different from selectively breeding other traits into animals.

I think there is a MASSIVE difference between adding a gene that in no way would be naturally occuring into an animal, to selecting for a gene mutation that has occurred naturally. Under no circumstances would you suddenly find an axolotl mutation in your batch of eggs that generated glow-in-the-dark axolotls... yellow, red or blue axolotls maybe... Just in the same way you are unlikely to suddenly breed a mouse with wings.

 

[Azhael]

While it´s true that there is concern about the terrible state of pedigree dogs (because they are monsters, people) i think CymriLynne was refering to the fact that in the general public and for the longest of times, very few people have given a toss about how artifitial selection is affecting dog welfare. Your average dog keeper doesn´t even recognize the problem until it´s way too late and it´s staring hir in the face at which point they might wake up and realize that their cute little dog is a very sick, highly deformed, suffering creature. The same is happening with axolotls, and pretty much every single stablished captive species, even if so far, not to the same terrifying extenct (but just you wait).

It is not impossible for a fluorescent protein to spontaneously appear by mutation from modifications of existing proteins. It´d extraordinarily rare, but it could happen. After all fluorescent proteins have appeared independently in a number of different groups and they are simply a naturally ocurring protein. Again, the probability is ridiculously small, but it exists.
Regardless, i don´t see that much of a difference between accumulating mutations and introducing exogenous genes. The process is different, but the result is basically equivalent. The latter just happens to be way faster.
I fear people might make the mistake of thinking that because colour mutations appear naturally that therefore they must be ok.

 

[ajr104]

I don't want to get too involved in this debate however, its need to be said that the green fluorescent protein (GFP) used in these animals is a man made mutation of a naturally occurring protein. The gene was first mutated in 1995 and has been mutated and purified to what we see today. Fluorescent proteins are not uncommon in nature, especially in the marine world (many coral species for e.g.)

Wild Jellyfish with the naturally occurring GFP do not glow in the same way as 'GloFish', and do not glow in the crazy array of colours that we see Zebra Danios. Therefore, it is not just the fish that are engineered, but the gene also...

 

[Azhael]

True, the original protein has been modified for research purposes in a number of different ways.

 

[ajr104]

True, the original protein has been modified for research purposes in a number of different ways.

And non-research (commercial) purposes...

 

[Azhael]

I doubt that´s the case. Modifying a gene so that the resulting protein changes is not an easy task and requires expensive lab machinery. I don´t think even the most successful commercial breeders have access to the necessary equipment (or the knowledge, for that matter) to accomplish such a thing.

 

[SludgeMunkey]

While it´s true that there is concern about the terrible state of pedigree dogs (because they are monsters, people) i think CymriLynne was refering to the fact that in the general public and for the longest of times, very few people have given a toss about how artifitial selection is affecting dog welfare. Your average dog keeper doesn´t even recognize the problem until it´s way too late and it´s staring hir in the face at which point they might wake up and realize that their cute little dog is a very sick, highly deformed, suffering creature. The same is happening with axolotls, and pretty much every single stablished captive species, even if so far, not to the same terrifying extenct (but just you wait).


Oh man. Ten minutes with El Guapo or El Chuy would cure you of your dog phobia.

In a way I have to agree with you though. Instantaneously available scientific data is a double-edged blade. It is great people can access it, but the reality is the bulk of them do not understand what the heck they are reading. This results in people jumping to conclusions and serious misunderstanding as concepts. That bothers me quite a bit as many of you know.

I doubt that´s the case. Modifying a gene so that the resulting protein changes is not an easy task and requires expensive lab machinery. I don´t think even the most successful commercial breeders have access to the necessary equipment (or the knowledge, for that matter) to accomplish such a thing.

Absolutely true. To continue with my previous statement, a complete lack of knowledge on the subject often results in serious misunderstanding of the concept. I happen to know this guy that is working on an FP manipulation to a certain parthenogenic crayfish. He is doing this to develop it as a lab model with lowered risk of invasive species introduction in the wild as it is only a matter of time before the specimens will show up in the pet trade somewhere. (Guess who he got his initial stock from...)

Manipulations and modifications at this level are virtually impossible outside of a real laboratory. As for the commercial aspect, the profit margin is far too low at this time to make it viable. Glofish come up again in this topic as the original scientists and their lab get zero from the sale of these patented animals.

It is a fun foray into patent law, but it was in fact a breeder in a certain Asian country that got some stolen specimens and then cross bred them with normal danios. After a few generations he ended up with glofish that were genetically different enough to bypass US patent law. By that time however, the point was moot as he had been selling the standard strain in the pet market for years. This resulted in private, illegal breedings that were sold internationally by hobbyists. By the time his strain made it to the states, they were already here. Sadly, US patent law worries more about movies, music and warring software companies so they have spread without any documented legal action.

Now, with axolotls remember we live in a world where profiteers take advantage of tissue transfer grafting and regeneration to sell six legged, 12 gilled axolotls for hundreds of dollars to people stupid enough to pay those sorts of prices for a lie.

As for ongoing variation and morphology due to breeding, I do not think it will be a big issue in North America. Too few of the population even bother to breed them in bulk. However, I suspect the place to watch is Australia, where the laws there have resulted in an extensively inbred population that produces some interesting variations.


As for the bit about pedigree dogs, this is less the fault of the dog and more the fault of the consumer. If there was not a demand, there wouldn't be a problem. I speak from experience, I have a house full of brachycephalic canines all rescued from ignorant mouth-breathing morons that should not be allowed to have children let alone pets. I have seen the horrors of puppy mills and kennel breeders. I have seen the products of a good number of backyard breeders too. Believe me when I say it took every fiber of my being to not start slaughtering humans to prevent further abuse of these poor critters.

Ultimately, this thread ties in perfectly with Frank's thread about restrictions and permits. If such controls existed, most of these issues could be eliminated.


I guess what I am saying is, my take on the entire topic is simple: To stop the supply you must eliminate the demand.

 

[Azhael]

To stop the supply you must eliminate the demand.

Absolutely true...Unfortunately i don´t see that happening, not now, not ever...
While this discussion is going on there are people in other threads talking about how awesome it is to make an axolotl glow from the inside. At least this thread exists which is way better than nothing.

I have to admit i sort of like pugs (i used to know one that always seemed to me like a mafia boss in disguise), but they are a compound of horrible malformations...quite frankly anyone who breeds them deserves nothing but my utter disgust. Who could possibly wish so many terrible things onto the animals they supossedly love...

 

[Molch]

I'd like to feed some glow dust to the people who came up with this nonsense in the first place. That way, they can shine lights at each other out of their bung-holes and leave the poor fishes alone.
There, I said it! :violent::violent:

 

[Azhael]

Molch, maybe that would turn their empathy gland on.

I was reading this other thread about GFP axolotls and i just had to laugh (in a sad, sad way) when once again i came across one of those innocent little commentaries that seem to scape people´s notice: "I only had the black light on for the photos, as she really doesn't like it. D:".
Just one example, of course...but it shows how the priorities are really messed up in this hobby....