PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on genetically engineered pink angelfish



Orion5
11-17-2012, 12:50 AM
Taiwanese scientists have engineered these pink angelfish. Aside from your color preferences, what are your thoughts on genetic engineering new aquarium fish?

Knightia
11-17-2012, 01:04 AM
Not really a fan as I look for natural looking tank set-ups. They do look frighteningly like dyed fish. I wouldn't know where to begin with the decor design to go with these little Frankensteins :pink:

An article on these fish said there was only a 1% success rate for this coloration. What happens to the 99% I wonder? Are they disposed of as "rejects"? This kind of thing, whilst the actual act of adding the colour to the eggs isn't harmful to the fish in itself, does raise ethical concerns about the byproducts of this industry. Who takes responsibility for all the unwanted ones? :sconfused:

jeffs99dime
11-17-2012, 01:05 AM
I don't believe in messing with nature. There is a reason there weren't pink Angels before.

Goes to 11!
11-17-2012, 01:09 AM
An article on these fish said there was only a 1% success rate for this coloration.
If that is true, No matter what ones personal feelings are wrt the result.. You couldn't call it an efficient process.

Research required but I am unlikely to support something so wasteful.

butterbean
11-17-2012, 01:13 AM
Ok I'm really going to sound corny and old fashion but I think God created beautiful fish in a vast array of colors and man should just leave them alone and stop killing them shooting them full of dye sorry was not meant to offend anyone just my opinion ....

Goes to 11!
11-17-2012, 01:18 AM
I get your point but ... [If I understand the OP correctly] These are not dyed, They are colored via gene manipulation.
:22:

butterbean
11-17-2012, 01:25 AM
(blush) My mistake .. But I still think it is unnecessary and wrong ..But I guess I should have kept my opinion to myself...

Goes to 11!
11-17-2012, 01:28 AM
But I guess I should have kept my opinion to myself...
Really? On a thread where opinions are being asked for? Relax :hmm3grin2orange: :tease:

mommy1
11-17-2012, 01:30 AM
Personally I will never understand the attraction of fish like this or glofish for anyone over the age of 8, I think they are unnatural and ugly. I will never understand why people can't be happy with the natural colors of fish. But, colored fish has become a huge industry and as long as people keep buying them, other people will keep creating them. I don't like line breeding for color or other trait as well because it makes them look unnatural and weakens the fish. We have also turned this beautiful fish...


http://www.aquabid.com/uploads/fwlivebearersw1209769207.jpg




Into this



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-RJ9YO2wNSh4/TcPgfL57_8I/AAAAAAAAAK0/FXQNyePiCNA/s1600/balloon%2Bmolly%2Bfish.jpg


Give me wild caught fish in their natural colors and shapes any day over all of the genetic alterations, whether it's manipulating genes, or line breeding, makes no difference to me.. it's all ugly.




http://http://www.aquabid.com/uploads/fwlivebearersw1209769207.jpg

Knightia
11-17-2012, 01:31 AM
:color: Let's leave God out of it :color:

Humans have been changing animals for thousands of years - the pure variety of pedigree dog breeds is testament to that. Doesn't make it "right" though...the ethics of changing nature. Can you rationally apply ethics to nature when nature is so violent and full of suffering? Are we part of nature or are we seperate to it? With the ability to empathise does it enhance or inhibit our objectivity? Interesting topic for a debate :18: ...ok I'll stop now before I get into trouble.
:angel:

Knightia
11-17-2012, 01:33 AM
+1 to what mommy1 said (apart from the wild caught part). I like wild-looking fish, but wish we didn't keep taking from the wild.

Amelia
11-17-2012, 01:34 AM
I saw someone sharing this picture on facebook a while ago and promptly snuffed them out for supporting dyed fish... now I feel a little bad. In my defense, they do look suspiciously dyed.

I vote no anyway. Honestly, if people don't like the way fish look in their beautiful natural forms they shouldn't keep them. They're an animal, not an accessory. The same kind of people that buy these will be the people that get their poodles fur dyed.

Orion5
11-17-2012, 01:40 AM
Interesting points!

I would clarify that on one OP the writer is correct, these fish are not dyed-- they are genetically manipulated in the egg to display these colors, spliced with the genes of a semi-fluorescent species of coral.

They are far from natural, but on another post someone mentioned about breeding dogs and so on... Keep in mind a vast majority of the fish we own have been inbred over hundreds of generations to produce more vibrant colors. Discus' natural color is black and muddy brown. Same with angelfish. Goldfish (carp) are brown, and their shapes aren't even the same as what we buy in the fish store. And the whole koi spread of varieties are genetic mutants inbred over thousands of years.

There is very little natural about the fish we keep, or the dogs or cats for that matter.

What bothers me the most is that they spliced genes with another thing that wasn't even a fish. Ya know, like tomatoes carrying frog DNA or something like that.

The reason the scientists were so adamant in producing this color in angelfish is supposedly angelfish do not naturally carry the gene for any sort of "red" or reddish pigments.

These angelfish are 3500$ Canadian each, in case you want one. And yeah, as with anyone creating a new variety of fish, thousands are culled before the desired traits appear. All new varieties are ruthlessly put through this process, and these mutant angels were no different. :(

Knightia
11-17-2012, 01:50 AM
Keep in mind a vast majority of the fish we own have been inbred over hundreds of generations to produce more vibrant colors. Discus' natural color is black and muddy brown. Same with angelfish. Goldfish (carp) are brown, and their shapes aren't even the same as what we buy in the fish store.

Very true. Yeah that's interesting actually. My parents' pond has had goldfish in it for 30 years. They aren't fed or "looked after" really, other than an annual "drag out" of all the overgrown weed. There used to be lots of orange and white fish and they bred a lot over the years. The heron was a regular visitor though and any brightly coloured fish were easy pickings. My folks thought the heron had got them all and after several years decided to reline the pond and make it a bit bigger (with the intention of re-stocking it). Upon draining the pond they found it still had fish in it...lots of them...but they were all BROWN! Natural selection in action...reverting back to originals over 30 years.

I found this fascinating. :ssmile:

steeler58
11-17-2012, 01:58 AM
I know were talking fish here but something firefly brought up about the goldfish reverting back, studies have shown that dogs left alone after a few generatins will begin to look like Wolfs again.

Amelia
11-17-2012, 01:59 AM
Firefly that's fascinating! What a great story. :)

Orion5
11-17-2012, 02:02 AM
@Firefly-- that's an awesome story! Did you happen to see them up close?? I wonder if they reverted to their original shape as well. It's not very different, just their bellies are ever so slightly more flat so they can scurry the bottom better, I guess. This is amazing! :)

@Steeler-- I've heard of this too. You can see it if you go to a city where there are a lot of wild dogs. Many are completely feral but have collars, meaning they belonged to someone not long before.

Knightia
11-17-2012, 02:07 AM
You might find this an interesting read if you're not familiar with it.
Belyaev Temperament Breeding Experiment: https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=813&y=0&no=&content=true&page=3&css=print

A summary of this is that foxes were (and still are being as the experiment continues to this day) selectively bred for 40 years. The selection process was temperament only. The submissive (domestic-potential-behaviours) foxes were bred together, and the aggressive (wild-potential-behaviours) foxes were bred together. Again, to reiterate...the only selection basis was temperament.

Look what happened to the docile ones.
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg211/froimv/Misc/domesticated_foxes.jpg
A few developed floppy ears as well (more common in domesticated species).

I find this amazing. Genetic linking of behavioural traits and physical traits. :ssuprised:

Knightia
11-17-2012, 02:08 AM
@Firefly-- that's an awesome story! Did you happen to see them up close?? I wonder if they reverted to their original shape as well. It's not very different, just their bellies are ever so slightly more flat so they can scurry the bottom better, I guess.

The orange and white fish were "normal" shaped, so no, it was just the colour change really.

Trillianne
11-17-2012, 02:12 AM
Doesn't really do anything for me, but then I've never really been one of the pink girly girls types.

However, I do see the value in breeding and some experimentation with genetics. Being able to understand what kind of genetics are stable and which are not is quite valuable. Genetics experimentation has led to developments in better understanding diseases like Down Syndrome and Muscular Dystrophy type diseases.

I believe there is probably a long line of ethical debate when it comes to what is acceptable and what isn't.

For me.. I don't support modifications that are a detriment such as dogs that need help cleaning themselves, or deformed bodies that lead to health issues. I don't mind too much just coloration, since that would kind of make me a hypocrite... I find some of the apistos and rams bred to enhance coloration attractive. Orange goldfish don't bother me.. but the wonky eyeball ones do.

steeler58
11-17-2012, 02:13 AM
After growing up around and keeping horse's I always found it interesting that mustangs always reverted back to runty little shot-legged horse's when left alone.

butterbean
11-17-2012, 02:42 AM
Really? On a thread where opinions are being asked for? Relax :hmm3grin2orange: :tease:

I wasn't being sensitive just thinking I might be in over my head and would do well to listen and learn for now :studyingbrown:

Jaster
11-17-2012, 10:09 AM
I actually those are very nice looking and i have to admit that if they were at my lfs I would e buying some.

I am on the fence about how they are made and breed. I see the good in trying to learn from this type of thing and i can really see how it could help us in the big picture. Its up there with cloning.... if little steps like this could mean curing my wifes diabeties or my moms MS or repairing the nerves in my leg so i could walk again or curring cancer... the numbers of people that could be helped is insain. It may not be perfect as far as ethics.... but at least the shot to ethics isnt in vain. I could live with that.

ScottishFish
11-17-2012, 10:20 AM
I'm sure Barbie and Ken would like those angels

Aeonflame
11-17-2012, 12:02 PM
Discus' natural color is black and muddy brown. Same with angelfish

Not true. Wild caught discus are gorgeous and highly sought after. The same goes for wild altum and scalare angels.

Genetic manipulation has been around since we learned to selectively breed plants and animals for specific traits. Glofish are no more atrocious on moral grounds than goldfish that can barely swim and bulldogs that cannot birth their pups naturally.

Knightia
11-17-2012, 12:10 PM
Anything (fish or dog) that is worse off (in health) because of its selective breeding is a massive turn off for me.

chocological
11-17-2012, 03:00 PM
As a bulldog owner, I cannot say anything negative about these fish. Animal domestication and selective breeding go hand in hand.
I wonder how many people are opposed to this that eat strictly organic meats (IE, animals that are not fed hormones or selectively bred for whatever reason). Not that it makes it ethically right..

Angelfish11788
11-17-2012, 03:13 PM
:color: Let's leave God out of it :color:

Humans have been changing animals for thousands of years - the pure variety of pedigree dog breeds is testament to that. Doesn't make it "right" though...the ethics of changing nature. Can you rationally apply ethics to nature when nature is so violent and full of suffering? Are we part of nature or are we seperate to it? With the ability to empathise does it enhance or inhibit our objectivity? Interesting topic for a debate :18: ...ok I'll stop now before I get into trouble.
:angel:


first and probably last post, but if people are putting there opnions, why leave God out

ScottishFish
11-17-2012, 03:20 PM
first and probably last post, but if people are putting there opnions, why leave God out

Religious discussion is prohibited on the AC :22:

Lady Hobbs
11-17-2012, 03:25 PM
@angel...I think no one meant anything other than God made the fish as they were. Humans changed them into what they are now.

Let's get back on topic peeps.

Angelfish11788
11-17-2012, 03:27 PM
Hobbs that is what I was saying there was no discussion on it, not like poster was trying to convert people. lol I beleive i have mention God on here before, just dont want to get banned for doing so lol

Goes to 11!
11-17-2012, 03:30 PM
Religious discussion is prohibited on the AC :22:


I beleive i have mention God on here before, just dont want to get banned for doing so lol

If you can tell the difference between a discussion and mentioning a deity now and then... You are at no risk.

:22:

And back on topic...


Anything (fish or dog) that is worse off (in health) because of its selective breeding is a massive turn off for me.

Totally agree with this.

Lady Hobbs
11-17-2012, 03:31 PM
Not even close to a reason for banning, goofy.
:hmm3grin2orange:

Angelfish11788
11-17-2012, 03:36 PM
lol, just wondering, i have been on lots of forums and you wouldnt believe, well you probably would.. I like this one and wanna stay,

well guess i could put my view.. which i am 50/50 on it, I like some hybrid fish and not 100% on how they are made, if you put 2 differant types of fish and they mate on there own, no problem but when dying, injection or artifcial stuff is being done I dont like it.

Orion5
11-17-2012, 03:48 PM
Ok, maybe not purely "black & brown", but not far...

Aeonflame
11-17-2012, 05:18 PM
Those angels do not appear to be a naturally ocurring wild species. Look up P.scalare, P. leopoldi and P. altum.

Also, that is only one variety of discus found in the wild.

Dave Waits
11-17-2012, 07:04 PM
While I have a had time saying anything about Pink Angels(I bred Black-Lace Super-Veils) I can talk about Culling. Every once in a while, due purely to genetics, I would get some young that weren't all Black( Heavily Marbled) or had deformed or non-veiled finnage. These I would cull, to a 250 gallon Fiberglass, aerated and heated tank in my Garage. They were fed and cared for until I hit a certain population level. Then I would put an Ad in a couple of the nearby newspapers and call some of the petstores I sold to and would have a free giveaway with the proviso that they not breed them. After two or three days my Tank was usually empty.
These Angels would range from dime-sized to half-dollar sized. I just couldn't be ruthless with them and they got a lot of people interested in the hobby. People would set up tanks and call me, asking when my next giveaway was. I gave them out four at a time to individuals and eight at a time to the fishstores. I would try to make sure at least half were not deformed.

Running this tank bit into my profits a bit but, made me feel a lot better about myself. And, it was great PR.

Every Breeder a responsibility to the fish they breed when dealing with culls. You have two options, euthanize or find them a home. My wife thought it was funny, I'm a long-time hunter and fisher. She thought it pretty weird that I could take a Deer or Turkey or a Pheasant but, couldn't kill a fish.

steeler58
11-17-2012, 09:07 PM
Alot of good points but I would not buy them. I've been interested in the Zebra Glo-fish for some time but they are illegal in California.

mizzoutank
11-18-2012, 06:57 AM
@Dave-
good for you and really funny your wife mentioned that.
different when its your own pet you are raising.


back to the OP.

i couldn't get myself to purchase those fish.
1: i think they are ugly
2: when modifying any animal like this and it does more harm..i'm not supporting it.
humans have been messing with genes and breeding since they were discovered. for the sake of science and discovery, i'm all for it as a learning experience. but if they try to mass produce/sell it. not my cup of tea.

Indian Woods Angels
11-18-2012, 09:43 PM
I can't really give my opinion on these Genetically engineered angelfish onacounta this isa PG website.:hmm3grin2orange:

Oh, negatory by the way. Full on hard throttle negative on those.:ssuprised:

CrazedMichael
12-03-2012, 01:16 PM
I actually those are very nice looking and i have to admit that if they were at my lfs I would e buying some.

Someone said in an earlier post that they are being sold for CAN $3500 a piece. Are you loaded? :spam:

I dont have a problem with G.M animals as such since we are a greedy species and we want the best of the best. However, having said that, what i dont agree with is culling something just becuase the colour is not right. If they deal with the unwanted in a moral way, then i'm all for it....