# GLOfish



## skinns (Apr 8, 2004)

Excuse me if this is a re-post, but a friend of mine was telling me about these fish that had been genetically altered for scientific purposes. The article was in last months WIRED magazine.

Anyway here is the site. Be interested to see what everybody's thoughts are!

http://www.glofish.com


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

I think the people who buy these have already had a Betta in a vase, one of those sealed "environments" (aquababies?), dye-injected Corydoras and Glassfish, and are looking for another animal to kill.

I think it's an interesting science experiment but rather pointless, really.


----------



## skinns (Apr 8, 2004)

These fish aren't injected with the stained ink like the glass fish you see in the LFS. They are the offspring from previous eggs that were given natural fluorescence genes.

Although I still wouldn't buy one. Just don't get my post confused with the idea that I am supporting any animal alter science.

I like things the way the are.


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

I know they are not dye-injected. My point is that they are being marketed to the same morons that would buy dye-injected fish.


----------



## trenac (Jul 16, 2004)

I personally would not buy Glow-fish, however I can't put them on the same low level as fish that have been injected with dye. 

I would not call people who buy dyed fish "morons", they are more than likely people who have not been educated in this process and/or are not aware this is unnatural coloration.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

personally i think its a great sales gimmic


----------



## JanS (Apr 14, 2004)

With so many naturally beautiful fish out there, I just don't get why so many want to go for the unnatural glitz. You should have seen the way the "fluorescent neon Cichlids" sold back when we did have a fish store.... They couldn't even keep them in stock, and I thought they were the most horrible looking fish I had ever seen. Not to mention what they put the poor fish through.....

When they first started doing it (the glo fish), it was more of a scientific experiment than a marketing idea, wasn't it?


----------



## skinns (Apr 8, 2004)

I'd have to agree with you Jan. I really can't stand seeing freshwater aquariums with flourescent decorations, plastic-coral, and to mention the GLO-Gravel.


----------



## spyder (Nov 30, 2004)

I haven't seen any of these in the LFS's yet, but I would be curious to see one in person. Being in the science field, I guess it doesn't strike me as strange to see genetically altered plants/animals, though it is a bit odd to see them on the market to the general public! Such mutations can be very useful in science, and it's *not* done just to see if it can be done. Check out this image to see an example of using a similar mutation to follow how a virus spreads in infected plant leaves. Full article

edited becuase I left out an important word!


----------



## Black oranda (Dec 28, 2004)

The tests are cruel and pointless... by buying one your 
just telling them to inject dye into more fish..... 85% of the fish 
don't survive the first step since there so stressed.
And the ones who do make it ... they won't live natural lives.


----------



## guppy (Mar 7, 2004)

You wont see them in CA because they are Banned to be sold in fish stores.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 12, 2004)

Yeah those glofish are abberations of nature that should never have been "created". Just like all those fancy guppies and livebearers, veil tailed and long finned varieties all those standard LFS fish, anything albino, any angelfish not exhibiting the standard silver and black pattern, and possibly the worst of them all, fancy goldfish like celestials, ranchus and black orandas! :twisted:


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

Aaron--there Glofish aren't selectively bred, but rather they are injected with anenome genes. That's new technology. Selective breeding is not.

Black oranda--see above. These are not dye-injected.


----------



## danio27 (Jul 24, 2004)

The glofish are not "abberations of nature". The glo-zebrafish was originally created as a screening tool to detect water pollutants. And now it is offered as a pet. I've seen them and they don't really glow under fluorescent light. In order to see them really glow, you have to put them under UV light.

Zebrafish are routinely used in medical research as a model organism. Transgenic zebrafish expressing fluorescent proteins were created for medical research. The fluorescent protein,GFP=Green Fluorescent Protein was originally identified from jellyfish and red from sea anemones?. There are many lines of transgenic fish that have tissue-specific expression of fluorescent protein. These fish are extremely useful for drug screenings. My whole Ph.D thesis was based on zebrafish cardiac development.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

now hang on a second, calling albinos and veil tailed angelfish "Aberrations of nature" is not true. these fish already have genes that naturally occur for the lack of color and larger fins in their species, it has just been disadvantageous to have those attributes in nature. however, in our unnatural aquarium setting these seemingly unnatural features are an advantage.

glofish on the other hand are aberrations of nature because none of the zebra danios posses the glo gene - it had to be implanted from another organism. and even that is not truly an aberration of nature since the glo-gene is naturally occurring. it is perhaps upsetting to most of us that these oddities are being bread (and transplanted) into our fish but they do not deserve our contempt. 

think of all those fancy strains as an emphasis on certain traits in nature.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 12, 2004)

Whoa, let me explain myself here. I know what a glofish is, I read the article and got the sales pitch by those who developed them. All I was trying to say is that they are the next generation of "manmade" varieties of fish, like the painted Chandas, dyed cories, flowerhorns, Orandas and Ranchus, fancy livebearers and albino/ veil tailed stuff that has been to a certain degree common fare in our LFS since we all started this hobby. "Genetic abberation" was a general statement and was my attempt at sarcasm... sorry. 
Hundreds of years ago, The Chinese selectively bred goldfish and created a wide array of different shapes and colors. Many of these grossly different from its original form. In the 50's, Hawaii was world renowned for a number of Hobbyists creating new forms and color patterns on swordtails, variatus, and platies by inbreeding and hybridizing the three to "jump" traits from one species to another. Then you have Designer discus and angels, halfmoon and crowntail bettas, balloon rams and a whole [email protected] load of man made fish of shapes and sizes. It seems we are "creating" something new as fast as we force something into extinction (a sarcastic generalized statement :lol: ) So what I am just trying to get at, is that I see glofish, a transgenic mutation (is that right?) in my book are no different than a gold veiled angel or a painted chanda. Mother nature didn't think up that one, we did. They have their place in the hobby. These fish are for people who have never had a fish before and want something easy to keep, colorful, and cheap. I for one would never keep anything manmade, but hey if you think they are hot, knock yourself out. Better in your tank than to die a slow death in the LFS! 

On another note, some hobbyists have been working with these glofish and have already gotten the pink on veiled, gold, and leopard Danios. The leopard glofish are actually kinda nice- pink base with dark blue spots... It seems that the gene is a simple recessive trait like veiled/ long finnage.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

lol sry Aaron didnt mean to sound so evil there :twisted: 

i gotta say i dont like the way most man-made fish look. breeding for different colours is one thing, but when people start morphing the body shape thats when i draw the line. for instance all those freaky goldfish with the bubble eyes, and the massive tumor-like growths on their heads are just too much for me. makes me feel sick


----------



## HeyPK (Jan 23, 2004)

I think that it is more cruel to have produced the more grotesque varieties of goldfish than to have produced the glowfish. The anemone color gene was probably introduced into the nucleus of an egg, and I assume that the gene is now part of the fish's genome and is passed on to its offspring. There is nothing particularly cruel in that. 

The Chinese produced the goldfish varieties by selecting for mutations that occurred naturally, but would have normally been eliminated from the population by natural selection---predators, etc. I wonder how uncomfortable it is to be one of the more grotesque varieties that can hardly swim and whose eyes look straight up. 

As for whether you like a variety, whether it is crossbred, artificially selected, or transgenic, I think it should only be a matter of taste. I personally think that the glowfish is too garishly red for my taste.


----------

