GM fish glows in the bowl - Page 2

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

They're there for no purpose. We want to enjoy them. We enjoy them.

That's a wholly different debate. besides, It's not that beans can be genetically modified in only one way. Also, Are there GM patents already?

Yes there are patents. Monsanto has patent #301 749 in EPO.

Quote:

Research is full of these. That's the whole point of Research. do you suggest that we stop all research?

Yes I know, I also don't think developing a nuke was a good idea. Look, I'm not like some american who trusts only bible and guns, they're total rightwing-pedophiliac morons. Antibiotics are ok, they just are dramatically misused today. They even might endanger the survival of our grand*10 children. I wouldnt want to see super-hybrid viruses that are totally invulnerable against antibiotics. I know you are a good man Az, try to be sensible here. I'm sorry if you think I want to stop all reseach, but it really isnt my problem is it? Its your problem dude

BTW, Did you know that research is a wholly diffrent thin than putting it to practise

Az · June 28, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius

Yes there are patents. Monsanto has patent #301 749 in EPO.

And that's indeed a shame. Though noone has patented beans, generally. only a particular brand of GM beans.

Quote:

Yes I know, I also don't think deleloping a nuke was a good idea. Look, I'm not like some american who trust only bible and guns, they're total rightwing-pedophiliac morons. Antibiotics are ok, they just are dramatically misused today. They even might endanger the survival of our grand*10 children. I wouldnt want to see super-hybrid viruses that are totally invulnerable against antibiotics.

Look, even if they do emerge, we're smart enough, and have plenty of tools to tackle them, because we had penicillin in the first place, so we could build a stronger economy, and spend much more force into research. I would even go far and say that without penicillin, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

I know you are a good man Az, try to be sensible here. I'm sorry if you think I want to stop all reseach, but it really isnt my problem is it? Its your problem dude

We can always agree to disagree.

Until I take over the world, that is.

Quote:

BTW, Did you know that research is a wholly diffrent thin than putting it to practise

Than what's the point? Even by avoiding doing something, you're putting your research into practice, because you know that the thing you'd do would be bad.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Here you go, Michael.

I am enclined more to agree with you.

Interesting. Apparently the inside of the eye - either the cells of the retinal wall, or the intraocular fluid, contain the same bioluminescent material.

That doesn't occur naturally with any bioluminescent organism I'm familiar with, and it would adversely impact vision to a great degree.

I wonder if that too was part of the GM (i.e. a separate additional procedure), or if it was just an unintended result.

Provost Harrison · June 28, 2003, 16:57

Well even if it wasn't sterile, I would expect that glowing in the dark would be a significant evolutionary disadvantage, although could be the opposite if it were to repel predators...

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 16:58

I'm only saying it bio-genetic research is good in itself (an sich) problem is how we use our knowledge. You just seem to want some frigging glowing fishes to your living room. I say that's just moronic, get some cool lightening solution or something. But glowing fishes, you must be kidding...

Provost Harrison · June 28, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Interesting. Apparently the inside of the eye - either the cells of the retinal wall, or the intraocular fluid, contain the same bioluminescent material.

That doesn't occur naturally with any bioluminescent organism I'm familiar with, and it would adversely impact vision to a great degree.

I wonder if that too was part of the GM (i.e. a separate additional procedure), or if it was just an unintended result.

Well it all depends on the expression vector used to modify the fish. Genes tend to be switched on and off depending on the tissue type and the development of the organism. It is possible to localise it to different tissue types if the correct promoters and transcription factors are associated with it, or if the gene is inserted in the right part of the chromosome (ie, with a group of genes that are expressed in a particular tissue type). However I don't know the details of this one...I expect it would be possible to just get this gene to be expressed in skin tissue and it wouldn't be a problem...if the gene is just thrown in it may be expressed universally and hence a complete glowing fish, but yeah, I would expect this would cause major sight problems, and the protein involved I suspect would require ATP which would drain energy unnecessarily (is this luciferase that has been expressed...a lot of work has been done with luciferase as a marker for gene expression so I wouldn't be surprised, but it is a good experiment in itself if they can get it to be expressed in something like a fish...perhaps soon we will be able to get glow in the dark dogs

)

Az · June 28, 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Interesting. Apparently the inside of the eye - either the cells of the retinal wall, or the intraocular fluid, contain the same bioluminescent material.

That doesn't occur naturally with any bioluminescent organism I'm familiar with, and it would adversely impact vision to a great degree.

I wonder if that too was part of the GM (i.e. a separate additional procedure), or if it was just an unintended result.

As far as my knowledge of GE goes, this was probably an unintended result. It probably took a shitload of effort to get this far. ( not something breathtaking, but a considerable ammount of effort ).

Maybe Richard could elaborate some more on this.

Richard: as MtG said, these are School fishes. Stealth is not their method of defence.

lightblue · June 28, 2003, 17:05

The thing about these sort of things is that they draw attention to the possibilities of this sort of technology.

Technology development either moves fast during war times or when there's mass money to be made. Therefore the creation of potential consumer goods (pets in this case) might quite possibly increase the amount of money available and the speed of development. Which is only a good thing in my opinion.

Az · June 28, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

if the gene is just thrown in it may be expressed universally and hence a complete glowing fish, but yeah, I would expect this would cause major sight problems, and the protein involved I suspect would require ATP which would drain energy unnecessarily

That's my guess.

Quote:

perhaps soon we will be able to get glow in the dark dogs

A dog is man's best friend! Respect them, damn it!

gunkulator · June 28, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius

a) so it's for our pleasure. I don't think animals are for our pleasure.

Why not? They'd turn around and eat us in a second if they could. Competition amongst species is what nature is all about. Besides it's too late. Centuries of animal husbandry have produce animals with no other purpose than to serve mankind. The average dairy cow for example, with its ridiculously oversized udders would die a painful death if it wasn't milked twice a day. It produces far more milk than is necessary. Cows, sheep, dogs, pigs, chickens - all have been altered to live amongst people and can no longer fend for themselves.

Quote:

Anyway, God or Nature whatever you prefer has given us a possibility to use our brains.

Exactly! How else did mankind invent agriculture and discover how to survive the winter? With our brains. As human populations grew and we left behind our hunter-gatherering ways, we found we needed animals more and more.

Quote:

We have the ability to do good and also do bad awering it. This is doing bad for me, we can do this but we really don't have to. Anyway it may seem now that GM is ok, but frankly i think we aren't smart enough to understand all consequences of our little experiments

Maybe, but again mankind has only his brain to help him survive so we'll have to make do with what we have.

Az · June 28, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

animal husbandry

This one always make me grin.

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator

Why not? They'd turn around and eat us in a second if they could. Competition amongst species is what nature is all about. Besides it's too late. Centuries of animal husbandry have produce animals with no other purpose than to serve mankind. The average dairy cow for example, with its ridiculously oversized udders would die a painful death if it wasn't milked twice a day. It produces far more milk than is necessary. Cows, sheep, dogs, pigs, chickens - all have been altered to live amongst people and can no longer fend for themselves.

Hmm, but arent we over that allready? We are far more superior than any other species on this planet. I think it is our duty to live and let 'em live. It's true we have altered many species to live amongst humans, but developing glowing fish, come on! This is just banal

And why are you telling me that we survived solely because our brains? I don't recall ever saying any otherwise..

Provost Harrison · June 28, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

animal husbandry

This one always make me grin.

I suppose if you have a sick mind like you, you could interpret it like that

gunkulator · June 28, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by laurentius

Hmm, but arent we over that allready? We are far more superior than any other species on this planet. I think it is our duty to live and let 'em live.

Unless they conflict with our interests. I, for one, will continue to slap mosquitos and kill termites without a second thought.

Quote:

It's true we have altered many species to live amongst humans, but developing glowing fish, come on! This is just banal

So are toy poodles and other lap dogs bred into ridiculous shapes and sizes for no other reason except to please us. Fish at least are nothing more than dumb animals.

Quote:

And why are you telling me that we survived solely because our brains? I don't recall ever saying any otherwise..

It was a comment about nature in general. Animals use the advantages they have. Some people believe their lives are better by having homes filled with works of art, elaborate furniture, Civilization III and other completely unnecessary things.

Who knows, maybe these things stimulate our brain, which again is what makes us superior. Glowing fish fall into the luxury department.

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 18:00

Anyhow you look it, it's nothing more than wortless waste of time

The Mad Monk · June 28, 2003, 18:09

At $17 a fish, it could become a very profitable waste of time.

The Mad Monk · June 28, 2003, 18:11

...although I wouldn't pay it.

They look possessed.

laurentius · June 28, 2003, 18:21

Yeah, and hopefully world ain't all about profitability.
Sorry guys but i'm taking this somewhat seriously :|

OneFootInTheGrave · June 28, 2003, 20:33

I am waiting for people with flourescent genes... I'd like to have a flourescent clone

Provost Harrison · June 28, 2003, 20:34

I wonder what cats will make of them, and if they are tasty

OneFootInTheGrave · June 28, 2003, 20:43

I am wandering what are the ends of human creativity ?

but that is besides the point -

Cats will glow too one day

Lonestar · June 28, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I am wandering what are the ends of human creativity ?

but that is besides the point -

Cats will glow too one day

I'm waiting for Hovering Cats(tm)

Combat Ingrid · June 28, 2003, 21:32

Ah, I see Provost is also enlightened in the field of tissue-specific promoter sequences

Btw, I heard a while ago that a bunch of Canadian PhD students were about to patent a glowing christmas tree. If I remember it right, they were using the green fluorescent protein (GFP) to study the development of the needles and after seeing the glowing tree they got the idea to make money by exporting it to the americans

Q Classic · June 28, 2003, 22:44

cool.

i wouldn't get it, but the idea's kinda cool.

Sava · June 28, 2003, 22:51

fish are stupid... I have no need to hold animals hostage just for my own sick, aesthetic pleasures.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 23:30

My fish live in rather nice quarters, in nice schooling groups, and far longer and healthier than their average natural lifespan.

I somehow doubt if they could understand the concept of choice, they're prefer to be "free" in predatorville.

So how did the telephone pole of self-righteousness find it's way up your ass, anyway?

Sava · June 28, 2003, 23:34

please mtg, your troll-o-meter must not be working

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 23:37

I regard most OT posts as trolls, including a lot of my own. I just couldn't resist the comment.

Az · June 29, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
Ah, I see Provost is also enlightened in the field of tissue-specific promoter sequences

for me, it was part of Biology 1.

Seeker · June 29, 2003, 00:59

So when are these GM dwarf tigers coming out? How do I get one?

How big, maybe 50 cm maximum?