chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Buy your own GLOWING FISH!
It doesn't appear to be a hoax.. and indeed, it is possible (and has been done in labs many a time) to generate glowing organisms, even vertebrae.
http://www.glofish.com/default.asp
They have some pictures
The fluorescence is obviously not so clear, as active light is always badly shown on monitors.
Anyway, I had my doubts about biosafety of these things, thinking that who knows, maybe they have a biological selective advantage in nature, and they
might wipe out the normal zebra fish population - because undoubtedly someone will release these fish into the wild, by accidnet or on purpose.
Not so, they say:
| Quote: | Environmental Safety First.
We believe it is of paramount importance that all the fluorescent fish we offer for sale be safe for the environment. To ensure that we are
successful, stringent testing will be performed before any fish is made available to the public, with specific emphasis placed on analyzing growth
rates, temperature sensitivities, and mating success. Any line of fluorescent fish demonstrating increased strengths or successes in these
areas relative to non-fluorescent fish of the same species , or otherwise displaying any characteristic that poses an environment concern,
will not be offered for sale. |
I'm afraid that's a good start, but not enough me thinks. Who knows what will happen with this fish a few hundred generations down the road? Immediate
selective advantage is not necessarily obvious, it may only become so after many accumulative generations.
Even though it's cool... I am not sure about the safety.
But then, we in the lab use genetically modiefied bacteria/yeast all the time, with genes that some of the time people don't even know wht they do.
There are no recorded instances of any artificial genes being found in nature, except the antibiotic resistance genes - which did NOT arise due to
laboratory use, but simply because of selective pressure being produced by antibiotics medication.
Oh, it appears some game fishing organisation had some concerns (err hello? they have no role in it! It's ecologists and scientists who should worry
about this!)
| Quote: | | We have received many questions recently regarding the availability of GloFish® fluorescent fish in California. Based on a positive recommendation
from the California Department of Fish and Game (pdf), the California Fish and Game Commission recently voted to formally consider allowing our fish.
However, at present, the sale, possession, transportation, and importation of GloFish® fluorescent fish is strictly prohibited in the State of
California . We hope the Commission will vote to allow our fish in the near future, and we will continue to update this page with the latest news.
|
[Edited on 12-6-2006 by chemoleo]
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
An interesting article on Genetic Engineering and Glowfish, also other organisms
from Christian Science monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0122/p14s02-sten.html
| Quote: | GloFish zoom to market
Genetic engineering promises a long line of improvements to animals - from fish that glow to mosquitoes without disease - but are federal regulators
keeping a watchful eye?
By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
As far as anyone can tell, the biggest threat from the world's first transgenic pet might be that it keeps a few goldfish awake at night.
But for opponents of transforming animals through bioengineering, the red glow emanating from the new GloFish might as well be a five-alarm fire.
Because the US government quickly agreed the fish was safe, concern is spreading that regulatory oversight of transgenic animals may be flawed.
A long line of genetically modified animals are under study: flea-resistant dogs, cats with nonallergenic fur, and designer mosquitoes that could
outbreed the current pests but would be incapable of carrying diseases such as malaria. Thus, the tiny and innocuous GloFish has plunged the
scientific and regulatory communities into murky waters.
"All the experts I've talked to don't have concerns about this particular fish, but it is the precedent for what else is coming; and what are the
rules by which those fish or animals are going to be judged?" asks Michael Rodemeyer, director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology in
Washington. "The question is, we think they're safe, but how do we really know unless somebody has looked at some data and made a decision about
that?"
Some officials aren't ready to offer their blessing. On Dec. 4, the California Fish and Game Commission banned the sale of GloFish. Other states are
studying whether to ban or regulate these and other transgenic fish. While glowing mice, insects, and rabbits have been bred in laboratories, GloFish
represent the first transgenic animals that Americans can take home as pets.
But in a brief statement Dec. 9, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it would not regulate GloFish because they posed no threat to the food
supply or "any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States."
Ban on GloFish
Consumer and environmental watchdog groups have reacted with alarm. Last week, the Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety
filed suit seeking a court order to stop the sale of GloFish pending federal approval.
A report issued Tuesday by the National Research Council also raises concerns about the release of bioengineered animals into the wild. It calls for
new research to identify more clearly the ecological risks of genetically modified organisms, including plants, animals, and microbes. It also cites
the need for better confinement through isolation and other means, such as sterilization.
"The evaluation of whether and how to confine cannot be an afterthought in the development of a transgenic organism," the report warns. "Safety must
be a primary goal from the start of any project."
Genetic scientists agree that it's unlikely GloFish themselves pose a threat, since they wouldn't flourish in the wild.
The fish were created by scientists at the University of Singapore who injected a sea coral gene for red fluorescence into zebrafish embryos. The fish
were intended to act as environmental markers, glowing only when they encountered ocean pollutants. But the fish's glow turned out to be always
"turned on," quashing that idea.
The GloFish for sale in American pet stores, distributed by Yorktown Technologies of Austin, Texas, are descendants of these genetically altered fish,
which continue to express red fluorescence. (They shine most intensely under black light.)
As regulations now stand, the FDA bears most of the responsibility for regulating transgenic animals. In the past, the agency has said that all
genetically altered creatures constitute "new drugs" and thus would fall under its review. The FDA's inattention to the GloFish seems to suggest a
change in policy.
"The responsibilities of federal agencies for regulating animal biotechnology are unclear," concludes a 2002 report from the National Academies of
Science, which also noted "a concern about the legal and technical capacity of the [federal] agencies to address potential hazards, particularly in
the environmental area."
A number of agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the US
Department of Agriculture could play a role in regulating transgenic animals.
After all, says Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, the FDA is not the expert on something like the dangers of transgenic
salmon escaping from a net pen.
"You've got to look at bringing in the other agencies here who have the expertise in what the environmental issues are," he says. "With this GloFish
issue, the FDA, primarily, and the other agencies are essentially washing their hands of the issue, and that sets a horrible precedent."
The problem of hazy jurisdiction stems from the inability of Congress to pass comprehensive legislation in the 1980s, says Eric Hallerman, a professor
of fisheries and wildlife science at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Va.
Instead, agencies were forced to try to stretch existing laws to cover transgenic animals. Genetically altered animals that produced food or medicine
fell under the FDA. But the approach left "holes" in the regulatory system, Professor Hallerman says, including the question of who would regulate
"ornamental" animals: household pets. "Regulators were caught unaware by [the GloFish]," he says, "and it went forward and went commercial very
quickly."
Serious scientific and ethical concerns surround transgenic animals, including questions of whether they can safely be part of the food chain and
whether genetic manipulations are fair to the animals themselves.
But the greatest worries are environmental: What potential damage might transgenic species do if released in the wild? The "Trojan gene" theory, for
example, proposes that a transgenic fish altered to grow faster and larger might outcompete its wild relatives for mates. But what if it then proved
to produce weak, less fertile offspring? Such a combination of new qualities could weaken a species in the wild or even bring it to extinction.
Scientific interest in transgenic animals remains high because along with their risks they offer potentially huge rewards. Cows, sheep, goats, swine,
fish, and insects already have been genetically altered to grow faster and larger for food production or to produce beneficial products like
pharmaceuticals or organs for transplant into humans. Transgenic mice have become an important laboratory research tool. One company is producing
spider silk in the milk of transgenic goats that is strong enough to be used in making body armor for the military. A patented Enviropig produces
manure with much less phosphorus, reducing its adverse effects on the environment.
Looking ahead, researchers are working on a transgenic mosquito bred to not carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. It would be released in
the wild to spread its genes through existing populations, a potential boon to human health. But before that happened it would be vital to know that
no adverse unintended consequences would result.
Ethics of bioengineering
Some see GloFish as a trivial application of genetic manipulation, not worth any problems it might spawn. Others point out that humans have been
altering animals through traditional breeding techniques for thousands of years, sometimes only for pleasure.
"I don't have any problem engineering animals. Ethically, we've answered that," says Art Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the
University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "We have sheep and cows and dogs and cats that look like nothing that ever existed in nature."
What would be ethically troublesome, he says, are changes that cause an animal to suffer, such as the hip problems in German Shepherds caused by
inbreeding or breathing problems that bulldog breeds develop. If people are going to protest that GloFish are a trivial use of technology, we'd "have
to protest all technology," Caplan says. "We're very good at using technology for fun. I'm not against fun. It's fine to make a fish that glows when
it doesn't hurt the fish and amuses us."
Some observers say the more work that is done with any kind of transgenic animals, the better we'll be able to understand the implications of
genetically manipulating human beings. "It seems frightening to talk about genetically engineering your baby," Caplan says, "but if you had a
non-allergenic cat ... that didn't shed or had less dander, that makes genetic engineering seem less frightening."
Part of making people comfortable with transgenic animals lies in letting them know that someone is keeping a close eye on their development.
"If you don't want to scare the public, you'd better have an agency responsible, and you'd better have clear-cut rules, and you'd better mandate that
they be followed," he says. "We don't have that."
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links |
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
>The "Trojan gene" theory, for example, proposes that a transgenic fish altered to grow faster and larger might outcompete its wild relatives for
mates. But what if it then proved to produce weak, less fertile offspring? Such a combination of new qualities could weaken a species in the wild or
even bring it to extinction.
Wait, weak and infertile offspring = outcompeting other fish. Oh right, natural selection doesn't exist. Silly Christian 'scientists'...
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
I am not really qualified to speak on the ecological safety of these fish, you being a full biochemist and me not even having taken biochem yet . But I don't see the harm even if they were some sort of superfish and better than
their natural counterparts. In my mind no problem, just all the wild fish glow and no more regular fish. I can't see a fish that glows as being
better than the regular fish, it must be more attractive to predators.
EDIT: OH thats why it could possibly be bad, thanks Neutrino
| Quote: |
The fish were created by scientists at the University of Singapore who injected a sea coral gene for red fluorescence into zebrafish embryos
|
Seems simple enough? Other than somehow obtaining the sea coral gene. Possible to do something like this at home? Perhaps with frog eggs, they are
big and easy to find.
They are pretty cool, I seem to remember seeing something on TV about these a while back. Some guy selling them in Canada got in trouble.
[Edited on 12-6-2006 by rogue chemist]
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
neutrino, yes, I also pondered that paragraph, not being able to grasp its logic. If it outcompetes wildtype fish (which is a possible scenario), then
that willbe a process occurring during several, if not MANY generations, so the 'reduced fertility' argument would already come into play. Therefore
it might as well balance out. So there really isn't any point to be made there. Christian science monitor, if you look it up, is entirely
non-christian, i.e. it's a name of the news company, but doesn't use christianity as a foundation of all its articles. Else I wouldn't quote it so
happily, believe me
Rogue - the harm is potentially there. Say, if that fish for some reason repels predators, and thus survives better. Indigenous populations will be
outcompeted and die. What's the harm you may ask? Well possibly you are aware that species aren't necessarily defined by who can breed with whom. A
dog can still breed with a wolf, even though they are seen as two different species. Similarly, these fish can pass on those genes to related species,
creating havoc in local ecological equilibria. The consequences of this cannot be foretold.
Furthermore, there is a thing called lateral gene transfer, where genes are transferred between differnt species by things called transposons, or even
viruses. Again, unleashing this gene on unrelated species may have unpredictable consequences. This is all unlikkely, but it should not be forgotten
that nature has a tendency to select for the unlikely, if it provides the minutest advantage.
Anyway, these are considerations that shouldnt be forgotten. I am not vehemently against it, all i am saying it has to be studied properly, long and
hard. Possibly a fish tank, with thousands of wildtype fish, and the fluorescent variety. Ideally in the presence of all natural predators. Wait for a
hundred generations, and see what happens. I'd almost bet the final fraction of fluorescent fish wont be the same as it was to start off with.
As to making this at home... I will tell you another day how *difficult* it is to do this!
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
kazaa81
Hazard to Others
Posts: 368
Registered: 30-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: ok
|
|
More than the fact of prevalence of this glowing fish on natural species, I would be worried also for the fact of crosses between glowfish and natural
ones.
Laws must proibite the exportation of such fish.
|
|
|
gil
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
When 2 species manage reproduction, the hybrid is sterile. This is what prevent the 2 species to blend or start new lines.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
As I recall, perhaps 98% of some hybrids are sterile. Hybrids happen all the time among dolphins, for instance, and most of them are sterile, but
not all...
Tim
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Also, I should probably point out that the definition of a species is very diffuse, already Darwin discovered that the boundaries between species are
mostly simply arbitrary. Apparently it cannot be even be delineated by which are capable of reproducing with each other, and which aren't. Isn't there
a thread on human-ape breeds somewhere? 
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
nitro-genes
International Hazard
Posts: 1048
Registered: 5-4-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Isn't lateral gene tranfer is as old as the world is? IIRC, Our genome is filled with remains of retrovirus DNA and this could very well be another
major driving force in evolution. Evolution is an ultimate adaptation of an organism to his environment, developed over the cause of millions of
years. It is hard to imagine that with our basic skills and understanding of genetic engineering we can do better than evolution so to say, and create
an even better adapted organism...
And in what way are breeding programs less scary? Remember how killerbees were created? There was no fancy genetic engineering there!
Or how about bringing organims (foreign genes!) to other environments, like what happend with the non-flying birds in Australia upon introduction of
our beloved house cat? Or worse, fireants. There is absolutely no evidence that anything that drastic has ever occured due to genetic engineering...
Oh, and the monarch butterfly dissapearance due to genetically engineered BT mais was a cooked up story by greenpeace, which was later proven to be
not true...
I mean lets face it, of all the things that we have (sadly) done to the natural world, like dissapearance of the rainforrest, polution of the seas,
climate change, introducing foreign species all over the world, breeding programs to save species from extinction, is genetic engineering really a
significant threat for the "culturised" and carefully "managed" wildlife that is left in some small pieces of land called reserves?!
|
|
|
Intergalactic_Captain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 228
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: somewhere where i don\'t know where i am
Member Is Offline
Mood: frabjous
|
|
Transgenic species are all over the place as it is. During the summer season I can drive down any road and see a dozen different plot markers for
bioengineered corn before I'm five minutes from home. The cow corn behind my house hasn't been affected by it in any way, but then again plants can
be controlled by man with enough effort.
The parallel, here, though is with purple loosestrife. Drive down the highway in the summer and it's all you'll see for miles. I know this may not
be the best example, but its only one of many concerning foreign species outcompeting the native ones.
Man is a powerful force in nature...Ever notice how there is virtually no wild marijuana left in the U.S.? With sufficient public support and a
motivated force, species can be made virtually nonexistant.
Lets say the moralists decide that bioengineering is against the will of God and decide to end it. Oh well, we'll have to go back to regular corn and
nonglowing fish.
Or, we could just let nature take care of it. Has anyone considered the possibility that being lit up might notify a predator as to one's presence?
Everybody's looking at old examples of non-sentient life taking over native species due to some kind of advantage. Animals have brains, though, and
however primitive they are, they can interpret their environments on a level unknown to plants.
Lets say that for some reason, female zebrafish decide that glowing males would produce better offspring. Somewhere, out there, a school of glowfish
is swimming around in the dead of night. Along comes Mr. Shark, who decides that that light in the distance is worth checking out. Thirty seconds
later, he congratulates himself on the simplicity of obtaining the nights meal.
I think the real danger here is not that glowfish will replace the zebrafish population. Rather, it is that their increased visibility will negate
whatever evasive advantages they had and make them more susceptable to predation and ultimately their extinction.
Or, this could act as an evolution enhancer. The smart ones will get away, leaving their brethren to be eaten at will. The lesser members of the
species will be elimated, giving the more intelligent members a selective advantage. This could prove useful in the study of evolution, seeings how
it will force the species to change rapidly to negate the disadvantage given by their new traits.
In short, we shouldn't be worried about the replacement of the zebrafish. We should be worried about the possible emergence of a population of
superintelligent (in fish terms) glowing fish that could in turn pose a threat to other species. We've all seen what happened when the dolphins took
over on the simpsons...I, for one, don't intend to kneel before a mutant fish.
If you see me running, try to keep up.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Just a thought, If your eyes glow all the time won't that blind you. Between that and the fact that it will make you obvious to predators and that
presumably, that energy has to come from somewhere these ish won't stand much chance in the wild.
|
|
|
Ramiel
Vicious like a ferret
Posts: 484
Registered: 19-8-2002
Location: Room at the Back, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-demented
|
|
Just to go off on a little tangent!
It occurs to me that we, as scientists are forgetting our training in science and letting poor logic overcome our reasoning;
If these glow in the dark fish are superior, and their genes dominate over generations of breeding and selection, then they deserve to survive.
Consider that if the glow-in-the-dark fish can breed with the wild fish at normal rates, and if their offspring are selectively favored for any one of
thousands of reasons, then according to nature's one and only law* they deserve to survive.
We may have reservations for interfering in the natural order of things, but in this case and others like it, I propose that we are 'allowed' to, and
that interfering like this doesn't disrupt Homeostasis which apparently must be protected. I remember being trained against helping out in nature by
my Biology teachers – a great example is on wildlife documentaries, if the crew see some starving, overexposed and pitiful young out in the wild,
they know that they MUST NOT help them, to do so would be to interrupt nature. They may lament it, but if the cute little buggers are going to bite
the bullet, then we can't interfere, but why? What about endangered species then, you might ask, why do we help them? Because their predicament is a
result of our direct interference in a 'pristine' ecosystem, the same goes for exterminating introduced species.
It's easy to conclude that what we are doing here is out of an obligation not to interfere with nature, and to restore any balance that we may have
upset – to fight for the perfect and static world ecosystem that existed before us clumsy humans came along and screwed it up (this, in my opinion
is where many conservation groups get it wrong). What we are actually doing by not interfering with normal systems, and re-balancing upset systems, is
protecting the proper operation of natural selection <i>etcetera</i> on the ecosystem.
Since we know that there is no such thing as race (or more accurately, Race) in terms of ecology, the favored offspring (assuming that they could
produce viable offspring) would simply be genetically superior Zebra Fish. That is, superior, but still in every way very much the same old Zebra
Fish.
To conclude, I have to ignore for the moment that subset of people who believe that God controls evolution and not man's actions and therefore believe
that God's divine will is being thwarted by artificial evolution... we will put these people in a corner and laugh at them. If we alter the
evolutionary process by introducing a new set of favorable genes, what we are doing is accelerating, not thwarting evolution.
*Our greatest minds have written tomes on it, summarized it goes: do anything you can to survive. If you're better than the rest, then you live -
second best gets the consolation prize of extinction.
<discuss><flame>
Caveat Orator
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't think that the objection is that we might disturb "God's creation". I'm much more concerned that, like the rabbits in Australia (and other
weird introduced species- Japanese knotweed here in the UK for example), glowfish might make life more difficult for us. The other species can go
hang, but I don't want to see the extinction of homo sapiens. OK I don't think it's very likely with glowfish but we still ought to think about it
rather than glibly saying "It's OK because t's evolution".
|
|
|
Ramiel
Vicious like a ferret
Posts: 484
Registered: 19-8-2002
Location: Room at the Back, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-demented
|
|
That's not what I was saying at all - straw man fallacy. As far as I can tell, these are still Zebra Fish, just with a couple of different genes. You
have to abandon your thoughts on race on this one as I'm pretty sure Zebra Fish don't recognise it.
And just who is being glib?
[edit - spelling]
[Edited on 24-12-2006 by Ramiel]
Caveat Orator
|
|
|
gil
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
Concerning HOMEOSTASIS,
I understand the logic of non interference. I question: if a Human being does sometingh inside this "RELATIVE Biosphere" wild life, so whath's the
deal? we are part of life on Earth.the action is a part of nature.
Picking up a small bird, putting it back on the nest.Feeding a starved cub. It is part of life on Earth.
G.M. too could be accepted.Only, we know the potential conseguence may be "SLIGHTLY" (?) different!
Or better, We don't know were that would take us. Two extremes. One contraddictory application of reasoning . Or "evolution Political Correctness".
Good for T.V. , not for me.
[Edited on 18-1-2007 by gil]
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Zebra fish are evolving just like anything else. If there is evolutionary pressure on them to glow in the dark then, eventually, they will (of course,
they might not be much like today's zebra fish by then). If mankind introduces the genes for glowing and then releases the engineered fish back into
the wild then, while it isn't part of "God's great plan" so what?- it's just a rather odd mutation. Some mutations are brought about by radiation
damage, some from chemicals this one was produced by science.
Somewhere on earth the 'flu virus is evolving- sooner or later it will produce a version that spreads through the human population. That too is
evolution, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I can't help thinking that we would look really stupid if we engineered the virus that caused the next pandemic (There may be exceptions to this)
rather than waiting and, while we wait for nature to do the job, preparing to offset the damage it will cause.
In the same way I think that we should be careful about what genetic engineering we do and, in particular let free.
Whether fish recognise the concept of race or not and whether or not you consider luminous fish to be the same species as non luminous ones (and I
think the taxonomists would spot the difference), there are real scientific risks to "playing God" like this and I don't think they should be
dismissed lightly. (I also don't think these decisions ahould be made by religious groups/ leaders- better to get someone who understands the
problems).
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Not quite.
We aren't part of the biosphere, not with our industrialised agriculture, farming, fishing, animal breeding and so on. There's nothing natural about
releasing chlorocarbons into the atmosphere and watching our ozone layer disappear - neither is there anything natural about burning all the carbon
within a few decades that got locked away millions of years ago. This relativism is nothing but an excuse for our rabid rampant greed, and lack of
foresight and udnerstanding of consequences.
As to 'evolutionary pressure' - this term is actually incorrect per se. It is like talking of 'suction' - as if it is a differnt thing to pressure.
Suction is a misnomer for pressure, which pushes things into less-pressurised space, thus suction is no active process or force, it just appears that
way because if you sit on the pressurised side you can feel the 'suck'. Similarly, evolutionary pressure as a term is misleading. It's the *niches*
that can be *filled* through mutation. Selection occurs only when a niche can be filled. This explains precisely why there are i.e. bacteria such as
ecoli that hven't changed for a long time, despite extremely short generation times, and high mutation rates. All the niches are filled, probably for
millions of years, that's why we don't have super bugs in our guts appearing all the time.
Precisely for that reason, releasing glowing fish into the environment is *bad*, because they generate a new artificial niche for other organisms
(i.e. predators that solely feed on glowing fish), thus allowing selections to occur that'd otherwise never happen. The consequences of such an action
are unforseeable, and dangerous to say the least. Of course, the species on earth are highly stabilised and in equilibrium with each other, but noone
will never know (because of the complexity of the problem) when a given meddling pushes the biosphere beyond its normal equilibrium. I dont want to be
there when that happens.
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
chemoleo
Biochemicus Energeticus
Posts: 3005
Registered: 23-7-2003
Location: England Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: crystalline
|
|
Cloning of glowing cats!
| Quote: | S. Korean scientists create glowing cats
December 14, 2007
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korean scientists have cloned cats that glow red when exposed to ultraviolet rays, an achievement that could help develop
cures for human genetic diseases, the Science and Technology Ministry said.
Three Turkish Angora cats were born in January and February through cloning with a gene that produces a red fluorescent protein that makes them glow
in dark. One died at birth, but the two others survived, the ministry said.
The ministry claimed it was the first time cats with modified genes have been cloned.
Scientists from Gyeongsang National University and Sunchon National University took skin cells from a cat and inserted the fluorescent gene into them
before transplanting the genetically modified cells into eggs.
The development means other genes can also be inserted in the course of cloning, paving the way for producing lab cats with genetic diseases,
including those of humans, to help develop new treatments, the ministry said.
''Cats have similar genes to those of humans,'' said veterinary professor Kong Il-keun of Gyeongsang National University. ''We can make genetically
modified cats that can be used to develop new cures for genetic diseases.''
Keitaro Kato, a geneticist at Kinki University in western Japan who has cloned fish, said the research could be significant if it eventually helps
treat people with hereditary diseases.
''People with genetic disorders usually have to receive treatment throughout their lives that is very hard on them,'' Kato said. ''If these results
can help to make their lives easier, then I think it's a wonderful thing.''
South Korea's scientific reputation suffered a heavy blow after much-hailed stem-cell breakthroughs by scientist Hwang Woo-suk were found to be faked
in late 2005. He remains on trial on fraud and other charges. |
from http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/697379,121407cats.article
Well once they start using green fluorescent protein these cats will glow in daylight!
Never Stop to Begin, and Never Begin to Stop...
Tolerance is good. But not with the intolerant! (Wilhelm Busch)
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
