# You feelings about transgenic pets and plants(Glowing frogs especially)...



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok so a few people have seen my posts on bio-luminescent animals and fungi, and heard me mention the idea of a glowing dart frog. Well in the glowing moss thread ( http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/pa...create-glowing-fx-live-moss-2.html#post533468 ) the subject came up again, and I thought this was something that warranted its own thread because more and more transgenic plants and animals are being created and Glo-Fish are already in the fish hobby, and GFP axotolis in the amphibian hobby. IMO that is just the beginning, whether we like it or not. So....Do we like it? Are we ok with transgenic plants and animals in private hands and either way what are some of the issues and concerns that should be discussed and dealt with? So I'm going to copy over the relevant parts of that thread to get the ball rolling. 



Pumilo said:


> Dave, that's all well and good. But I wanna know how you're going to make your frogs glow!
> Doug





Dendro Dave said:


> You know I've been thinking about that and I'm not sure. Of course there are ethical issues with transgenic animals in general and in the pet trade specifically. But one reason Line breeding is frowned upon is because often we already have a very limited genetic pool to work with, and inbreeding on purpose screws it up even further and another reason is because those animals that didn't overtly express different characteristics could easily fly under the radar and get mixed with other frogs.
> 
> With a GFP or bio-lumenescent animal especially if you work with a species that has a pretty good gene pool going, it seems like it would be pretty easy to keep everything separate, in fact the nature of the animal itself would probably lend itself to that. People aren't likely to try and pass off a glowing frog as a non glowing frog, and if they did it would be easy to spot...literally. New people aren't likely to buy them and not know what they are getting either, as the glow effect would be one of the main selling points and again even if somehow someone got one without knowing, they'd probably find out soon, or it would at least be easy to test for with a black light.
> 
> ...


Anyways thats my basic and very tentative stance so far.... What about you guys? ...Especially as it related to Darts and other amphibians, or plants in our vivs. 

Here is some eye candy while you think about it  (Feel free to add more pics)


----------



## mongo77 (Apr 28, 2008)

I think they are cool to look at when at public displays such as zoos. I don't see the real purpose for them. Are we just tinkering with the animal's DNA for our amusement? Also they would only glow when the UV light is on. Which ( I believe) can't be on all the time without damaging the frog's eyes. So basically you have frogs that glow when you briefly have the light on and at all other times look like regular frogs. I do have to say the glowing angel fish look awesome. I guess basically if they were already breeding glowing Dart frogs for the pet trade, I wouldn't think less of someone for owning one. Just don't like the idea of manipulating DNA for our enjoyment. Maybe I've been watching to many horror shows!


----------



## Baltimore Bryan (Sep 6, 2006)

Personally, they don't really appeal to me. I don't really like "fake" looking animals. It kind of reminds me of how I've seen platy's at the fish store that had writing/ drawing on them, like hearts or letters, that were supposedly inked onto them as embryos/ very young larvae or something like that. Also, it seems that there is really only one or two colors (mostly lime green) so as ironic as it may seem, these glowing animals seem kind of drab/boring to me; I would much rather have something that has a natural "glow/ shimmer" with good color contrast like benedicta 
Bryan


----------



## randommind (Sep 14, 2010)

With all the problems currently prevalent in our world, I personally feel that it is a waste of valuable resources to pay the highly skilled and educated minds of these geneticists who are capable of so much...to make a frog glow. Unless however, there is some medical/scientific benefit in doing so that I fail to see.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

randommind said:


> Unless however, there is some medical/scientific benefit in doing so that I fail to see.



I could very well be mistaken, but I reasons such as these are the primary justifications for making glowing animals in the first place.


----------



## randommind (Sep 14, 2010)

zBrinks said:


> I could very well be mistaken, but I reasons such as these are the primary justifications for making glowing animals in the first place.


Can someone with more knowledge on the subject than I please list a few of these benefits.


----------



## oddlot (Jun 28, 2010)

How would you get them to glow?Would you inject the color into them like most fish in the trade?I personally wouldn't want one as it looks unnatural.If they are diurnal what benefit do you get from them glowing in the dark.If you put a night bulb on red eye tree frogs they look red which makes it easier to observe them,but they are nocturnal.Just my opinion!

Lou


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Glowing Animals: Pictures of Beasts Shining for Science

Mr. Green Genes and Other Glowing Animals: Green Cat Joins Transgenic Mice, Pigs, Monkeys and Red Cats with GFP


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

zBrinks said:


> I could very well be mistaken, but I reasons such as these are the primary justifications for making glowing animals in the first place.


This is correct, and the main reason why most are originally created. Different forms of life and even just species can require different techniques for introducing the genes which is one reason you see so many types of GFP animals created. It isn't enough to do a fish or mouse and assume you can use the exact same method on everything else. It is common to use the GFP gene in developing new techniques for trangenics because of how observable the effects are when it works. There are many Scientific and medical applications not just for GFP transgenic plants and animals but also other types of transgenic animals such as pigs that grow human organs, and goats who produce spider silk in their milk that can be used to create super strong fibers. In theory labs creating these animals for the pet trade could use the proceeds to fund research and development of further commercial and medical applications.


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

Well I don't live in the frame of mind that believes that we go to bed one day and wake up the next and poof..... we have discovered a way to fight any disease known to man. As far as the "waste of valuable resources" comment. Science takes time, and the fact that its commonplace to see animals with bioluminescent DNA amazes me. It may not seem like a big deal to most people, but being able to insert DNA into another animal is a step in science that will lead to biotechnology with lots of possibilities. 

As far as the point of these animals..... I ask then, what is the point of any animal? I would argue that if that animal inspired one person who otherwise might not have had a moment that inspired them to study animals or science then that's fine by me. I keep animals to study them so that I can become a better ecologist. Without studying animals from a little boy through college, on the weekends, and for vacations, I don't think I would have the dedication to be the best that I can be. And all of this started from early childhood memories at the museum and at the zoo. So if any of these animals inspire kids to be amazed by nature then I am fully supportive. 

This said, is it ethical to to things like this? I think it depends on the well being of the animal. I would dare to say that animals in captivity have a much better life than a wild counterpart. With exceptions to crappy keepers. Sorry for the rant. I just believe that, these days, the more attention we can bring to nature the better the future might look.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

mattolsen said:


> Well I don't live in the frame of mind that believes that we go to bed one day and wake up the next and poof..... we have discovered a way to fight any disease known to man. As far as the "waste of valuable resources" comment. Science takes time, and the fact that its commonplace to see animals with bioluminescent DNA amazes me. It may not seem like a big deal to most people, but being able to insert DNA into another animal is a step in science that will lead to biotechnology with lots of possibilities.
> 
> As far as the point of these animals..... I ask then, what is the point of any animal? I would argue that if that animal inspired one person who otherwise might not have had a moment that inspired them to study animals or science then that's fine by me. I keep animals to study them so that I can become a better ecologist. Without studying animals from a little boy through college, on the weekends, and for vacations, I don't think I would have the dedication to be the best that I can be. And all of this started from early childhood memories at the museum and at the zoo. So if any of these animals inspire kids to be amazed by nature then I am fully supportive.
> 
> This said, is it ethical to to things like this? I think it depends on the well being of the animal. I would dare to say that animals in captivity have a much better life than a wild counterpart. With exceptions to crappy keepers. Sorry for the rant. I just believe that, these days, the more attention we can bring to nature the better the future might look.


Exactly, you touched on many valid points concerning the topic. Whether you are in favor of transgenic pets or not there are a plethora of applications in the science. Also the ability to have a positive impact and inspire interests in the animals, the environment, and the sciences should not be underestimated. There are of course risks and we should proceed carefully but there is to much potential here to just dismiss it all as "unnatural" or something like that IMO. 

What is going on in the sciences now is just incredible...most people have no real conception of what is in the pipeline, and of the potential, the implications or how fast such things will become everyday parts of our reality. I fear a major portion of the population who doesn't keep up with such things is going to find themselves utterly bewildered in the coming decades. 

Personally I feel as much as everyone has an obligation to be informed about education, health care, politics in general, world events etc..etc.. they have an obligation to educate themselves on these kinds of topics because this stuff is coming sooner then I think most people realize. We will be (actually kinda are right now) the first species on this planet to have conscious control of their own evolution. I personally for see a synthesis of biology and technology not just in the products we use but in our bodies eventually. Technology is becoming more human, and humans are becoming more technology. The implications, the possibilities and the potential is just staggering. It all makes me think of the quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

I'm not sure how I missed this one. Especially since a comment I made kind of sparked the flame! I'm going to say, sweet to look at. Amazing technology! But I don't think I would buy any, myself. Nor would I look down my nose at someone who did. It would sure make spotting those shy thumbnails easier! The comments about a scientists efforts better spent elsewhere I would want to point out that private enterprise like this would be, will be able to finance them to do greater things. Besides providing valuable practice at becoming skilled at genetic manipulation.



Dendro Dave said:


> We will be (actually kinda are right now) the first species on this planet to have conscious control of their own evolution. I personally for see a synthesis of biology and technology not just in the products we use but in our bodies eventually. Technology is becoming more human, and humans are becoming more technology. The implications, the possibilities and the potential is just staggering. It all makes me think of the quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"


Hmm, Where do I sign up for wings?? Oh no!! I shouldn't have said that! Now Dave's gonna make glowing green, flying, Intermedius!
Doug


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> I'm not sure how I missed this one. Especially since a comment I made kind of sparked the flame! I'm going to say, sweet to look at. Amazing technology! But I don't think I would buy any, myself. Nor would I look down my nose at someone who did. It would sure make spotting those shy thumbnails easier! The comments about a scientists efforts better spent elsewhere I would want to point out that private enterprise like this would be, will be able to finance them to do greater things. Besides providing valuable practice at becoming skilled at genetic manipulation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've actually been looking into what it would take to do it at home. It almost looks doable for a couple grand...but I'm not sure, more research to do. I'm also not sure if a private citizen could get some of the reagents and stuff needed. There is a kit for teachers though that lets you transfer firefly genes to bacteria. Frog's eggs look to be a considerably more complicated matter...but even if it isn't feasible right now, in a couple years it may very well be.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Theoretically it only cost a couple thousands to do something like this, that assumes you are already good at raising frogs / have all that equipment, you would probably want to be a serious breeder. 

However unless you are aware of labs already doing transgenics in poison dart frogs it will probably cost way more than that, the first step of just figuring out how to do the DNA cloning is pretty easy, but its common to see new students stumble on it early on, all those failed PCRs cost money. Then you move onto actually getting the DNA into an egg, integrating it into the DNA then being able to select for it, the selection is easy enough if we are talking about bacteria, but the bigger the animal the more complex the differentation of cells the more difficult it may be. Do you have an understanding of a gene locus that will express in skin cells? Do you have a genome sequence that is close enough to work from? If not you would have to take random insertion approach and that would mean raising a ton of frogs to find the one that gets it right, given how low throughput the hobby is it could take a while / not be possible (in a realistic sense). Most labs will in some way build off the backs of other peoples work, share genetic tools if you are not in the field it could be difficult / impossible to get people to send you what you want, and in order to do something quickly and for cheap you will need that help. 

Finally most of these sorts of things if you are in a place like the USA will need to be cleared by an ethics board of some sort. This is part of the some scientist will just jump ship and move to a different country, alot of red tape etc... But at any rate they allowed glowfish and I personally cannot think of any reason that a glowing poison dart frog would be any more of a threat as a invasive species then one that is not glowing so I dont think that would be a problem. 

It would be a great story though if a hobbyist created this and started selling it, certainly would grab attention for the poison dart frog community, you know what they say any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

" ... certainly would grab attention for the poison dart frog community, you know what they say any publicity is good publicity."

Sort of like commenting on a 2 year old thread?

My opinion - if it's not natural, or to support my natural frogs/plants, it's not going in one of my vivariums.

Now it would be nice to let this thread go back to sleep for a long time.

s


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Scott said:


> " ... certainly would grab attention for the poison dart frog community, you know what they say any publicity is good publicity."
> 
> Sort of like commenting on a 2 year old thread?
> 
> ...


I think this probably got dug up because someone mentioned it in another thread recently I was involved in. 

I've pretty much given up on this idea till I hit the lottery or something. I hit up a few science forums and asked a few questions and continued to research it but there are several difficulties and the price may be more like 10000+ instead of a couple grand like I initially thought, along with other difficulties. I still think it is doable, but more likely by the right person already involved in this field and with access to a lab and the materials as part of their education/job.

Then there are the ethics concerns...We have a lot of people in this hobby that feel as Scott does, and even if I did manage to pull this off some day I don't think I'd wanna be the guy who introduced glowing darts to the hobby...That guy will probably take a lot of heat  I'd probaby just keep em all...possibly trade/sell a few to experienced people...but I don't know. I'd have to see how that would fly with the community and weigh the pros/cons a lot more before letting them out of my personal collection. 

But there is already the zebra fish, and the axolotl, and god knows what else coming in the future so while this may be an old thread I think it is a topic worth discussing for the sake of the hobby. It is only a matter of time before we are forced to deal with issues concerning transgenic plants and more animals that may be viv suitable. Frankly I think it is going to end up being a "can't stop progress" kind of situation...of course many will argue that it isn't progress at all...and I'm not sure exactly where I stand...but this stuff is coming kids...we better get ready.


----------



## hydrophyte (Jun 5, 2009)

Here's what I think...

No sir, I don't like it - YouTube


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Being a scientist who has created a few transgenic animals (only C. elegans and mice so far  ), I can say that I'm a big fan of them at times, and more often I'm finding, I'm not liking what some entities are producing.

As previously stated, the technology is pretty simple; so much that we're seeing gaudy fluorescent animals at petco, and if you've had McDonalds french fries, you've probably eaten some of Monsanto's NewLeaf potatoes which contain Bt toxin to kill pests. And all I have to comment about anything that Monsanto seeps it's tendrils into is that it's pure evil...

Personally, I don't like the current transgenic pets that have been designed. They've been designed poorly. They look "gaudy" because they express proteins that are gaudy -- these proteins (like GFP) are traditionally used to mark/track the locations of molecules in an animal, so they have to be gaudy and stand out/fluoresce so you can find them. 

I don't think a lot of research is being done on color/pattern expression in animals, so it might be a good while until we see something like an azureus with red spots instead of black spots. What we're receiving at the consumer end is basically the by-products of research which someone decided to patent (which I find despicable -- how can you patent life?), and as a result these animals look kinda trashy in my opinion.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

hypostatic said:


> Being a scientist who has created a few transgenic animals (only C. elegans and mice so far  ), I can say that I'm a big fan of them at times, and more often I'm finding, I'm not liking what some entities are producing.
> 
> As previously stated, the technology is pretty simple; so much that we're seeing gaudy fluorescent animals at petco, and if you've had McDonalds french fries, you've probably eaten some of Monsanto's NewLeaf potatoes which contain Bt toxin to kill pests. And all I have to comment about anything that Monsanto seeps it's tendrils into is that it's pure evil...
> 
> ...


See I think a blue/red azureus would upset a lot of people in the hobby. One thing I like about gfp animals is they can (but not all do) look/act normal unless exposed to a longwave GE black light which has a radiation profile similar to many reptile uv bulbs so at least for short durations is likely pretty safe . Sure the wild type gfp's axolotl might not be as bright as the albinos (I've never seen them in person) but I think it is nice that you can't readily see the pigment like you can in zebra fish. 

I think since the effect only manifests under certain conditions people have been more willing to accept it....having said that and the comments about a red/blue azureus I can't deny I'd really like a frog with true bioluminescence if I'm honest


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Well actually, the original GFP (EGFP) has an excitation wavelength of 488nm, which is a visible cyan color. To see a frog that has GFP fluoresce, you could pretty much do what people do to see corals fluoresce and put them under some actinic/blue lighting. Here's a website with a few fluorescent molecues and their excitation/emission spectra: Fluorochrome Table

I think in order for them to have enough of these pigments that they would visibly fluoresce, the frogs would have to be a weird off color anyway (like the GFP axolotls).

Hmmm sounds like you're looking for a frog that expresses a luciferase-luciferin interaction, or something similar  . This is a bit more complicated than regular old GFP to pull off. In fact in nature, animals that use bioluminescence often have whole organs devoted to producing that light. So (I'm sure some board members will be glad to hear) I think _that _technology is still nowhere near the consumer level, and that it'll take a good time to trickle down.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

hypostatic said:


> Well actually, the original GFP (EGFP) has an excitation wavelength of 488nm, which is a visible cyan color. To see a frog that has GFP fluoresce, you could pretty much do what people do to see corals fluoresce and put them under some actinic/blue lighting. Here's a website with a few fluorescent molecues and their excitation/emission spectra: Fluorochrome Table
> 
> I think in order for them to have enough of these pigments that they would visibly fluoresce, the frogs would have to be a weird off color anyway (like the GFP axolotls).
> 
> Hmmm sounds like you're looking for a frog that expresses a luciferase-luciferin interaction, or something similar  . This is a bit more complicated than regular old GFP to pull off. In fact in nature, animals that use bioluminescence often have whole organs devoted to producing that light. So (I'm sure some board members will be glad to hear) I think _that _technology is still nowhere near the consumer level, and that it'll take a good time to trickle down.


Ya actinic lighting is actually basically a long wave blacklight that has had the woods glass filter removed that blocks most of the visible spectrum in a black light...so you get brighter and more blue light with an actinic. 

Ya my research indicated that it would probably best be done with an albino or otherwise aberrant line but there are not a ton of those in the dart frog hobby...and then there is the difficulty of getting enough eggs regularly to try the transfection on and getting one to actually express it and morph out healthy. I suppose mints terriblis, or moonshine galacts might be an option...there are a few species in the hobby throwing albinos out there too.

My research into creating a truly bioluminescent animal rapidly resulted in the belief that was no where near possible for me in my kitchen 

Have researchers even done that beyond maybe bacteria? I know they had the plants with the luciferase-luciferin but my understanding was they actually had to activate it with an injection...The plant didn't glow of its own accord like a firefly can. Been a couple years since I delved into this all though so most of what I learned is fading away


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Dendro Dave said:


> I think this probably got dug up because someone mentioned it in another thread recently I was involved in.


Who would have done such a thing??  (slinking off quietly, hanging my head)

I thought the concept was...hilarious! I wouldn't actually want to see it done. I love reading about Dave's outside the box ideas, but as for my own vivs, I prefer to keep them pretty natural.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Should've known - always causing trouble. These things are normally traced back to ... you. 

s 


Pumilo said:


> Who would have done such a thing??  (slinking off quietly, hanging my head)


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Pondering the evolutionary/philosophical implications: Hmnn... Would I want a bitch that glows? (Oops, forgot, chicks can read these...) 

But the question remains; wonder if the mod would allow it as a poll question?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> Who would have done such a thing??  (slinking off quietly, hanging my head)
> 
> I thought the concept was...hilarious! I wouldn't actually want to see it done. I love reading about Dave's outside the box ideas, but as for my own vivs, I prefer to keep them pretty natural.


I'd like one for my personal collection but as with hybrids, species mixing and all that there are issues with the larger community to deal with. Once it is outside my collection, I can't control what is done with it...and while for some it may be no big deal to cross a gfp azureus with a normal one...especially if you don't have a black light in your viv as long as the frogs are healthy...just the idea that that frog has been altered beyond its natural form bothers many. 

One thing to consider though is to some extent we are altering our frogs as is...Some degree of inbreeding is happening, as many morphs/species have a limited gene pool, and studbook type programs have had limited success because there are just to many people on the fringes, or just not willing to do the leg work/wait to make sure their frogs are bred with optimal breeding stock. 

On the plus side though multiple generations of captive frogs tend to do better in captivity...but that is still an alteration from their wild origins. If we see a day when people are no longer afraid to ship Zaporo it will be because of this...and that will help them become more established in the hobby...but they'll be less "wild". Where do we draw the line? Why is it ok to make a frog that we can ship easier...but not one that glows? Because the alteration is so visible?

To some extent we are dealing with a false or skewed perceived reality vs actual reality...domestication of dart frogs is in progress, just like we did with other animals like wolves to make all these dog breeds, and now siberian foxes that have lost their musky odor, aggression, and who's colors and physical characteristics have unintentionally been altered because the "wild" genes that are being suppressed in fact effect these other factors too. 

I'd like to have a siberian fox....but I'd like it to look like a fox, and some of those darn things are starting to look like border collies or something 

I just don't know... On the one hand I have my personal desires and similar ones of other people in the hobby...but then we have people that are straight up against such things...and really both are equally entitled IMO...but I don't want my desires to make it harder for them to get what they want...a pure bred frog that represents wild populations as much as possible...heck I want that too...I want both, but can we have both? ...and keep them relatively separate. To me that seems to be the most valid argument against such things...that the reality is it is difficult for us to have designer animals while maintaining the integrity of the originals....but there is that argument that the others are already being altered by being in captivity. 

It's kinda like the abortion issue....where do you draw the line? What requirements have to be met before abortion becomes murder? Some could argue that some self love results in a lot of dead potential babies....while others would require the fertilization of the egg first before saying such things, and others it has to reach a certain trimester, and others it actually has to be born or really really close to it.

Whatever position you hold, it is going to be a result of mostly subjective/personal interpretations of facts/evidence and such factors. Even when dealing with religious factors you can't IMO justify superimposing your beliefs onto others....there is a point where you just have to endure the fact that while your free to think/feel/do as you please for the most part, the price of that freedom is some tolerance that others are also free. 

IMO on either side of such issues, both sides are destined to loose in some ways much of the time and only likely to get more of what they want, either through brute force/shunning others...which in turn tends to spark rebellion in the others...possibly making them willing to go even further just to spite their oppressors... Or the most sane/effective way(IMO)...which is trying to be as tolerant of others as you can be, both sides trying to educate the other on why they take that position while being open too being educated in return...all while maintaining your own integrity, but with an openness to change...a difficult balance to strike but worth going for IMO. To basically engage in an exchange of ideas instead of an exchange of fire. Sadly there is a shortage of people who can do this regularly with issues they are passionate about.

In the end it seems the fight...the give/take, the conflict itself is actually the best or at least only practical solution...because it keeps either side from going to far.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Groundhog said:


> Pondering the evolutionary/philosophical implications: Hmnn... Would I want a bitch that glows? (Oops, forgot, chicks can read these...)
> 
> But the question remains; wonder if the mod would allow it as a poll question?


I assume you meant a female dog? ...Where such a term might be tolerated.

But I'll throw this out there....

If this girl were real...looked like this because of some weird genetic mutation, or heck was even an actual alien but we were "compatible"...I'd date her!










And if she could glow...Even better!


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

To my knowledge (which is pretty limited), transgenic animals with chemiluminescent (like luciferin) genes are only really made for imaging purposes, and rarely at that. The process of chemiluminescence requires energy (for luciferin it's ATP). This makes it a poor candidate for imaging purposes because you want a marker that doesn't interact/affect anything else in the organism, so that you're seeing what would be happening in the organism if the marker wasn't there. So fluorescent markers are generally preferred because they are passive and don't interact with anything besides light.

And on a slightly different note, have you heard about glowing sushi?
Glowing Sushi: Transgenic Bioluminescent Fish Turned Into Edible Masterpieces (PHOTOS, VIDEO)


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

hypostatic said:


> And on a slightly different note, have you heard about glowing sushi?
> Glowing Sushi: Transgenic Bioluminescent Fish Turned Into Edible Masterpieces (PHOTOS, VIDEO)


Hmm...I hope you're not suggesting a plate full of teeny-tiny, glowing frog legs!


----------



## kev_n_gina (Jan 21, 2013)

o.k.

So I find it terribly ironic that the DART FROG community is joking about gene splicing frogs for wings....You guys do realize that the minute anyone talks about cross breeding frogs everyone has a complete conniption right?

That said My only concern with the “experimtnation” is that to what ends is everyone working? Just like most things the real driving force is rarely known. Think about that for a minute. If we are crossing species and such to come up with “donor pigs” or to create “bacteria that eats cancer” I am for it. But if we are doing ti to genetically alter the flu bug so that we can contaminate our enemy or the search of super soldier. That is another. Unfortunatly I do not think that you can decide which. I think they both come hand in hand.
IT kind of is like the “god Particle” make a particle that give mass to matter in hope of being able to create NEW elements. But there is concern that there is a 1 in 50Million chance in trying we could make a “FOOPS” which could consume earth.
Is it worth it?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

kev_n_gina said:


> o.k.
> 
> So I find it terribly ironic that the DART FROG community is joking about gene splicing frogs for wings....You guys do realize that the minute anyone talks about cross breeding frogs everyone has a complete conniption right?
> 
> ...


Yep, one of the reasons I started this post years ago...wanted to see if people would react the same to transgenic animals as they do mixed species tanks and crossbreeding. I've actually been kinda surprised at how mellow people have been about it...but I think that is only because for now at least it seems unlikely to take our hobby by storm. Sure the newt/sally guys got their GFP animal, and the fish guys have a couple...but dart frogs are a niche hobby that doesn't have the commercial potential as the fish hobby, and darts aren't used much in the kinda research that yielded those animals so we're probably not going to have to deal with it for awhile...and that is probably why there seems to be less freaking out about it as some other stuff. 

Still... I think it is important to talk about and prepare for.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Pumilo said:


> Hmm...I hope you're not suggesting a plate full of teeny-tiny, glowing frog legs!


From what I hear, frog legs taste just like chicken!


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

kev_n_gina said:


> o.k.
> 
> So I find it terribly ironic that the DART FROG community is joking about gene splicing frogs for wings....You guys do realize that the minute anyone talks about cross breeding frogs everyone has a complete conniption right?
> 
> ...





Dendro Dave said:


> Yep, one of the reasons I started this post years ago...wanted to see if people would react the same to transgenic animals as they do mixed species tanks and crossbreeding. I've actually been kinda surprised at how mellow people have been about it...but I think that is only because for now at least it seems unlikely to take our hobby by storm. Sure the newt/sally guys got their GFP animal, and the fish guys have a couple...but dart frogs are a niche hobby that doesn't have the commercial potential as the fish hobby, and darts aren't used much in the kinda research that yielded those animals so we're probably not going to have to deal with it for awhile...and that is probably why there seems to be less freaking out about it as some other stuff.
> 
> Still... I think it is important to talk about and prepare for.


I am joking, and taking it lightly because I don't see it really happening. Let me be clear that I am against it really happening.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Pumilo said:


> I am joking, and taking it lightly because I don't see it really happening. Let me be clear that I am against it really happening.


How about glowing giant orange isopods?


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

jacobi said:


> How about glowing giant orange isopods?


Eh, just duct tape a flashlight to their forehead. It's cheaper.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> Eh, just duct tape a flashlight to their forehead. It's cheaper.


Nah it would be cooler to put magnets in the substrate, and make the iso's ride little magnets and glue paddles to all their little legs and make them levitate and paddle around the viv.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

jacobi said:


> How about glowing giant orange isopods?


Okay, now THOSE I think would be cool.

And isos are crustaceans right? So do you think glowing sushi made from _them_ would taste more like shrimp, crab, or lobster?


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Dendro Dave said:


> Nah it would be cooler to put magnets in the substrate, and make the iso's ride little magnets and glue paddles to all their little legs and make them levitate and paddle around the viv.


Yeah, but if you did both, it would look like little swarms of fireflies in your viv. Wait...you've already done that!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> Yeah, but if you did both, it would look like little swarms of fireflies in your viv. Wait...you've already done that!


I thought of that, but was afraid the flashlights would weigh them down to much  ...Maybe small LEDs, Hmmmm....

Yep done the fireflies...frankly I am surprised more people haven't jumped on that bandwagon. You can get those "gemmy lights in flight" strands for under $15. I think I saw one site listing them for $5...They aren't that hard to install and build a background around, and the effect they add to a viv at night, or even in day light/dawn/dusk dimming periods is just awesome. 

My craptastic little vid did not do it justice. I've got at least 3 strands right now that will go in my remodeled older vivs and my new fx viv when I get around to/can afford all that. Eventually every viv in my living room will have them, and I'm surrounded by vivs on 3 sides sitting here at the PC, so it will be pretty magical when they are all up and running 

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/me...074-firefly-lights-installed-hex-video-4.html


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

If you want to do it I say go ahead, will some people be against it, sure but the way I view most of this stuff is simple, sooner or later its going to happen would you rather have someone who actually thought about the moral implications making it and trying to do the best, or someone who doesn't give a rip just tearing through frogs?

It is far better to have things open, than the alternative which actually happens when you shun people for doing things that go against your moral guidelines, they just keep doing it in private, where they have less input and help, less checking. Think of it like a nuclear weapon, if you help another country build one, you can teach them what you have learned about keeping it safe, and in the right hands, but if you just shun them and let them go at it, then who knows what lack of security and mistakes will be made that may result in them blowing them self up, or worse losing control of it, letting it get into the wrong hangs. 

Not saying in any way that this is anywhere near that level but obviously some people may have a moral problem with it which would make it on that level for them. That said all religions were developed in times after hybridization and I am unaware of anything in the bible that specifically would prohibit this. And to the best of my knowledge any fear of them escaping etc seems like a null issue, PDF are not particularly invasive species and it would most likely put them at a disadvantage carrying an extra energy load any fear we have of anything else has already been done / is being done in the hobby.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pubfiction said:


> If you want to do it I say go ahead, will some people be against it, sure but the way I view most of this stuff is simple, sooner or later its going to happen would you rather have someone who actually thought about the moral implications making it and trying to do the best, or someone who doesn't give a rip just tearing through frogs?
> 
> It is far better to have things open, than the alternative which actually happens when you shun people for doing things that go against your moral guidelines, they just keep doing it in private, where they have less input and help, less checking. Think of it like a nuclear weapon, if you help another country build one, you can teach them what you have learned about keeping it safe, and in the right hands, but if you just shun them and let them go at it, then who knows what lack of security and mistakes will be made that may result in them blowing them self up, or worse losing control of it, letting it get into the wrong hangs.
> 
> Not saying in any way that this is anywhere near that level but obviously some people may have a moral problem with it which would make it on that level for them. That said all religions were developed in times after hybridization and I am unaware of anything in the bible that specifically would prohibit this. And to the best of my knowledge any fear of them escaping etc seems like a null issue, PDF are not particularly invasive species and it would most likely put them at a disadvantage carrying an extra energy load any fear we have of anything else has already been done / is being done in the hobby.


Those are good Points, like Open source frogging...I like it. Way way out of my financial means at the moment...and a lot of work. 

If it ever did happen though I think I'd rather see a private individual who cared about the animals and the concerns of the people in the hobby be the one to do it instead of some corporation that farms them out to pet stores across the country...like the glo-fish. That is like instant market saturation, with no time to adapt, let people kinda come around to the idea, get used to it, no control of who they go to...It's just like BAM!!!...GLOWING FISH...SUCK ON IT.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I apologize if this was posted somewhere else, but I thought I'd update this thread with it since it is relevant. *There has been a Kick starter project for glowing plants funded...*

Glowing Plants: Natural Lighting with no Electricity by Antony Evans — Kickstarter

Here is an interview with the team...





I didn't know in 2010 they got em to produce luciferin instead of having to add it later to activate the glow...so that is cool, I guess these will actually glow permanently without outside intervention once made. (Hope so)

Oh here is their .com/blog...
http://glowingplant.com/
And, community portal...
http://glowingplant.com/community


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

ehhhhh. I like the basic idea of the project, but I'm not a fan of random insertion. Especially for non-research (industrial/commercial) purposes.

On a different note, here's a video they have on their website about bioluminescent mushrooms that I think you'd like 

Lost In The Light, the Story of N.Gardneri - Trailblazer w/ Josh Garcia - YouTube


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

hypostatic said:


> ehhhhh. I like the basic idea of the project, but I'm not a fan of random insertion. Especially for non-research (industrial/commercial) purposes.
> 
> On a different note, here's a video they have on their website about bioluminescent mushrooms that I think you'd like
> 
> Lost In The Light, the Story of N.Gardneri - Trailblazer w/ Josh Garcia - YouTube


Ah thanks, that was cool...added it to my Ytube favorites 

I have mixed feelings about it all...
There is the definite "cool factor" but there are practical concerns/ethical issues. My feeling though is it is coming...whether we like it or not. Time to start talking about it before we get caught with our pants down.

Here is my other bioluminescent threads...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/general-discussion/56678-bioluminescent-animals-vivarium.html

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/plants/26806-glow-dark-mushrooms-updated.html (Not really updated anymore)

I'm thinking about contacting the kickstarter glowplant people to talk about some of this stuff, and maybe try to get them to come over to DB and comment, but... I'm feeling lazy today


----------



## redtxn (Apr 30, 2013)

I find it interesting that this topic is being discussed on this forum where the is a strong consensus among hobbyists against cross breeding and mutations.

When I first heard about glo-fish I was repulsed. Then the altered mammals started appearing...

Take a moment and think about what will happen when these genetically manipulated animals and plants are invariably released into the wild? It will happen, the process has already started and it cannot be controlled or stopped. 

Humans, with all their creative strengths, stumble forward in the name of progress blindly attempt to create abominations because they can.... with little regard to whether they should.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

I think they would be a novelty, and nothing I would be interested in. With that said, they would indeed be marketable. If you have an idea that you think may work, go for it. 
Dendroboard is a nice forum and Kyle has done a great job, but Dendroboard is not the frog community at large. There are many very knowledgeable keepers that have never visited this site. Charles Powell is a member of DB but doesn't post much. I respect his opinion. Since the very early 1990s, Chuck has been a great source of info. Helmut Zimmerman did great work with frogs.
We are never going to repopulate the rainforests with captive bred frogs, they are in the hobby to stay in the hobby. I personally think that animals should be kept as god made them, but there is money to be made with unique and new. Why do people line up to get the new cool pumillio? High dollar froglets. Or they just have to have the new cool frogs. 
Imis, tincs, histos, and auratus have been my favorite frogs for 30 years, and their colors suit me just fine, so I don't need a glow frog, but some will. they are your frogs. And if you start selling out, you won't be alone in the sales.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

redtxn said:


> I find it interesting that this topic is being discussed on this forum where the is a strong consensus among hobbyists against cross breeding and mutations.
> 
> When I first heard about glo-fish I was repulsed. Then the altered mammals started appearing...
> 
> ...


That is one reason why I brought these topics up (That and I'm just interested in them) But it seemed like if any community was going to be blind sided by this, and possibly rail against it it would be DB...so thought it was time to talk about it 

Some genetically modified plants/animals have already been introduced both intentionally and accidentally (Right?). I don't think at this point there is a way off the path we are on. In fact, I think it is a road we pretty much have to walk, but we should walk...not run. For instance the kick starter project talks about biological lighting systems, and there are projects working on photosynthesis that produces usable electricity... 

These are things we arguably need, unless we wanna undo the industrial revolution and take a step back into the past (not going to happen, barring a global catastrophe). It is going to be very very difficult to provide food and power to our growing population with diminishing resources. Chemistry, Genetic engineering/synthetic biology and nanotechnology etc etc, are the tools we have to have to address these issues. Science offers the best if not the only long term solutions to them. Sure it stumbles sometimes...people generally tend to stumble when on the edge of new frontiers...things happen, but seems that more *and better* science is usually the most practical/best answer. 

So I'd say you're right it has already been started, and it can't be stopped...but I'd add that I think there are at least some controls in place, and we are making efforts to figure out the best way to proceed with these kinds of sciences. I'd also add that overall it shouldn't be stopped (IMO), but of course there are things that would just be very stupid to do...especially without more research.

I'd also have to say (IMO), I don't think you are giving enough credit to the scientific community as a whole. Yes, there are unethical and/or amoral scientists, over eager ones, and just plain crappy ones that know just enough to be dangerous, but my personal experiences and from what I've seen in various forms of media leads me to believe that most are highly ethical, and very conservative/cautious. 

For instance... when I contacted a few people about what it might take to create a glowing dart frog (More an avenue of curiosity rather then something I might actually do...or could do), many seemed very reluctant to talk about it much. I think the scientific community is pretty good at policing itself...though I'm sure there is room for improvement, and we are definitely entering into a somewhat perilous time where the means to do incredible things in your kitchen/garage are becoming available to lay people or amateur scientists. I'm sure some bad things will happen, but I think overall it will lead to better lives for most...if we don't kill ourselves in the process 

Also we might note that the GFP axolotl has yet to destroy the newt/salamander hobby, nor has the glo-fish destroyed the freshwater aquarium hobby, or environment/ecosystem...at least not yet 

And a question...
Do you consider dogs, cats and other domesticated plants/animals abominations? 
Essentially they were genetically engineered, just using much slower (that might be good) and often times less precise methods (that might be bad).


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Exactly how many poison dart frogs from the united states or europe have accidently been released into the wild?

And I think we should be focusing on natural things that happen in the wild like pumping tadpoles full of paprika to ENHANCE COLOR instead of trying to change their appearence. Oh wait, that isn't natural either.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Scott Richardson said:


> Exactly how many poison dart frogs from the united states or europe have accidently been released into the wild?


Other then the Hawaii Auratus I am unaware of specific examples. Seems like I heard mention of another 1 or 2 though...maybe Florida or another island, don't know/can't remember  Seems like the Auratus have been fairly benign from what I know...but of course there are other instances of introduced plants/animals where that has not been the case. It is definitely a cause for concern. I'm not suggesting you were suggesting it, but I don't think outlawing basically everything, or just giving up science is the way to go. We likely wouldn't have a dart frog, or any herp hobby if we go down that road. We've got to find a compromise between personal freedom to keep some animals some places and what is best for the environment/ecosystem/people/plants/animals etc..

Regulation on where these animals are allowed is one form of control. I can totally understand why some predominately desert states, and maybe Mexico (honestly don't know), might outlaw having a Fennec Fox. Echo wouldn't be likely to survive an Oklahoma winter...but some US desert areas? Maybe...Parts of Mexico? probably. And we are probably all aware that the importation of animals through Florida and accidental or intentional introduction of animals has impacted the ecosystems there. Enough get loose and they may unbalance the ecosystem, but the other side to situations like that, is that perhaps the only way to re balance a system would be to introduce a plant/animal to address the issue. 

Potentially very risky...but potentially necessary in some cases, if we don't want to endure the consequences of not doing it. Basically it is a Risk vs Reward situation...and different people are going to fall on different sides of anything like that.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Scott Richardson said:


> Exactly how many poison dart frogs from the united states or europe have accidently been released into the wild?


I think a few can be found in hawaii


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

actually, they were imported and released in Hawaii on purpose for pest control.


----------



## Sammie (Oct 12, 2009)

Scott Richardson said:


> I think they would be a novelty, and nothing I would be interested in. With that said, they would indeed be marketable. If you have an idea that you think may work, go for it.
> Dendroboard is a nice forum and Kyle has done a great job, but Dendroboard is not the frog community at large. There are many very knowledgeable keepers that have never visited this site. Charles Powell is a member of DB but doesn't post much. I respect his opinion. Since the very early 1990s, Chuck has been a great source of info. Helmut Zimmerman did great work with frogs.
> We are never going to repopulate the rainforests with captive bred frogs, they are in the hobby to stay in the hobby. *I personally think that animals should be kept as god made them*, but there is money to be made with unique and new. Why do people line up to get the new cool pumillio? High dollar froglets. Or they just have to have the new cool frogs.
> Imis, tincs, histos, and auratus have been my favorite frogs for 30 years, and their colors suit me just fine, so I don't need a glow frog, but some will. they are your frogs. And if you start selling out, you won't be alone in the sales.


So...for example, is surgery a slight against your god as well?
(I kinda agree with you though, but for other reasons than this god you speak of.)


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Scott Richardson said:


> actually, they were imported and released in Hawaii on purpose for pest control.


Doesn't matter why they were released. They're an introduced species.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Actually it does. The argument was that they become invasive to wild populations. There are no amphibians native to hawaii hence no wild populations


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

Sammie said:


> So...for example, is surgery a slight against your god as well?
> (I kinda agree with you though, but for other reasons than this god you speak of.)


Was that really called for? Did I say my god? Did I mention any religion? Did I try to push a belief on you? God means different things to different people, but the term Jackass is pretty universal.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

How bout we all try to be civil (I'm not picking on anyone in particular), and perhaps try to mostly leave religion out this?...or at least refrain from picking a fight about god or religious beliefs as part of someones position since either side is unlikely to gain much traction that way, but religion is going to influence where some people stand on the issue. Let's just try to be respectful


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

like i said in my post, I didn't mention religion or my beliefs or anyone elses. To have one word picked out of my entire post was an attempt to start problems. And I have no idea what the surgery crap was all about.


----------



## Nate Mcfin (Sep 22, 2010)

The whole thing brings to mind one quote-

"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"-
Dr. Ian Malcom, Jurassic Park


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Think what you may. But if I had my own island, along with the money and resources, I would TOTALLY make my own Jurassic Park. I'd bring back a t-rex, and I would train it, and I would ride it around the island while I wore a crown and carried a scepter.

I did a google image search, and this is a close representation of what I'd be doing:










edit:
This image is also a pretty close representation









edit #2:
Ok last one. I think this is the closest I can find on the internet. By now you should have a pretty good idea:


----------



## Sammie (Oct 12, 2009)

Scott Richardson said:


> Was that really called for? Did I say my god? Did I mention any religion? Did I try to push a belief on you? God means different things to different people, but the term Jackass is pretty universal.


I guess not, I was a little grumpy last night. 
My apologies.


----------



## rivered (Jun 13, 2013)

First of all working with transgenics is only allowed in labs. Further on, everything you create must stay in the lab, until you get an official (USDA,EPA,FDA, OECD) although these apply to plants, there are in the same why official orginasations that are for transgenic animals.

Thinking that you are able to create a poisoin dartfrog on your own in your room (offcourse I think it is totally achievable), isn't that easy as one may think.
You probably need plasmids with transposons to transpose the gene further on this plasmid needs multiple ORI to be able to translate either in the fish and frog. Achieving this is a task at itself. Once achieved you need a gene from the fluorescent fish to place on the transposon. This is achieved by restriction enzyms in both the fish dna and the transposons, and setting up a cDNA bank from its mRNA. Once you have isolated the fluorescent DNA, by all sorts of mechanisms possible, primers+northern blot for example. Then you take the plasmid with the right fluorescent DNA and retrieve it from the cell. You can then inject these plasmids in the early embryonic stage of a poison dart frog and simply look at their phenotypes. If the dart frog looks normal in the f1, cross it with another one from the f1, and see if it is a homozygote recessive allele. If so, the dart frog should induce bioluminescense.

Still to have all the equipment needed, the knowledge and skills.. don't see it happening soon, and if someone does, he surely can not distrubute them without getting caught. 

But if the frogs were to be released in the wild, I still don't see the problem. First of all nature is all about balance in genotypes. If these frogs would have a huge advantage in the nature, they may thrive well, but since there mutated and cross-bred the change is pretty large they will die some other way. And if they don't the forest would be illuminated with little jumping light, so still I don't care.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

rivered said:


> First of all working with transgenics is only allowed in labs. Further on, everything you create must stay in the lab, until you get an official (USDA,EPA,FDA, OECD) although these apply to plants, there are in the same why official orginasations that are for transgenic animals.
> 
> ...
> 
> Still to have all the equipment needed, the knowledge and skills.. don't see it happening soon, and if someone does, he surely can not distrubute them without getting caught.


While I agree with much that you have stated, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you don't need a permit or clearance or anything to create transgenic animals for non-food items, and I'm not really aware of any legislature on the subject. Like, I know the roundup ready crops and maybe like, goats that make silk protein in their milk, need FDA approval before they go out into market, but I don't think this extends to things like glowfish for example.


----------



## rivered (Jun 13, 2013)

I guess your correct, I was looking it up but is only regulated in the industry, and not at an individual level. So i guess it is possible then, but still a small chance it wil actually happen.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Bla bla bla bla bla Monsanto bla bla bla bla... People can claim safety precautions all they want. Fact is, corporations like Monsanto don't give a flying coffee bean for anything but their bottom line. Glowing frogs pet sales vs escapees causing havoc in an ecosystem, $$$$ wins. Rather poorly phrased, but you get the point.


----------



## Nate Mcfin (Sep 22, 2010)

jacobi said:


> Bla bla bla bla bla Monsanto bla bla bla bla... People can claim safety precautions all they want. Fact is, corporations like Monsanto don't give a flying coffee bean for anything but their bottom line. Glowing frogs pet sales vs escapees causing havoc in an ecosystem, $$$$ wins. Rather poorly phrased, but you get the point.



Wait, are you saying that we have people in the USDA and FDA who are not actually trying to protect our best interest? Maybe these people whom we hired to protect may actually be ex attorneys of large corporations and have agendas that dont exactly match their current job descriptions!!!!! 
Seriously messed up is what it is, but your right....$$$$ always wins.


----------



## James (May 14, 2013)

randommind said:


> With all the problems currently prevalent in our world, I personally feel that it is a waste of valuable resources to pay the highly skilled and educated minds of these geneticists who are capable of so much...to make a frog glow. Unless however, there is some medical/scientific benefit in doing so that I fail to see.


I'm not sure if I may have missed this in the thread already but I figure I can address it anyways.

If I recall correctly the scientific use for this is that the glow is simply a phenotype or marker per se that is usually inserted along with another gene. So if the glow is present in the organism then the accompanying gene should also be present. Really useful when you cannot physically see if the gene has had an effect i.e. immunity to illness.


----------



## hypostatic (Apr 25, 2011)

Oh my goodness. This thread is like 3 years old haha. The quote above was previously answered 3 years ago with a similar answer.

One reason why you see these niche markets for transgenic animals (such as pets) popping up is because the "highly skilled and educated minds of these geneticists" are really underpaid, given all the education/training they receive. You'd be surprised at the amount of PhDs that are struggling to get along because of their low wages and debt from their education.

Anywho, scientists often end up moving away from doing research for scientific/medical purposes to working in the industry setting because these jobs pay so much more. Many scientists decide to switch from, say, being a chemist working in an academic research lab making a mediocre 5-figure salary, to a chemist working for an oil company making a comfortable 6-figure salary. And this is why glo-fish exist haha


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

James said:


> I'm not sure if I may have missed this in the thread already but I figure I can address it anyways.
> 
> If I recall correctly the scientific use for this is that the glow is simply a phenotype or marker per se that is usually inserted along with another gene. So if the glow is present in the organism then the accompanying gene should also be present. Really useful when you cannot physically see if the gene has had an effect i.e. immunity to illness.


I've seen something about that, too. Gene Packets. No gene controls ONLY one trait. They all control multiple things. You cannot change ONLY one thing without changing other things that may be detrimental. 
i.e. If you "program" a group of animals to all have blue eyes, you may have also programed in a predisposition for cancer.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Here are a couple relevant articles... 

Human-animal hybrids mean boom time for bioethicists - opinion - 27 June 2013 - New Scientist


Synthetic 'upgrade' for fruit fly's DNA - life - 13 August 2012 - New Scientist


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Pumilo said:


> I've seen something about that, too. Gene Packets. No gene controls ONLY one trait. They all control multiple things. You cannot change ONLY one thing without changing other things that may be detrimental.
> i.e. If you "program" a group of animals to all have blue eyes, you may have also programed in a predisposition for cancer.


I disagree with this, a single gene can control a single phenotype. Sometimes you can be surprised and a gene you thought only did one thing does more, and these things can be very complicated but that is too formal a statement. It is very likely many genes in each organism only control a single trait and some genes (ORFs) do nothing at all.


----------



## hydrophyte (Jun 5, 2009)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Mj1Us13Yk


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Another discussion about this stuff and some good points raised/questions asked, has come up here...
http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/plants/154681-you-dave.html

*(I think even though this thread is old, it is important that we revisit the issue from time to time).*


----------

