The Ethics of Glo-Fish (TM) (6/5/05) Hiya Bob, <<Howdy. RMF>>
I just finished reading the article on the Glo-fish, and I was wondering if it would be possible to ask the author if he considers every breed of dog, most breeds of milk and beef producing cattle, and probably 80% or better of all of the grains and fruits he eats as also being 'garbage' due to the fact that they are also man induced 'mutations' (yes, the method may be different, but the intent and process is the same and similar-one is just more 'trial and error, after all, no?) For the record, I also don't like the idea of Glo-fish, or painted chandas, but plenty of folks hate telescopes, black moors, fancy guppies and swords for just as legitimate reasons. <Agreed> I can understand a POV of distaste and dislike, I was just wondering what selective bias the author uses to determine which of our obvious genetic alterations are 'garbage' and why? ;) (heh, maybe I should write a counter point article for submission, playing devil's advocate) <All submissions are welcome for consideration. You will have to use a lot better grammar than you did in this e-mail. Please capitalize the proper noun "I" and the first letter of sentences. We post all e-mails and replies. It's a lot easier for folks to read them if they are punctuated properly. If you do it then we can spend less time proofreading and more time answering.> Keep up the good work-been observing your website for years, all the best!
Alan
<Thanks. The author of the article is not a member of the question-answering crew, so I do not know how to contact him. I do agree with you on this issue. I have nothing against Glo-Fish (TM) myself. They were created to serve a utilitarian purpose (pollution detection). If there is a side benefit of providing pretty fishes that have not been chemically burned and dyed, that's great from my perspective. I have no problem with GM foods either. I say you're right that there is no difference in principle between this and selective breeding. It's only method and speed. In fact, GM is better because the planning will lead to fewer bad mutations. It just needs to be properly regulated. As for the other fish you mention, I have qualms about some of them. If fish are selectively bred for appearance, I only have a problem if that creates a deformity that impairs the fish or causes pain. Some of the fish sold these days definitely suffer as a result of their selectively-bred appearance. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Steve Allen>