Are scientists playing God with Frankentrout?

[dArKeR]

Consumers want bigger fish, so researchers at the USDA's Agricultural Research Service have figured out a way to breed trout that are bigger and considered more attractive than the regular variety.

The modified fish are bigger because they have three sets of chromosomes, rather than two sets, as is normal. Rainbow trout with the extra chromosomes--the long strands of DNA that determine genetic makeup--grow faster because they are unable to reproduce. The energy from the food they eat is shifted from reproduction to growth, said William Hershberger at the agency's Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture.

Additionally, the flesh of these modified fish, which are called triploids, doesn't become soft with age, and their skin doesn't become dark--common traits in normal fish. The trout's prominent hook nose doesn't develop so rapidly either. While these characteristics aren't problems for the trout, consumers tend to shy away from ugly fish, Hershberger said. Ugly, unsold fish, of course, means wasted food and lower profits.

http://news.com.com/Are+scientists+playing+God+with+Frankentrout/2100-7337_3-5808900.html

100%! It's the consumer DEMANDING bigger fish making the Corporate Whores do this!

[Tux]

1. Er

I don't like genetically engineered anything. Nature evolved it fine by itself.

[WhiteTara]

2. yikes. More bad news

can't these people think of one single constructive thing to do?
:scared:

[wli]

3. artificial triploid vertebrates are big news AFAIK

Whether it's any good or not is another question, but I'm curious as to how they did it.

[bullimiami]

5. theyve been stocking triploid grass carp for years

as a natural weed solution.

they dont reproduce but do sometimes get eaten despite the signs telling you not to catch them.

[wli]

8. polyploid plants are very very old news

That kingdom tolerates polyploidy very trivially. Polyploid arthropods are likewise not a big deal. Polyploid vertebrates are another story entirely.

[HuckleB]

4. Ugh.

I'm now officially sad and ruminating on the negatives of the world.

[ConfuZed]

6. Whats wrong with playing 'God'?

Obviously there should be limits to what science to do when it comes to human safety but we shouldn't be restricted because we're afraid of playing god.

[NYC]

7. Non-breeding fish.

Clever idea. They can become extinct.

[Xithras]

9. These aren't frankenfish, the process just activates a genetic defect.

Frankenfish implies that the scientists are creating a new species. All they're doing here is manually imposing a natural genetic mutation that redirects reproductive growth to physical growth. By the very nature of the mutation, the resultant fish are sterile and cannot reproduce...meaning that natural fish stocks are safe. Since the genes in the fish are 100% grade A natural trout (no artificially introduced worm genes or anysuch crap), a failed breeding that results in a fertile trout will simply result in one more fishery-bred fish in the river.

The absolute worst-case scenario here is that one of their fertile 4 chromosome breeder trout gets into the environment. Even that isn't a particularly threatening event since the offspring, again, are guranteed to be either sterile or normal trout. Those fish would die off within a few years (assuming they weren't caught first), leaving the ecosystem unharmed.

For all practical purposes, this is the fish equivalent of the mule. Horses and jackasses are closely related species of the same genus (like dogs and wolves) and can mate naturally as well, resulting in sterile mule offspring. The only difference in this case is that sterile trout apparently get REALLY big.

[Mairead]

11. But Nature always holds trumps

As Feynman remarked, Nature cannot be fooled. There's nothing to prevent one of these engineered trout mutating spontaneously such that it grows slightly less large and CAN reproduce.

[Zorbuddha]

13. Tell that to Monsanto and their Terminator gene

The gene is out of the bottle. Pandora' Box has been opened. There is no stopping it, and while nature might eventually overcome the infection, it will be a long hard slog for humans, etc. - who might not.

[Mairead]

14. I suspect we're on the same side on this

I'm saying 'patch errors, okay; create new organisms--NOT okay'. Nature does enough on her own. Maybe someday, when we completely understand all genomes and all interactive effects, maybe then we can start doing ab-initio engineering...but not now.

What are you saying?

[Zorbuddha]

16. I'm saying technology outpaces our ethics and understanding.

And we should excercise judicious caution and strident controls.

And our trust in nature should be reinforced. Natural mutation is more wisely exploited than lab designed mutation.

In terms of human genetic manipulation, it's a sticky wicket. The tempation to genetically "turn off" disease is irresistible.

The evolutionary process led us to this point, so our ability to tinker is a part of nature. The consequenses are as ominous as the potential is promising. When we are wise enough to handle it, fine, but we won't wait for that day.

[Zorbuddha]

15. Eventually, one WILL be fertile, and breed...

and there you go.

Mules are occasionally fertile.

[DBoon]

10. Today - Frankentrout; tomorrow - Shrimpenstein!

[Zorbuddha]

12. Meddlesome busybodies are a blight

wherever they express themselves.

Leave nature be.