# Glofish, ethical?



## Laura Ann (May 3, 2006)

Apperently these fish are BORN glowing... 



> Today's GloFish® fluorescent fish are bred from the offspring of fluorescent zebra fish that were originally developed several years ago. Each new GloFish® fluorescent fish inherits its unique color directly from its parents, maintains the color throughout its life, and also passes the color along to its offspring.


So, would you consider this ethical? I know how everyone feels about dyed fish, but these are born this way and they are used in scientific research. 

So, would YOU consider this etical?

ETA: Whoops, forgot to add a link. http://www.glofish.com/default.asp


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2007)

I've read that they take genes from jellyfish and corals, and inject them into the eggs some how, so the color is in their genetics. Thus, if you were to breed 2 of these together, the offspring would be colored as well. 

personally, I din't find it unethical. I also won't buy dyed/tatooed fish. But i'm also not going to tell someone, don't buy these fish, or don't go to a store that sells dyed fish. I tell them how they get that color, then let them decide for themselves weather or not they want to support that industry.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Tattooed fish are a menace to all we hold dear, but Glofish aren't.
Glofish were not developed for the aquarium trade, you see. They were given their new genes for a totally different and very useful reason. The fish trade just happened to take notice of them.
Glofish are also not intended for use as food for any other organisms. That's a big plus in their favor, as it removes safety concerns along that line.

All in all, Glofish aren't so bad. If they start doing similar things to other fish just for the aquarium trade, though, then we'll have a problem. I predict that it will happen soon enough.


----------



## Dr_House (Aug 15, 2006)

Man must always play God. It's what we do. In the cases of dyed, tattooed, brutally disfigured (see: Blood Parrot)fish, I'll have to say I object. My objection, however, is based on the treatment of the animals and has nothing to do with the fact that man messed with them. Nearly all fish in the aquarium trade are selectively inbred to draw out characteristics that we find pleasing (e.g. colors, finnage, temperament, etc.), so I can't find any reason to object to that. It's only when the fish is such a mutant that it can no longer swim, close its mouth, live without being riddled with internal problems, etc. as a result that I have a problem with it.

Any ethical argument is supported more by feelings than facts, and they rely on something as arbitrary as where each person draws a moral line. However, we still all have opinions, and that's mine.


----------

