State Ownership of the Means of Production

Some see fluorescent fish as neon signs of trouble (registration required, quoted text from Yahoo)

Past the shark lagoon and piranha tanks at a Park Ridge pet store dart tiny fish that some consider far more alarming.

The glowing red and green swimmers at the Living Sea Aquarium represent the vanguard in the brave new world of genetically engineered pets being sold across the United States. Marketed under such names as "Night Light Fish" and selling for up to $30 apiece, they gleam like inch-long neon signs, thanks to DNA transferred from sea coral and jellyfish.

Neat! I'd like to see one in person.

The fish have existed for years and have been deemed safe by numerous scientists and government agencies. But their recent introduction to the American public--and the lack of regulations covering them--makes some people worry what other manmade critters might follow.

Because, of course, that would be TAMPERING WITH NATURE (pause for gasps) and therefore beyond the pale.

The species that has jump-started the debate over genetically altered pets is the GloFish. Yorktown Technologies, an Austin, Texas-based company, has sold it for a month and rolled it out nationally last week at a suggested price of $5 per fish.

The GloFish's red glimmer comes from a coral gene that was added to the embryo of a normal zebra fish, said Alan Blake, Yorktown's chief executive officer. Scientists in Singapore came up with the idea to monitor water quality, trying to get the fish to glow in the presence of toxins.

Yorktown got the right to sell the fish in the U.S., but consulted with scientists and federal agencies for two years before offering it to hobbyists, Blake said.

The web presence for Yorktown Technologies' GloFish makes mention of something of note, especially to the nanny-staters and lefties who hate this kind of innovation:

Where do fluorescent zebra fish come from?

Fluorescent zebra fish were specially bred to help detect environmental pollutants. By adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish, scientists will be able to quickly and easily determine when our waterways are contaminated. The first step in developing these pollution detecting fish was to create fish that would be fluorescent all the time. It was only recently that scientists realized the public's interest in sharing the benefits of this research. We call this the GloFish fluorescent fish.

How common is the use of fluorescent zebra fish in science?

For over a decade, fluorescent zebra fish have been relied upon by scientists worldwide to better understand important questions in genetics, molecular biology, and vertebrate development. Fluorescent zebra fish have been particularly helpful in understanding cellular disease and development, as well as cancer and gene therapy.

Does the fluorescence harm the fish?

No. The fish are as healthy as other zebra fish in every way. Scientists originally developed them several years ago by adding a natural fluorescence gene to the fish eggs before they hatched. Today's GloFish fluorescent fish are bred from the offspring of these original fish.

Yeah, it's from the company so it isn't necessarily true, but keep it in mind.

Back to the Tribune article:

Food and Drug Administration officials said they didn't need to regulate the fish because people would not eat them, and because there was no evidence of an environmental threat. Scientists who reviewed research for California's Fish and Game Commission said the fish, if released into the wild, was unlikely to survive in the state's relatively cold waters.

Despite those findings, the commission last month still refused to exempt the GloFish from California's ban on genetically engineered aquatic creatures, imposed in May. Commissioner Sam Schuchat wrote that "creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is higher than this."

Read Mr. Schuchat's comment one more time. Read it again. He is wants to and has attempted to draw a line for the legitimate use of this technology. He doesn't own it and neither does the entity he works for. So by what right does he have to intervene? Of all the possible grounds to object (and granted, there may be more I'm unaware of), this is one of the lamest. By what right does Commissioner Schuchat have to declare a product too frivolous to be put on the market? By what right does he have to decide what benefits the public the most or the best?

Either you own property (i.e., the technology to create the fish), you have agreed to share the ownership, or you don't. Perhaps Yorktown agreed to let the state make some of it's business decisions, allowing it veto power over what's worth putting to market and what isn't.

In this case, the state is asserting it's ownership over the ideas (and therefore, the people and property) in this company and others. That, ladies and gentlemen, is socialism. It's nothing like what people face in other countries, but it is what it is.

The potential environmental effects of the other genetically engineered fish available in the U.S.--a rice fish whose implanted jellyfish DNA causes it to glow green--have proven worrisome elsewhere in the world. The Japanese government last year raised concerns that it could disrupt native species.

Fishing "disrupts native species." So does cutting down lumber, using bug spray, and removing purebred pet species from the wild to domesticate them. This is a dumb way to judge a technology's impact because almost everything we do disrupts native species.

Fish may be the first genetically altered creatures to reach the marketplace, but others may not be far behind. A New York company is trying to use gene splicing to create a cat that does not inflame allergies.

The cloning expert doing the research, Dr. Jerry Yang of the University of Connecticut, said funding problems have slowed the work but that initial results are promising. He's been able to create embryos that are missing the allergen gene.

He said his project was different from the glowing fish because allergen-free cats can occasionally be found in nature.

"We don't think we're creating anything new," he said. "We're creating existing animals."

That's awesome! I have many relatives that are allergic to felines. It can be both time-consuming and expensive to accomodate them during visits since my immediate family has always had at least one cat.

No single federal agency regulates transgenic animals, though USDA officials say they are evaluating whether they should play a role. Craig Culp of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group that works to curb technologies it says are harmful to health, worries that indifference could allow some altered species to get loose, wreaking havoc on the environment and food supply.

"We're buying a fish that's been genetically engineered for our amusement and putting it into our kids' bedrooms without thinking of the ethical dimensions," he said. "It staggers the mind to think of what could come down the pike."

The Precautionary Principle at work. If it appears dangerous, sounds bad, and offends your sensibilities, regulate or ban the fucking thing. Can't have uncertainty or any risk in our society. And we certainly can't be TAMPERING WITH NATURE.

Such concerns prompted California to restrict transgenic aquatic animals to research use, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has three bills on her desk that would allow the state to outlaw certain genetically engineered creatures.

"The GloFish is not our issue, but this technology could conceivably create species that would threaten our native fish stock," said spokesman Brad Wurfel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

More creeping statism. It seems the common response these days to anything that has the potential to upset or injure things is to send the legislature after it.

Posted by Drizzten at January 13, 2004 11:20 AM