midposted

wrote in message
om...
b wrote in message
rthlink.net...
frankenfish be damned. but...i kinda want a school of glowing danios
for after dark viewing. wrong? well yeah but the visuals should prove
interesting after a day under power compacts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3026104.stm
m

It's one thing to produce more crops etc, but just for the pet
industry's whim, and you'll note they are sterile which is good as far
as releasing them into the wild etc, but...............this is also a
great thing for the company selling them. None one can breed or sell
them except them.

These genetically altered fish hav been around for a number of years. It
would be nice if they were kept within the research arena rather than being
released in a retail market that will see them as a staus symbol.


Sort of like genetically resistant Round Up soybeans from Monsanto and
other GM crops, you have to buy from the ompany that develops it at a
higher cost and no raising your own.

IMO, it's only fair that the company/person that put the time, money, and
effort into coming up with the item should be able to receive fair
compensation. I am still against the public release of these glow in the
dark fish.


That goes against the basic premises of growing crops or livestock,
breeding and keeping seeds for next year.

Genetic mutants are extremely useful in research, but not just for
personal consumer whims.

Agreed


I see a boycott by many people. GM crops/livestock for food production
are bad enough and have issues some of which may or may not be
agreeable with folks.

Well, how many fish keepers have bloody red parrot cichlids, or
'Flowerhorns'. The instant success of Dalmation mollies and marine clowns
at this time are all a result of the 'Gotta have one at any cost' mentality.
But to each his/her own. I can only wish that common sense would be better
exercised.

Jim


Regards,
Tom Barr