glofish So now there's glo-bettas?!

[Kat_Rigel]

So I was picking up another tank today and saw a few glolight bettas. So this is a thing?! Are these new or am I just late to the scene? 

I'm not a huge fan of glofish myself, but I can imagine there could be some cool breeding projects as far as seeing how the color gets distributed in the fins rather than just the bodies like this guy.

[JessR]

They are relatively new, I think they started appearing in stores the beginning of this year/the end of last year. As far as I know they only come in the yellow/green color. I'm not a huge fan of GloFish either, and I prefer them under regular light as opposed to blacklight.

Breeding projects would be cool, but I don't know if you would be able to sell the offspring. I assume that there is a patent involved.

[Kat_Rigel]

Oh yes, almost certainly patented/copyright. 

[Andy's Fish Den]

They came out late last year or early this year. They are patented like the GloFish, stores can only get through certain wholesalers.

[Magnus919]

Wait for it... if they are branching out to other species, how long before they do this to oscars?

[Kat_Rigel]

57 minutes ago, Magnus919 said:

Wait for it... if they are branching out to other species, how long before they do this to oscars?

Wow, that would be wild! My understanding is its generally the same process- attaching the glo gene at the single cell stage. I bet it could be done. But Oscar's are big so they will likely go for all the small species first so they can sell to kids.

[ADMWNDSR83]

I was under the impression that glofish could not be bred due to the affects of the gene splicing.  Is that incorrect?

[Kat_Rigel]

The gene is used as a kind of tag for certain proteins, but its relatively harmless. You can breed glofish, but its illegal to sell the offspring because someone else "owns" the technique and all fish resulting from it.

[Magnus919]

18 minutes ago, ADMWNDSR83 said:

I was under the impression that glofish could not be bred due to the affects of the gene splicing.  Is that incorrect?

They breed like their non-frankensteined counterparts. But the genes are patented so allegedly you can't sell/trade/gift any of the fish that come from the effort. Monsanto has well-established case law in this space with regards to seeds in agriculture space so I'm betting that's what they're counting on to protect their invention.

Though TBH I'm really hoping for some patent law modernization to prevent gene sequences from being patentable.

[Kat_Rigel]

12 minutes ago, Magnus919 said:

They breed like their non-frankensteined counterparts. But the genes are patented so allegedly you can't sell/trade/gift any of the fish that come from the effort. Monsanto has well-established case law in this space with regards to seeds in agriculture space so I'm betting that's what they're counting on to protect their invention.

Though TBH I'm really hoping for some patent law modernization to prevent gene sequences from being patentable.

Agreed. Its very odd that a genetic sequence can be patented, but then again if I had invented the fluorescent gene, I'd want control over who can use it. I didn't realize you couldn't even gift the results! Seems like there is room for improvement in the law there, for sure.

[Brian]

I get it.  For some fish maybe.  But Bettas, I put this in the category just because we can doesn’t mean we should.  This fish is amazing and already available in some majestic colors.
And yes kinda new.  Maybe 10 months or so.   

 

[JessR]

18 hours ago, ADMWNDSR83 said:

I was under the impression that glofish could not be bred due to the affects of the gene splicing.  Is that incorrect?

About nine or ten years ago I had the original Zebra Danio GloFish, and they bred in my tank. I managed to grow the two I could separate to adulthood and it was kind of cool. I'm pretty sure it was the orange and red one that bred because one of the babies was red and the other was like a peach color.

[JessR]

4 hours ago, Brian said:

I get it.  For some fish maybe.  But Bettas, I put this in the category just because we can doesn’t mean we should.  This fish is amazing and already available in some majestic colors.
And yes kinda new.  Maybe 10 months or so.   

 

I get what you mean. The science behind why the original GloFish were created is pretty cool, but since they've come into the pet world, it's just about the money. I honestly haven't even seen the original Zebra Danio ones in stores for a while now.

[Brandy]

19 hours ago, Magnus919 said:

They breed like their non-frankensteined counterparts. But the genes are patented so allegedly you can't sell/trade/gift any of the fish that come from the effort. Monsanto has well-established case law in this space with regards to seeds in agriculture space so I'm betting that's what they're counting on to protect their invention.

Though TBH I'm really hoping for some patent law modernization to prevent gene sequences from being patentable.

 

19 hours ago, Kat_Rigel said:

Agreed. Its very odd that a genetic sequence can be patented, but then again if I had invented the fluorescent gene, I'd want control over who can use it. I didn't realize you couldn't even gift the results! Seems like there is room for improvement in the law there, for sure.

As a person who very distantly works in this field--genetic engineering is an expensive and difficult endeavor, that takes skill and effort, just like composing music, writing a book, or writing computer code. You can't copyright or patent letters or notes, or programming languages (actually, you can with computer languages apparently--but you know what I mean), but you can the products you create.

Like other patents this will run out, but until then it makes them the money to have made the R&D worth the while, and hopefully helps to fund more science in the future. Monsanto is NOT my favorite, but they are not the entire genetic engineering scientific community. That is like judging all retail establishments by the actions of Walmart.

The glo-fish aren't my favorite, aesthetically. I have handled MANY fluorescent reporter species in a lab setting, and they are almost universally more fragile and less robust than their wild counterparts, but not any more so than a fancy line bred guppy or pug dog vs. the original wild version.

Our pets are a business. Making money selling pets is not ethically wrong. I am more ethically concerned about wild caught fish than glo-fish.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Brandy

[Kat_Rigel]

2 hours ago, Brandy said:

 

As a person who very distantly works in this field--genetic engineering is an expensive and difficult endeavor, that takes skill and effort, just like composing music, writing a book, or writing computer code. You can't copyright or patent letters or notes, or programming languages (actually, you can with computer languages apparently--but you know what I mean), but you can the products you create.

Like other patents this will run out, but until then it makes them the money to have made the R&D worth the while, and hopefully helps to fund more science in the future. Monsanto is NOT my favorite, but they are not the entire genetic engineering scientific community. That is like judging all retail establishments by the actions of Walmart.

The glo-fish aren't my favorite, aesthetically. I have handled MANY fluorescent reporter species in a lab setting, and they are almost universally more fragile and less robust than their wild counterparts, but not any more so than a fancy line bred guppy or pug dog vs. the original wild version.

Our pets are a business. Making money selling pets is not ethically wrong. I am more ethically concerned about wild caught fish than glo-fish.

I don't disagree that its a lot of work- I also have a science background and I know how much work it is. I just think there needs to be more of a balance.