After reading all that I have had the chance to read today this topic seems to bring about two areas of concern... The first being the moral and ethical response to genetically altering any fish from their natural state... and Two being the "monitary" gain that viscoius may or may not be trying to achieve.
While I have no interest in seeing my fish or my tank glow at night I do see the potential for people to want this. From a purely scientific standpoint it would be amazing to be the first person to make a blue or green cichlid. However, just by creating the technology to alter these fish doesn't mean that you are going to prevent people from dying fish anywhere in the near future.
Another thing, poeple will buy these fish and introduce them into their aquariums at home, probably with fish of the same species. What is to say that they would not interbreed and cross the genes? This would increase the number of fish that are bioluminescent. My point here is that no matter what is done to try and prevent the spread of genetic alterations of a species there is always someone who screws it up for everyone else... (i.e the Jurassic Park references)
It is not morally or ethically right for one person to try and change the breed of a fish... However, people have been doing it for centuries and more than often the new animals have been a benifit to the world. (ie. look at some of the dogs that we have in the world today) I am not going to tell you what to do, but think of the ramifications of your actions. If it is something that can truely benefit the "good of all cichlids" then go ahead. But if it was intended for them to glow at night they would produce the protiens themselves.
As for the monitary issue, no matter what your intentions are you will be making at least enough money to cover your expenses. But the potential to make a lot of money is there comming from all of the publicity that you will be recieving.
While I have no interest in seeing my fish or my tank glow at night I do see the potential for people to want this. From a purely scientific standpoint it would be amazing to be the first person to make a blue or green cichlid. However, just by creating the technology to alter these fish doesn't mean that you are going to prevent people from dying fish anywhere in the near future.
Another thing, poeple will buy these fish and introduce them into their aquariums at home, probably with fish of the same species. What is to say that they would not interbreed and cross the genes? This would increase the number of fish that are bioluminescent. My point here is that no matter what is done to try and prevent the spread of genetic alterations of a species there is always someone who screws it up for everyone else... (i.e the Jurassic Park references)
It is not morally or ethically right for one person to try and change the breed of a fish... However, people have been doing it for centuries and more than often the new animals have been a benifit to the world. (ie. look at some of the dogs that we have in the world today) I am not going to tell you what to do, but think of the ramifications of your actions. If it is something that can truely benefit the "good of all cichlids" then go ahead. But if it was intended for them to glow at night they would produce the protiens themselves.
As for the monitary issue, no matter what your intentions are you will be making at least enough money to cover your expenses. But the potential to make a lot of money is there comming from all of the publicity that you will be recieving.






