And Man said, “Let there be
Glofish.”
Glofish do not exist in nature.
They were created in a laboratory. No, you are not seeing things. You
may not
read about it on the front page of USA Today.
You may not hear about it on a
television commercial break that ends with the words, “film
at 11.” BUT… whether
you realize it or not there have been over 660 patents issued on
biogenetically
engineered animals in the USA alone.
And that number is increasing at an
alarming rate every year. Transgenic animals are being patented like
latest
feature on a microwave oven or the next generation of digital music
player. The
difference is that here we are talking about living, breathing
organisms rather
than motherboards and microchips.
The Golfish just turned 10 years
old.
Happy birthbay! Just a decade ago there was no such thing as a Glofish.
What
exactly would be the purpose for making a fish glow? Good question!
Believe it
or not, the answer was not to strike it rich because every aquarium
owner on
the planet will feel the need to rush out and buy one. The Glofish was
created
to answer a higher calling. For
Dr.
Zhiyuan Gong and his colleagues at the National University of Singapore
(NSU) the goal was quite simple, and
perhaps even noble. The idea was
to genetically engineer a fish that would glow when it came into
contact with
environmental toxins in any freshwater ecosystem. A fish that detects
and by
default identifies the manufacturing facilities and corporations that
are
poisoning our planet’s most valuable resource, how cool is
that? Do you think
it was a sheer coincidence that the first Glofish ever created was
GREEN?
Selective bioluminescence, this
is
indeed a lofty goal. Exactly what is involved in creating a species
that is
biologically designed to help save the planet? The logical answer is
that you
must first find a way make an animal glow. Only after the objective of
bioluminescence is achieved, can you address the problem of
biologically
triggered selectivity.
These were the problems faced by
bioengineering team in Singapore a decade ago. Of course before you can make
a fish glow, you must
first have a fish. The team settled on the Brachydanio reri, a species
endemic
to East India,
more commonly referred to as a zebra
danio or zebrafish because of its horizontal striping. Why choose a
fish that
isn’t indigenous to Singapore?
This could have been strictly a matter of
convenience. Most of the
world’s supply of this popular minnow variety is raised on
fish farms, one of
which is located in Singapore. Acquisitioning a batch of fish eggs for
scientific research would
seem preferable to a bunch of geneticists wading around in streams with
fish
nets in hand. This may or may not have been a determining factor in the
selection process.
The next step was to infuse a
zebrafish embryo with GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) and allow it to
incorporate into the zebrafish’s genome. GFP is a gene found
in the species Aequorea
victoria, more commonly known as crystal jellyfish. It produces a
bright green
bioluminescence. The experiment was a success. When injected into a
zebrafish
embryo, the addition of GPF produced a hybrid fish that absorbed and
then readmitted
light from the green spectrum. A variant of this jellyfish gene caused
the
resulting offspring to fluoresce yellow. RFP (Red Fluorescent Protein)
derived
from sea coral of the genus discosoma created
zebrafish that luminescence
in red. While this
scientific feat was amazing in and of itself, it was only the first
step in
creating a fish that would actually glow when exposed to toxic waste
material. What
they did create, however, was a previously nonexistent transgenic
species that would
go on to spark controversy around the world.
Just a few short decades ago,
microwaves and VCRs were competing for the number one hotspot of must
have
gadgets in the marketplace. There was no such thing as a cell phone or
an ipod.
The world’s top techno-giants continually compete for their
market share in the
latest new gadget technology has to offer. Whenever there is something
new that
can have a dollar value attached to it there will be someone, somewhere
that
will find a way to package and sell it.
The creation of the
world’s first
florescent fish was bound to draw some attention. It did not take long
for news
of NUS’s success to reach the desks of entrepreneurs Alan
Blake and Richard
Crockett. They immediately recognized the commercial viability of these
biogenetically
engineered fluorescing fish. But the mass marketing of a genetically
engineered
living organism to the public was virgin territory. This thought did
not daunt the
future “biopreneurs” of Yorktown Technologies. Fortunately for Blake and
Crockett, fish farms for the production of zebra danios had been in
existence
in the southern parts of United
States since as early
as the 30s. It was not much
of a leap to raise a species that is only a single gene removed.
Contracts were
drawn up and Yorktown Technologies was awarded sole
distributorship
of genetically modified zebrafish for the entire planet. Austin, Texas
became
the new home for the first fluorescing fish ever created by man, a.k.a
Glofish.
Biogenetic Menace or
Needless Paranoia?
You might think that the
marketing of
a novelty item (even one that is genetically engineered) within the
booming
aquarium trade industry would be of little national interest. Think
again! The
gene that was inserted into zebrafish to make them fluoresce was
immediately
deemed a drug. As such the environmental risk assessment of the
proposed
commercial distribution of Glofish fell within the jurisdiction of U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. Yorktown Technologies complied with two years of
extensive environmental risk assessment research and consultation with
various
State and Federal agencies to procure the right to sell these fish to
the
public. In Dec. 2003, the FDA ruled that since Glofish are not
designated to be
part of the nation’s food supply they did not fall within
their jurisdiction. Yorktown Tech was summarily granted the right to
move forward at the federal level. The state of California, however,
was not convinced.
They
did back down from their original stance
and agreed to allow the sell of Glofish if Yorktown
submitted to more extensive research in the area of risk assessment.
Unfortunately, said research would cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars and
take years to complete. Glofish have been sold in 49 of the 50 states
in the U.S. since Dec. 2003. The sell or possession of
Glofish is still illegal in the State of California.
But how would the rest of the
world react
to the idea of a genetically engineered organism being unleashed on the
general
public? Is this just an ultra-cool novelty item predestined to become a
favorite among aquarium owners around the world? Or are we in fact
letting a
bioengineered genie escape from the bottle never to be returned? Once
you allow the sell of a single
transgenic organism on the open market the precedent has been set.
Glofish
could just as easily be construed as Frankenfish as they could be
perceived as
harmless new variety of aquarium fish.
Many nations had already
foreseen the
eventual marketing of biologically manipulated organisms and had
enacted legislation
to prevent such an “atrocity” from ever happening.
Those that did not took swift
and decisive action. Even before Golfish were available for sale they
were
banned in Europe,
Japan, Australia, and Canada despite the over two years of extensive
ecological
risk assessment studies preformed by Yorktown
Technologies. Who would have thought something as benign as an
ornamental
aquarium fish would create such a stir?
Aquatic
Invasive Species & the Environment
Bioengineered transgenic
manipulation
aside, environmentalist have long expressed concern over the potential
ecological ramifications of nonnative species being intentionally or
even
accidentally introduced to an established ecosystem. The sell of
piranhas is
illegal in most of the United
States and much of the
world for this very
reason. The fear that one of the most predacious species in existence
will
suddenly and irreversibly establish itself as the number one predator
at the top
of the food chain out weights any perceivable benefit of allowing them
to be
raised by home hobbyists.
Common
sense dictates that this is perhaps the most extreme example one could
come up
with. While this is true,
the sell and
ownership of piranhas was legal in the U.S.
until piranha specimens were discovered in the wild most likely after
their
intentional release because they had outgrown their fish tanks.
There are
document
case studies on the impact of much more seemingly innocuous fish being
introduced into previously uninhabited ecosystems. One such example is
the
plati fish (Xiphophorus maculates). The plati is native to Mexico.
This species is particularly well suited for slower moving freshwater
systems
such as canals, ditches and warm springs. They have established
significant
populations in the United
States
in the canal systems of Tampa
Bay
and Gainesville,
Florida.
They have become
naturalized in the state of Montana.
They have also acclimated to the freshwaters of Columbia,
Singapore,
and Hong
Kong.
Hong
Kong
ecologists report that these “illegal aliens” are
creating an adverse impact on
their aquatic ecosystems due to the plati’s prolific breading
habits.
The
plati’s genetic cousin, the swordtail (Xiphophorus
helleri) is another popular aquarium fish native to
the Western Hemisphere. Feral
swordfish populations now exist in both Africa and Australia. Once established, these fish
reproduced at such an alarming rate that their presence is threatening
the indigenous
freshwater species on both continents. Yet another example is the
tilapia. Tilapia,
a cichlid native to the Amazon
River
Basin,
has been
deemed a nuisance species in the southern US after populations sprang
up from out
of nowhere. All three of these species invasion of non-indigenous
territories
are aquarium trade related. Fish are not like an item in your local
supermarket. Once they have made their way into the wild they
can’t be subject
to a product recall and quickly pulled off the shelf.
What
Does This Have to Do With
Glofish?
Do Glofish pose a threat? The
end of
World War II marked beginning of an explosion in the aquarium trade
industry. Over
200 million of these fish have been imported and sold in the U.S. alone
over the past half century. In a day
and age when both regional and national governmental agencies have no
choice
but to develop and implement AIS (Aquatic Invasive Species) management
systems
there has only been single instance of zebra danios successfully
establishing a
reproducing population in the wild. This population established itself
in Columbia, coincidentally close to a fish farming
facility that rears zebrafish for exportation. Zebrafish
are incapable of surviving the
temperate water conditions in all but the most southern states. To
date, there
has not been a single report of an established reproducing population
in the
wild anywhere in the United
States. Only a single
gene differentiates Glofish
from their natural counterpart, zebra danio. If zebrafish, accidentally
or intentionally
introduced into the wild, posed a quantifiable ecological threat to the
planet’s freshwater ecosystems that threat would have been
apparent long before
geneticists infused a fluorescing gene into their genome. Yet glofish
remain
one of the most illegal pets ever to be sold on the open market.
Ironically,
fluorescing fish have become top sellers in the aquarium trade in most
of Asia
and in the U.S.
Since Glofish went on sale in
2003,
scientists have successfully incorporated the fluorescing gene into
rabbits,
pigs, dogs and cats. The transition to mammals was undoubtedly
inevitable. Given
the rate of scientific progress perhaps it is understandable why many
nations
around the world decided it prudent to outright ban transgenic
organisms for
any purpose other than scientific research. Keeping the genetic genie
tightly
sealed in its bottle might just be the wisest course of action. I’m
not sure how I would react if I suddenly
realized that my daughter’s cat just gave birth to a litter
of kittens that
glowed under a black light. Although I’m willing to bet that
she would think it
was the coolest thing since Sponge
Bob Square Pants. Fish, on
the other hand, can not
impregnate an entire
neighborhood if left to prowl freely. While
the sale of a genetically altered fish simply because they look
prettier than
their "natural" counterparts may be ethically questionable, they are
strikingly beautiful fish. It almost begs the question, “How
many times have
you upgraded a cell phone in perfect working order simply because the
new model
looked cooler, was more compact, or everyone in the office had a newer
model
than yours?”
Fluorescing fish are the first
and
might very possibly go down in history as the only genetically modified
animals
ever to be commercially sold as pets, at least in the immediately
foreseeable
future. Fifty years from now, however, not having a dog or a cat that
literally
glows in the dark might be considered extremely old fashion or possibly
even
irresponsible pet ownership. I’ll leave that up to the future
to decide. As for
me, it’s time to call this a wrap. I have to feed my Glofish.