Comment Re:No, not the same. (Score 1) 519
I think we're in general agreement that GE Salmon is a bad idea, so I won't labour the points. The technique of salmon farming may be an issue, and depends on how enclosed they are. Current fish farms most often used anchored net pens offshore and I'm unaware of any "aquarium" type fish farms that raise fish for food (and I'm betting you are too). They may exist for specialist marine life (lobster), but they certainly don't for salmon.
As you say, an aquarium type environment would preclude salmon being released into the wild, but as they don't exist, it's a moot point. And as for the future, if GE salmon had to be bred this way, I doubt whether they would be competitive with the naturally occurring variety, bred in standard fish farms. I also doubt if anyone in the anti-GE brigade would ever believe that an enclosed net dangling in the ocean is absolutely escape proof. There have been recorded incidents off the coast of Maine, when 300,000 fish escaped from an ocean pen, and in Washington State, when 115,000 escaped. This has been used as evidence in the past that there is no way to be certain that the transgenic salmon would be kept separate from native fish.
I think your concepts of "significant affect" differ from mine. It is entirely possible for "small" (single pen breach = a few hundred thousand fish?) releases that occur even very infrequently to negatively affect the a native population. Actually it would only have to occur once for a negative effect. And any negative effect is extremely undesirable, both ecologically and politically. GE science has such a bad reputation at the moment; I would prefer not to give its opponents any ammunition at all.
You are correct, the scientists at Purdue did not use sterile fish, and they only said that the larger genetically modified fish attract four times as many mates as wild salmon attract, but produce weaker offspring. I suggest that over a single generation, a sterile fish would have an even worse effect.
To give this debate some place to go, I would suggest that salmon farmers engineer the fish to grow faster, but not bigger than the standard variety (giving no breeding advantage).
As you say, an aquarium type environment would preclude salmon being released into the wild, but as they don't exist, it's a moot point. And as for the future, if GE salmon had to be bred this way, I doubt whether they would be competitive with the naturally occurring variety, bred in standard fish farms. I also doubt if anyone in the anti-GE brigade would ever believe that an enclosed net dangling in the ocean is absolutely escape proof. There have been recorded incidents off the coast of Maine, when 300,000 fish escaped from an ocean pen, and in Washington State, when 115,000 escaped. This has been used as evidence in the past that there is no way to be certain that the transgenic salmon would be kept separate from native fish.
I think your concepts of "significant affect" differ from mine. It is entirely possible for "small" (single pen breach = a few hundred thousand fish?) releases that occur even very infrequently to negatively affect the a native population. Actually it would only have to occur once for a negative effect. And any negative effect is extremely undesirable, both ecologically and politically. GE science has such a bad reputation at the moment; I would prefer not to give its opponents any ammunition at all.
You are correct, the scientists at Purdue did not use sterile fish, and they only said that the larger genetically modified fish attract four times as many mates as wild salmon attract, but produce weaker offspring. I suggest that over a single generation, a sterile fish would have an even worse effect.
To give this debate some place to go, I would suggest that salmon farmers engineer the fish to grow faster, but not bigger than the standard variety (giving no breeding advantage).
