Why GloFish won't glow in California
Sam Schuchat
December 17, 2003
SFGate
California found itself in the national spotlight earlier this month when it became the only state to ban the sale of a genetically engineered pet fish called the GloFish. As a member of the state Fish and Game Commission that made this decision, I caught some flak afterward: Who were we, critics said, to interfere with the right of consumers to purchase a glow-in-the-dark fish?
This wasn't the first time the commission dealt with transgenic organisms, which are created when a gene from one species is implanted in another species. Earlier this year, the commission voted to allow transgenic organisms only for research purposes, with a permit issued under stringent precautions by the state Department of Fish and Game. Certainly there is tremendous potential in this technology to improve the quality of human life. But at the same time, California has a rich and irreplaceable biological heritage that must be safeguarded. Imagine the damage if some new genetically engineered creature got loose in our environment -- and devoured or crowded out a unique native species.
In the case of the GloFish -- a zebra fish that glows red because it has been altered with a gene from a sea coral -- our staff told us there was little risk of hurting native species. Zebra fish are a tropical freshwater species unlikely to survive in California's chilly waters. Moreover, being bright red, they would be easy prey.
But we decided to ban the GloFish anyhow. Why? For the three of us who voted no, it was a decision based on values. Moving a gene from one species to an entirely different species is an awesome display of human ingenuity and power over nature and should not be done for trivial purposes. It is not the same as breeding farm animals: Cows don't mate with pigs. In instances where a transgenic organism can help feed the hungry, heal the sick or clean up the environment, the benefits may justify some level of risk. But creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is higher than this.
Some people have criticized the commission for injecting values and ethics into this debate. In fact, the Fish and Game Commission has always dealt with ethics. It was created in part to ensure that hunting was practiced ethically. We still grapple with the issue of "fair chase" in hunting and have rules based on notions of what is ethical in the treatment of animals. I don't think that it is possible to make policy without values, and I know that I would not want to live in a country that divorced values from policymaking.
Science only tells us what we can do, not what we should do. Scientists seldom speak in certainties, and even proponents of the commercial sale of transgenic fish will admit that low risk is not the same as zero risk, and zero risk is impossible to attain. Because selling transgenic zebra fish as pets has no public benefit, and there is always some risk, the commission voted not to start down the path toward genetically modified pets.
Transgenic organisms are beginning to make their mark on daily life. We need to proceed carefully, because creating new organisms is not like building a new car. Creatures escape or are released into our environment, and there they can reproduce, affecting us and every living thing. This is an area that ought to be regulated by the federal government, if not by international treaty.
Unfortunately, no single federal agency has taken responsibility for regulating this technology, nor do there seem to be any international covenants. Someone needs to take a thoughtful look at the implications of creating transgenic organisms -- what it means for our society, our environment and for future generations. I urge the federal government to tackle this knotty issue. But until they do -- it's up to us.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/17/EDGQV3KOLB1.DTL
