Tag: Fish

Glow In the Dark Fish First of Many Future GM Pets

The first genetically modified pet has already gone on sale in Taiwan and will likely be on sale in the United States soon. The Night Pearl is a genetically modified zebrafish that glows in the dark.

The fish grew from research conducted by HJ Tsai of the National Taiwan University. Tsai simply wanted to make the organs of fish easier to observe, and solved that problem by inserting a jellyfish gene to make the organ glow. Instead, he ended up making the entire animal glow.

Fish produce company Taikong Corporation reached an agreement to fund Tsai’s research in exchange for the right to use his techniques. Now Taikong is marketing fish that glow red and green. As might be expected, this advancement is being greeted with wildly different views.

Some, such as Keith Davenport of the UK’s Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association is outraged. Davenport told The Observer,

This is the thin end of the wedge. You could put all sorts of different genes in animals and do all sorts of damage.

Among fish dealers in the United States, however, there is the obvious excitement that these fish will be big sellers. Nevin Bailey of AquariumFish.Net told The Chicago Tribune,

If they can actually do this, it will be the greatest thing since popped corn. There’s a lot of pent-up demand [for the glow in the dark fish] . . .My gosh, if they ever made one that was red, white and blue, every Marine in the country would buy one.

Well, at least until they look at the price tag. At a $17.40 suggested retail price for each fish.

Source:

‘Fluorescent fish’ give the green light to GM pets. Robin McKie, The Observer, June 15, 2003.

Bioengineered pet fish are a reality in Taiwan. Jason Dean, Dow Jones News Service, May 12, 2003.

Another Art Installation Featuring Fish in Oregon Draws Protesters

Southern Oregon University adjunct professor Shawn Busse probably did not imagine his art exhibit featuring nine half-gallon fishbowls, each containing a single goldfish, placed atop concrete pillars would receive as much attention as it has. But then he probably did not imagine animal rights activists Barbara Rosen’s reaction when she came across the exhibit on a day when a few of the fish had died.

According to a news story in the Mail Tribune,

Soon after Busse’s work opened on May 2, animal rights activist Barbara Rosen happened on the display.

Some of the fish — originally sold as food for larger aquarium fish — were floating belly up in their bowls. Overwhelmed with emotion, Rosen left the museum and cried.

“To me, it’s frivolous,” she said. I love art. I’ve seen every art exhibit there. When art causes living creatures to suffer, that’s where I draw the line. Freedom of expression ends right there, as far as I’m concerned.

After that Rosen began protesting outside the museum almost daily holding a sign reading, “Stop the Animal Torture.” She has also been gathering signatures on a petition to ask the museum to ban live animals in its exhibits.

The goldfish originally had a pretty high mortality rate because the water in their bowls was only being cleaned weekly. Now, however, the fish bowls are being cleaned daily and the fish are housed in an aerated, filtered tank when the museum is closed. SOU biologist Michael Parker told The Associated Press that it is his judgment that the fish are being properly cared for.

Which, of course, has done little to deter Rosen. In June, according to the Associated Press, she “put on a yellow fish costume this week and imitated a dying fish in front of the museum.”

The University also issued a statement denying some of Rosen’s claims about the exhibit. The Associated Press reported,

An animal rights protester has incorrectly stated that the purpose of the exhibit is for the fish to die,” the university’s statement said.

Moreover, SOU officials said “the issue has been sensationalized by comments about ‘death chambers’ and ‘internment camps.’ The implication that fish are being intentionally mistreated or killed is inappropriate and incorrect.

Sources:

Dead goldfish spark art museum protests. Jennifer Nitson, Mail Tribune, June 6, 2003.

Goldifsh protests escalate at Oregon university art exhibit. The Associated Press, June 14, 2003.

Another Bizarre Art Project Involving Killing Animals

In May, the director of Denmark’s Trapholt Art Museum in Kolding was acquitted of animal cruelty charges that stemmed from a bizarre installation at the museum.

Chilean-born Danish artist Marco Evaristti set up ten blenders that contained goldfish and gave visitors the “ethical choice” to turn the machines on or not (as depicted in the photo from Reuters).

Inevitably, somebody chose to turn on one of the blenders, police confiscated the exhibit and fined museum director Peter Meyer US$315 for animal cruelty.

But after a two-day trial in May, Judge Preben Bagger acquitted Meyer of the animal cruelty charge. Bagger ruled that since the goldfish were killed instantly by the blender, that their deaths were humane and not cruel.

Correction: When this story was reported in the media, the fish involved was repeatedly described as a goldfish. But the fish depicted in the Reuters picture above is clearly not a goldfish. Presumably either the artist or the media in Denmark did not look closely at the species of fish used in the installation.

Source:

Dane acquitted in goldfish blender case. The Associated Press, May 19, 2003.

Liquidising goldfish ‘not a crime’. The BBC, May 19, 2003.

Anti-Fishing Activist Attacks Breast Cancer Survivor in Op-Ed

The thing about the animal rights movement is that routinely they make bizarre, absurd pronouncements that lead one to think, “Okay, they’ve finally hit bottom — surely they could never get more offensive.” And then, of course, they do.

A reader sent me an e-mail pointing to an unbelievable column written by Don Hendershot in the Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina). The column concerned a group called Casting for Recovery — a group for breast cancer survivors that,

Provide[s] an opportunity for women whose lives have been profoundly affected by the disease to gather in a beautiful, natural setting and learn fly-fishing. Our weekend retreats focus on wellness and incorporate counseling, educational services and the sport of fly-fishing to promote mental and physical healing.

For Hendershot, this is, as he puts it, “macabre.” Hendershot writes,

Now, I can see the healing connection of a flowing river and the peace and serenity gained from spending time out of doors. I highly recommend it.

But when the connection to that environment is the painful, life-or-death struggle at the other end of a fly rod, of a creature that, an instant before, was simply going about its everyday concerns, the connection gets tenuous.

And when I look at this particular case ? the idea that it?s great therapy to have people who have recently or who are presently experiencing pain, fear and suffering, inflicting pain, fear and suffering on unsuspecting creatures ? there is, in fact, a glaring disconnect.

In fact, for Hendershot the pain a woman experiences learning she has breast cancer is equivalent to the pain that fish feel when they are caught,

You feel OK; you’ve just gotten that promotion; you’re packing your bags for a well-deserved vacation and the diagnosis comes ? cancer. It?s a jolt; maybe like a hook setting in your jaw. There?s pain, there?s fear and then there?s struggle.

I am not trying to trivialize cancer. And I’m not trying to elevate fish to the status of human beings. I’m trying to point out that fear, pain and suffering are universal and that often we have a choice about the degree of our involvement. Of course, when we are the victim, we don’t necessarily have that choice. But when we are the ones inflicting or inducing fear, pain and/or suffering, we do have that choice.

Well at least he’s right about one thing — he’s not trying to elevate fish to the status of human beings, he’s simply doing it.

And, of course, what is any good essay like this without hints of an insidious plot by the fly fishing “industry” to hook poor, frightened breast cancer survivors on fishing,

. . . I wouldn’t think twice about a fisherman or woman diagnosed with cancer wanting to get back to his or her hobby. But I doubt that someone who had never fished and was suddenly faced with cancer would, out of the blue, think, ?Wow, I sure would like to learn how to fly-fish.?

And for an organization funded, in part, and supported, in part, by groups who have a vested interest in promoting the fishing industry to seek out cancer patients with the idea that catching and/or killing fish will certainly make them feel better is, to me, macabre.

The odd thing is that occasionally Hendershot himself has dismissed efforts to alleviate suffering experienced by animals. For example, in 2001 he wrote a column critical of the trap, neuter and release approach to controlling feral cat populations. Hendershot wrote,

Alley Cat Allies, an organization that supports TNR projects across the country, states in its literature that the impact free roaming cats have on bird populations is insignificant. But research findings they publish note that birds make up 20 percent of the diet of free-roaming cats. Twenty percent of the kill of upwards of 80 million (feral and free roaming pets) cats is a substantial number.

. . .

TNR needs to be studied in controlled situations to determine its effectiveness. If it is found to be the solution its advocates believe, I am sure it would be embraced by biologists as well as animal advocates.

But to implement it nationwide simply because it alleviates some of the suffering (don’t forget that these animals are left out there to dodge cars, larger predators, diseases, etc.) of one particular species may solicit support and donations from “cat people,” but it is poor science.

Henderson should apply that same standard to understanding the difference between nociception and experiencing pain (fish almost certainly do the former, not the latter), and leave the breast cancer survivors alone.

Source:

The Naturalist’s Corner. Don Hendershot, Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina), May 21, 2003.

The Naturalist’s Corner. Don Hendershot, Smoky Mountain News (North Carolina), February 21, 2001.

Researchers: Fish Feel Pain

Earlier this year researcher James Rose published an analysis of the brains of fish that concluded fish do not feel pain. In April, however, a team of researchers from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh published a study concluding that fish do feel pain. So who is right? Well, both are correct actually.

Not to be too Clintonian, but the debate over whether fish feel pain turns largely on the definition of “pain.”

The British researchers first anaesthetized fish and then subjected them to stimulation that would likely be perceived as painful in human beings. The researchers then watched how the fish responded to the stimulation.

Dr. Lynne Sneddon told the BBC,

We found 58 receptors located on the face and head of the trout that responded to at least one of the stimuli. Of these, 22 could be classified as nociceptors in that they responded to mechanical pressure and were stimulated when heated above 40 Celsius. Eighteen receptors also responded to chemical stimulation and can be defined as polymodal nociceptors.

The researchers also injected fish with bee venom or acetic acid and a control group with a saline solution. They found that the fish injected with the bee venom or acetic acid experienced behavioral changes. Again, the BBC quoted Dr. Sneddon as saying,

Fish demonstrated a ‘rocking’ motion, strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals. The trout injected with the acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex responses.

Animal rights organizations were quick to jump on this finding to support their cause. Dawn Carr of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals told the BBC,

It’s shocking that people will still go fishing for fun. For every cruel thing people do, there is a compassionate alternative. There are so many ways to enjoy the outdoors — we hope people would go hiking, camping, boating, any sort of sport that doesn’t involved animal suffering would be preferable.

But what about Rose’s conclusion that the brains of fish are incapable of feeling pain? Well, there is a wide gulf between whether or not fish are capable of responding to painful stimuli and whether they feel pain. Dr. Bruno Broughton, an adviser to the United Kingdom’s Angling Alliance, outlined the difference in the BBC,

I doubt that it will come as much of a shock to anglers to learn that fish have an elaborate system of sensory cells around their mouths . . . However, it is an entirely different matter to draw conclusions about the ability of fish to feel pain, a psychological experience for which they literally do not have the brains.

Animals which do not have some sort of ability to change their behavior in response to external stimuli would be quickly selected out in nature. But it does not follow from this that all animals subjectively feel pain in the way that humans and other complex animals do.

As Rose summed it up in his paper,

Pain is predicated on awareness. The key issue is the distinction between nociception and pain. A person who is anaesthetized in an operating theatre will still respond physically to an external stimulus, but he or she will not feel pain. Anyone who has seen a chicken with its head cut off will know that, while its body can respond to stimuli, it cannot be feeling pain.

So a lot of it comes down to whether “fish feel pain” means that fish are capable of complex behavioral changes after being exposed to stimuli that would be painful to humans, or if it is meant that fish actually experience the same sort of psychological states that human beings and other animals do in the presence of painful stimuli.

Sources:

Fish do feel pain, scientists say. Alex Kirby, The BBC, April 30, 2003.

Fish ‘capable of experiencing pain’. New Scientist, April 30, 2003.

Researcher: Fish Don't Feel Pain

Researcher James Rose recently published an analysis of the brains of fish in Reviews of Fisheries Science which concluded that fish do not feel pain.

Rose is a professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wyoming who has studied animals response to pain for 15 years. Rose’s paper concludes that pain sensations require a very specific part of the cerebral cortex which fish lack.

According to Rose,

Awareness of pain in humans depends on specific regions of the cerebral cortex. Fishes lack these brain regions and thus the neural requirements necessary for pain experience.

. . .

Pain is predicated on awareness. The key issue is the distinction between nociception and pain. A person who is anaesthetised in an operating theatre will still respond physically to an external stimulus, but he or she will not feel pain. Anyone who has seen a chicken with its head cut off will know that, while its body can respond to stimuli, it cannot be feeling pain.

Which rightly undercuts PETA’s pointless argument that any response to stimuli should be taken as prima facie evidence of the ability to feel pain. As an unnamed PETA spokesperson was quoted in The Daily Telegraph,

We believe that fishing is barbaric. Of course animals can feel pain. They have sensitivity, if only to avoid predators.

But if a simple stimulus-response mechanism is all that is required to demonstrate that an organism experience pain, then many things that PETA does not consider self-aware — including some plants — must be included in the category of things that feel pain and hence (according to PETA) have rights.

Sources:

New research concludes that fish lack the capacity to feel pain. Bill Becher, ESPN Outdoors, 2003.

Fish lack the brains to feel pain, says the latest school of thought. Rajeev Syal, Daily Telegraph (London), February 10, 2003.