Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Australia To Use GM To Control Carp 358

Posted by michael from the chinese-needle-snakes dept.
mskfisher writes "Yahoo! News is running an AFP story on Australia's efforts to control the carp population using a 'male-only' gene. The gene will prevent the carp, considered a pest in Australia, from producing female offspring. The carp has wiped out some 90% of the native south Australian fish population, namely perch and bass. They do not, however, mention any ways of controlling the spread of this gene in the wild, besides the obvious death of any affected population."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia To Use GM To Control Carp More

Australia To Use GM To Control Carp

Comments Filter:

  • GM Carp? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 )
    GM Carp?

    Isn't that a new SUV?

  • Arbitrary choice? (Score:3, Funny)

    by product byproduct ( 628318 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:36PM (#7837090)
    How about a "female-only" approach? I suggest that we try both approaches at the same time to see which one works best.

  • Well I worry about this one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tekiegreg ( 674773 ) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:37PM (#7837100) Homepage Journal
    Suppose this gene multiplies further out past Australia, we could very well see the extinction of all Carp once they all become male.

    Genetic work can be beneficial, but the long term considerations must be considered, how about mass breeding/releasing of sharks in the water to eat all these carp (I know the human implications of all those sharks terrorizing humans)? Or just increased fishing programs? There's got to be another way....
    • Suppose this gene multiplies further out past Australia, we could very well see the extinction of all Carp once they all become male.

      How is any gene that causes infertility suppose to multiply or spread anywhere? It's absurd on the face of it.


      "Infertility is hereditary. If your parents didn't have any children, you probably won't have any either."

      • Re:Well I worry about this one (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Wabin ( 600045 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:59PM (#7837363)
        The gene does not cause infertility, just maleness. So it can spread. Which is in fact what they want; They can't very well introduce the gene into all of the fish out there (if they could, they would have just killed them all) so what they want to do is introduce this gene, then as it spreads, gradually the proportion of males in the population will increase. When you have all males, then the population dies. There are, of course, problems with this approach. One is the potential for accidental spread, both to other populations of carp outside Australia, and to other species.* Another is that the females who are left are likely to produce more surviving offspring (population limits in fish are not usually from the number of eggs produced). Another is that it will take a while to have huge effects, during which time mutations might arise that block this mechanism and allow female development. Such a mutation would spread rapidly (it would be highly favored by selection once the population got far off 50-50) so you would be back a square one. Biocontrol of introduced species is notoriously bad, particularly in Australia. See Cane Toads. We are exceptionally bad at foreseeing all of the downstream consequences of such manipulations of the ecosystem. A cool idea, and some great work by the scientists, but lets hope that they think long and hard before releasing these fish into the wild. *do you really think that all those extra male carp will ignore the chance for some kinky inter-species romance? It just takes one...
        • A further complicating effect is that the females in the population before the male-only gene is introduced have a seriously long life span. Koi, an ornimantal carp, bread and raised in captivity have been documented to live for over a century, and twentyfive years is easily achievable by amature aquarists and ponders. I've seen a wild carp, standed by receding flood water that 27 inches long which would indicate a rather old fish, I'd guess 30-50 years old.

      • How is any gene that causes infertility suppose to multiply or spread anywhere? It's absurd on the face of it.

        As far as I can tell, this gene manipulation doesn't cause infertility. It just prevents female offspring. You see, the point is that the male offspring have a certain likihood of possessing this gene, so males with this gene will also only produce male offspring. If these males were to somehow migrate and begin breeding in other populations, then this new population will be skewed towards m

    • Anything which reduces or limits the breeding ability of a species will naturally reduce within the population. It's called evolution. It'll just take a few generations. After all, we can't even kill bloody bacteria now.

      How about we just catch and eat the carp?

      • I would happily volunteer to be hired by the australian government to fish those carp out one by one!

      • How to eat a carp: +1, informative;-) (Score:5, Funny)

        by waferhead ( 557795 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [daehrefaw]> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @03:45PM (#7837929)
        My father taught me this when I was little:

        1)Clean and wash carp.
        2)Tie carp to good quality oak or maple board using fine Stainless leader wire.
        (2 carp can be prepared at a time, either side of board)
        3)Baste carp constantly, slowly rotating over an open fire (mesquite is good)using a mixture of lemon juice, butter, honey, and a bit of cayenne pepper.
        Takes approximatly 4 hours, perhaps longer.

        When boards become tender, dicard carp, and eat the board.
    • Carp aren't good to eat, and they're very boney. The problem is that they're wiping out the fish that are good to eat, such as bass and perch, as the article says.
      • You have obviously never had a properly prepared carp!!!

        Absolutely delicious when fresh killed, breaded, and deep fried.

        The fine bones are only in the tail end, the center part provides large fillets which have only 4 or 5 huge bones which are impossible to miss.

        When dressing the carp, you must remove a gland from the inside without breaking it, or you will spoil the taste of the carp.

        Carp is, btw, a traditional xmas meal in Czech Republic

    • The problem with sharks is that they are not discriminatory (you already mentiond the humans getting bit). The native fish will suffer from sharks (and from fishing btw) aswell.

      Given that this gene will only spread among a species of fresh water fish it will not spread far beond the salt watter surrounded island australia is.
      What you do have to watch for is idiots transporting these fish out of the country.

      Jeroen
      • Jeron, please tell me how this gene will travel among the fresh water and why salt water would stop it??

        • Because it will only spread from carp to carp, and carp don't live in salt water. At least not the species in question. Where the australian carp can go, the gene can go.

          I think it more likely that this will have no effect at all rather than an overblown effect. Look at the gene from an epidemiology standpoint. You have a disease with 100% transmission rate that is "fatal" to the infected female. How interconnected are the carp populations and how fast could it spread before it kills off it's host pop

      • Visual Cues (Score:3, Interesting)

        by RabidChipmunk ( 19279 )
        They should GM the carp so they look different to humans. Maybe put the Glow gene in them. The only problem would be if the change made them less attractive to the opposite sex. Eventually it would, because selection would favor females who can pick males without the gene. It would take a while though.

        The trick is not to create something that is "collectable." It'll have to be ugly and taste bad, but still sexy to other fish.
    • Mass breeding of sharks or other predators would upset the eco-system. Sounds far worse than the proposed solution which would only affect the carp species in question. Besides, sharks don't live in freshwater as far as I know.

      Increased fishing programs would still catch other fish, not to mention evolution. The harder a species is pressed, the more it will reproduce. So when the practice of "hard" fishing is abandoned, the stock will come back in even greater numbers.

    • Mud carp are freshwater fish. Australia is an independent continent that has no connection to anywhere else. There's no way it could spread. Also, the carp are an introduced species so wiping them out is very desirable as they completely ruin the local river ecosystems. However, they've been trying to do that with rabbits, boar and foxes for about 100 years now with no success. I doubt this one will either.
      • Actually they had some success in the 1950's with wiping out the local rabbit population due to a long drought..unfortunately the drought ended and the rabbits multiplied fivefold. The foxes were introduced both for hunting and to control the rabbit population. The problem with foxes is they like to eat lots more than just rabbits.

        I agree with your assessment about Australia as an independent continent. If they are doing this to the freshwater species there, I don't see how they could ever spread (in any
    • Carp are freshwater fish. Sharks except for a few small sharks and bull sharks(really live in the ocean but have known to travel up rivers), they live in saltwater. Of course they could GM the shark to live in freshwater.

    • Re:Well I worry about this one (Score:5, Informative)

      by azav ( 469988 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @03:09PM (#7837460) Homepage Journal
      Ok. Australia is an island last time I checked. The carp would have to be transported outside of Australia to allow this gene to propogate. Carp are fresh water fish. They die in salt water. Interspecies gene transfer from a fresh water fish to a salt water fish, to the same fresh water species somewhere else is a large stretch of the imagination.

      RE: sharks. You seem to be missing the fact that sharks are mostly salt water creatures and you would have to breed fresh water sharks that have a taste for carp.

      Fact: by reducing the viable reproductive population of females, a population will crash as the female die out. You need females to grow a population, not males. Still, it would take many years for the carp populations to die out. Carp live for a long time.

      • Imagine (Score:4, Informative)

        by sacrilicious ( 316896 ) <qbgfynfu.opt@recursor.net> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @03:28PM (#7837725) Homepage
        Interspecies gene transfer from a fresh water fish to a salt water fish, to the same fresh water species somewhere else is a large stretch of the imagination.

        I wouldn't count on that. A big issue in the San Francisco Bay area has been the phenomenon of foreign tankers emptying their balast chambers (or some kind of huge water-containing chamber) in the SFBay, thereby introducing tons of non-native species to the area.

        • I wouldn't count on that. A big issue in the San Francisco Bay area has been the phenomenon of foreign tankers emptying their balast chambers (or some kind of huge water-containing chamber) in the SFBay, thereby introducing tons of non-native species to the area.

          The Great Lakes are having a similar problem with Mussels (and other creatures) from the Black Sea (and other regions) being dumped out of ballast tanks and into the Great Lakes. I recalled hearing something about this on the news a couple months

    • Genetic work can be beneficial, but the long term considerations must be considered...

      The pit many people fall into is there is always one cause of a problem and one solution to a problem. No other variables are considered. This kind of thinking can be disastrous.
    • While doing GM to control the population of a species is risky, you must consider the benefits and the alternatives. The present situation is clearly bad. Doing nothing is not an option. Yes, GM involves risks, but they are not 100% risks. And if something bad happens, we can fix this later.

      It's like going to a hospital for a treatment. Yes, it usually involves some risk, but you still do it, because you've got to do SOMETHING and because doctors are reasonably sure that they will be able to neutralise mos

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordK3nn3th ( 715352 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:38PM (#7837107)
    "Australians report rise of homosexual fish"

  • Aussies. pest control. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:39PM (#7837116)
    This just doesn't look good.

  • From the article:

    Carp features prominently in the cuisines of many Asian and eastern European countries...

    Does Australia export the carp to Europe and Asia for food? If so, wouldn't the backlash potentially kill their exports for genetically engineered meat? I suppose if they are trying to kill them off, they are considering this anyway, but still...

  • One Man's Pest... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:42PM (#7837156)
    is another man's delicacy [idfishnhunt.com]

  • carp is a freshwater fish (Score:5, Informative)

    by alsta ( 9424 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:42PM (#7837158)
    Since all carp that I know of are freshwater fish, it stands to reason by that assumption that the species was introduced by man. In fact the article mentions the word "introduced" but neglects to mention by what means. Had it been by natural cause, the choice of word would commonly be "migration".

    As such it would be next to impossible to spread this gene outside of Australia, where the species isn't wanted anyway. So unless I am wrong in my basic assumption that man caused this in the first place, the problem is contained.

    • Re:carp is a freshwater fish (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bshroyer ( 21524 ) <bret@bre[ ]royer.org ['tsh' in gap]> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:58PM (#7837356)
      My later comment [slashdot.org] should have been a reply to yours, but we were responding contemporaneously...

      The fact that the carp has been introduced everywhere by man, and is so ubiquitous, practically guarantees it'll be smuggled out of Australia to other "carp-infested" locales.

      It would also be an insidious attack against the Asian countries who rely upon carp for food - by releasing the GM fry into farms, lakes, and rivers in SE Asia.
      • So where did carp come from if it isn't indigenous anywhere? The fact of the matter is that it doesn't belong in Australia and short of this, there is no way one can cleanse the waters of the carp without killing every other living being in those waters.

        The risk that somebody "smuggles" this species to Asian countries appears very small and for that to have serious effect, the carp would have to inter-breed with other species to knock whole stocks out.

        COULD there be a risk? Of course. Is this option safer
        • If you read carefully, you'll note that at no time do I argue against the introduction of this GM fish. I only point out that, for those arguing that this is a "safe" GM animal, that their assumptions are false.

          I'm an anti-carp zealot. You can count me in among those who would take the opportunity to introduce GM Asian Carp to U.S. waters in an attempt to eliminate the all carp from our waters. Where I live (Minnesota - "Land of 10,000 lakes), if you catch a carp while fishing, it is a crime to allow ca
          • OK, you're for genetic manipulation and for cleansing waters of non-indigenous carp. In fact you're for this in US waters, but somehow Australians shouldn't be allowed to because it would be unfair to South East Asia?

            I am oversimplifying to get your attention. However there are a few facts we need to establish here for the sake of the argument.

            This procedure affects one species of carp. I don't know how many known species of carp there are, but I would venture to guess that it is in the least hundreds (pr
      • Why is carp a nuisance in Australia but desirable in Asia?

        I don't know much about fish.
    • Unless someone for some reason someone imports affected carp breed stock from austrailia that caries this gene. Just as the fish was introduced it can be returned and introduced somewhere elese. Though granted its next to impossible by the carps themselves without some assitence.

      Dosn't matter how likely such a scenario is. It dosn't have to happen alot. It just has to happen under the right circumstances. It just takes one willfull ignoramous with an austrailian carp fetish or some idiot that hates carp an
      • This is a very much reversible procedure. Once the carp is extinct, it can be re-introduced.

        Remember, the carp in Australia is NOT indigenous and it competes with other species about food and room. Since the carp breeds much faster and grows faster (due to abundence of food since it is a bottom feeder) than the indigenous species it crowds everything else out. The carp doesn't belong there and has to go, so there is no need to reverse this in the first place.

  • GM? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tommck ( 69750 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:43PM (#7837171) Homepage
    Am I the only one who pictured a steering wheel bolted to the top of a carp? I would expect that a steering wheel would be sub-optimal for maneuvering in the water...

  • I love it. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Golobarti ( 733832 )
    Once we are done with carp, I'd vote for mosquitoes, roaches, rats and lawyers next.
  • "perch and bass" are not native in Australia. Perches are found in Europe, North America, and northern Asia. Bass are found in North America only.

    For a better fish context - see Fishbase [fishbase.org].

    So, what do I care if one introduced fish species eradicates other introduced.
  • "It's cultural as much as anything else," said Thresher, who has a doctorate in marine biology. "There is a social stigma associated with carp because they are found in muddy conditions."
    - from the article

    Sounds familiar: there is a social stigma associated with geeks, and we too are often found in muddy conditions.

    Fortunately, there is little need to introduce a male-only gene into geeks -- most of whom are males destined never to propagate their kind.

    -kgj

  • Sounds familiar (Score:2, Funny)

    by coug_ ( 63333 )
    Didn't they try this in Jurrasic Park?
    • I believe they were all female in JP. The flaw with that plan was that it would only take one rogue male to be introduced, and you'd have a load of pregnant females, and one very tired but extremely happy male.

      If it was the other way round, and you introduced one female into a male population, she'd either get immediately shagged to death, or else she'd die alone in a shady corner because all the males would be scared to talk to her. Either way, the all-male plan seems potentially more effective.

  • Do it to goldfish in the USA! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:48PM (#7837227)
    I grew up next to a small river. As a child, my friends and I spent many afternoons fishing in the river for bass, sunfish, and catfish. In the late 1980s a trend began among irresponsible fishermen of using "feeder" goldfish, most of which were tiny orange carp, as bait because they were cheaper than minnows. At the end of the day, those guys would toss any extra bait into the river, where they thrived and grew to huge sizes. Native fish were wiped out, followed by the huge snapping turtles that could no longer survive in the screwed-up ecosystem. Those damned goldfish became the kudzu of our water, weren't any fun to fish for, and now the only people who fish in those waters are illegal immigrants desperate for food.

    If something like this were done with those stupid pet goldfish, it would be a great boon for a lot of fishing spots that might eventually be destroyed by idiots using non-native bait.

  • Carp are Nasty Fish (Score:4, Funny)

    by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:48PM (#7837234)
    A few years back a few friends and I were cruising around Lake Powell in Utah. For those not familiar with Lake Powell, most of the lake is sheer canyon walls with little vegitation and few places to exit the lake.

    We are cruising up one of the side canyons and the only place to exit is surrounded by boats and has no trees. My friend has to take a dump. So he jumps into the lake and drops his bathing suit. As soon as it hits the water, he is immediately attacked by 20-30 Huge carp in a big feeding frenzy. The water was boiling, my friend was screaming and we were crying from laughter.

  • Could backfire (Score:3, Funny)

    by mfender9 ( 725994 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:49PM (#7837237)
    Won't this just mean that a million sexually frustrated male carp will beat the fish-crap out of all the perch and bass instead?
    • Won't this just mean that a million sexually frustrated male carp will beat the fish-crap out of all the perch and bass instead?

      like many males in prison -- they simply make do with what they have.....

  • This gene is GUARANTEED to escape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bshroyer ( 21524 ) <bret@bre[ ]royer.org ['tsh' in gap]> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:51PM (#7837262)
    In general, one would think that introducing a GM freshwater fish in Australia would be a safe bet for containment. However...

    There is NO WAY that this gene could be contained in the small "backwater basin" in Australia. There are enough other locales in the world (the majority of the US [nps.gov], and its Great Lakes [glfc.org] for one) in which carp are despised, and enough motivated people with mobility, that there would quickly spring up a "black market" in these GM carp for export to ponds, lakes, and rivers abroad.

  • The Bio-ethical solution... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...would be to import Gorillas to eat the carp. In the winter, the Gorillas will die off naturally.
  • Playing with genetics is obviously VERY dangerous. The gene could jump from one organism to another... We simply don't know.

    But please also remember that the US government and Monsanto have been doing that with corn and soya FOR YEARS.

    I don't like this future for agriculture, please take time to do test before...
    • Gene1 (Merv): Hey bob..
      Gene2 (Bob) : Hey Merv..

      Merv: man, I was thinking.. this here carp we're in just sucks. Just swimming around, doing nothing all day long, man.. we gotta get outta here..

      Bob: Man, I feel ya, but how?

      Merv: See, I figure, if we jump just right, we can actually jump out of this here carp and, I dunno, inject ourselves into those plants on the shoreline..
    • > Monsanto have been doing that with corn and soya

      Yeah, and Monsanto is sueing a guy in the NE US or Eastern Canada (I cannot remember the exact location) because he is promoting his farm products as "Non-Genetically Modified".

      BTW, my father was a loyal Monsanto employee for 35 years, and I have to admit that Monsanto essentially paid for my upbringing, college, etc. through their trading of money for my dad's time/work.

      Never-the-less, Monsanto's argument is that the politicians have given them the gr
    • Corn and Soy are NOT fish. The mechanism for gene transfer in crops is not present in fish.

      Gene transfer is a fascinating concept but some concepts that apply in one type of organism in one type of environment area do not apply in others.
    • Dude it's fish, it's not like some big-daddy male only GM'ed carp is going to rape the sexy virgin and create a creature for the black lagoon offspring or something.

      Sure I find Montsanto's GMed palnts worrysome because the pollen will spread on the breaze and contaminate othe fields, but the problem is same species not cross species. The only organisms that have cross-species sex is bacteria, not fish.
  • I, for one, welcome our new genetically superior, all-male fishy masters.

    --riney
  • ...in the same sentence is turning into a cliche. Australian history is full of failed attempts to correct past mistakes, only to make things worse. I'm surprised they're not engineering these fish to also be amphibian and attack the cane toad and rabbit while they're at it. Visions of the Land Carp anyone? I suggest they just get used to the taste of carp and let them be. I'd take carp over catfish anyday.
  • Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

    Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

    Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

    Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

    Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

    Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!

    Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls aro
  • yeah I can't possibly see how that plan can go wrong

  • Spread of this gene in the wild?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @02:56PM (#7837322) Homepage Journal
    Unlike certain other organisms, interspecies gene transfer in fish is not something that happens every day. In weeds, it happens due to bacteria living in the root nodules of the weed and visiting neighboring plants.

    I do not know if gene transfer is documented in other organisms like fish but would consider it to have a very low success rate.

  • This won't cause the extinction of the species, it will just reduce one generation's progeny by 90%.

    Think about it, the GM gene guarantees that the fish won't reproduce. Darwinism kills these fish off after one generation for exactly that reason.

    The 10% of viable offspring don't have this gene, so the next generation is completely untainted, and can repopulate the species.

  • Kiwis don't use GM and have more fun doing it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @03:00PM (#7837371)
    Hey, why use complex genetic engineering to control your carp population when you can have a hell of a lot more fun using medieval technology [nzherald.co.nz] like the NZers do?
  • It is curious how external species are able to out-compete local species fine-tuned to the local environment time and time again.

    One theory is that local preditors have yet to adjust to the new species, giving it freer range. Another is that isolation has kept local species from some of the evolutionary advances going on elsewhere in the world.

  • old school solution (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Phrack ( 9361 )
    So, when you actually *need* to overfish a certain area and reduce a species population.... we turn to genetic manipulation. Smart. Smart.
  • I wonder if they tried hereditary sterility? The offspring of the sterile fish would ... never mind.
  • "Bred in tanks, the four centimetre (1.6 inch) gambusia are soon to be released into ponds surrounded by barbed wire, to reduce the risk of the male-only gene spreading to other species."

    OK, I give up. How does a gene spread to other species?

    Also, if I am not mistaken the gambusia is the same small fish that eats mosquito larvae and keeps that population down without us having to spray so much insecticide. While experimenting with this in an aquarium in a lab may be OK, it would seem to me careless to

  • Jurassic Park (Score:2, Funny)

    by Vorgo ( 448106 )
    First we genetically restrict one of the sexes, then the next thing you know they're humping anyway and they've broken out of their cages and are rampaging around the island trying to eat Dr. Grant and the kids.
  • All female carp caught in Australia have suddenly developed an unusual countenance that closely resembles a smile of extreme satisfaction.
  • ...how does this gene propagate?

    I mean, okay: there are 600 million carp in the water. Scientists engineer a good thousand fish to have this gene. Then they release them into the water. So those thousand fish have male offspring.

    Now what? Is this gene dominant? Is it even hereditary? Even if it is, how can the effect be anything better than infinitesimal?

    Or are the scientists using some sort of phage to infect ALL of the carp of the ocean? In which case, why not just kill the carp outright instead of all
    • This thousand-carp batch's children will all be male.

      That 10,000-carp batch's children will also all be male.

      That 100,000-carp batch's children will also be male.

      And so on. The existing males will have to work extra hard to find females, and eventually, one species (ether the GM ones or the non-GM ones, quickly followed by the GM ones) will die out, with considerably less fish left afterwards.
  • What? Ford and Chrysler don't get to bid?

    It's the Halliburton contracts all over again!
  • Why don't they just catch them and eat them. Carp are really tasty.
  • Think about it - if a gene causes the birth of only males, then it is not beneficial to the carp population.

    What has Darwin taught us about non-beneficial genes again?

    That's right. They eventually drop out of the gene pool.

    Basic evolution, everybody.

  • Huh? (Score:2)

    by dentar ( 6540 )
    How can GM control carp? They going to drive a bunch of Chevys into the water?

    (It's funny!!)
  • I suppose if journalists only wrote about what they really understood, they'd be limited to nursery rhymes (and the simpler ones at that), but still...

    Notably missing from the article is how on earth they planned on wiping carp out with a gene that by definition doesn't confer any evolutionary advantage.

    Fine, say they release zillions of GM carp - unless they can somehow ensure that only (*ONLY*) the GM carp get to breed, the result will be the next generation of carp consisting of soem mix of GM and non-

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close