Clark 1

Brandon Clark
Professor Brandon Alva
English 2010
2 April 2016
Where is the future in Aquaculture?
Albert Einstein is believed to have said, Everybody is a genius. But if
you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing
that it is stupid. The Einsteins, Aristotles, and Fords of the world are often
believed to be the smartest or most intelligent people to live. As a reminder,
theses geniuses did not accomplish great things with ease. In fact, Thomas
Edisons lightbulb did not succeed until after thousands of attempts.
Undoubtedly, friends and neighbors of his time criticized his seemingly
fruitless efforts; however, through belief and dedication, his hard work
produced countless fruits. I imagine if Edison believed the lightbulb was a
stupid idea, he would have never succeeded.
When fish start climbing trees, Im pretty sure humans will start
growing gills. That will certainly be an interesting day. On a more thoughtful
note, I would like to emphasize that technological progress and more
importantly, human development, begins with innovative ideas built on past
human experience and growth. Prior to the twentieth century, the sky was
only touched by the birds; however, the Wright Brothers changed that by
risking their lives on what seemed to be an impossible endeavor to invent a
machine of the skies. Because of them, we can travel to any corner of the

Clark 2
earth in fairly quick timing. Beyond intercontinental travel, explorers today
now envision space travel to neighboring solar systems. The Wright brothers
built the foundation upon which scientists and astronomers will reach
ambitions beyond imagination.
One major advancement in technology and more specifically,
biomedicine, includes the development of gene manipulation. In the last 25
years, gene manipulation has developed in areas of research to study the
human genome, to work to reduce human disease, imprint favorable traits in
foods and animals, and additional interesting developments. According the
United States Department of Agriculture, advancements in biotechnology
may help researchers improve the safety of our food supply. Innovative
research in DNA research has led to breakthroughs in which the scientific
community contributes valuable knowledge to our human identity. An
uprising issue with gene manipulation affecting biomedicine and food
consumption I recently learned about is the FDA approval of Aquabountys
genetically engineered (GE) salmon to be sold on US markets. My uncertainty
on the issue has led me to question and search out credibility regarding the
ethical debate surrounding the GE salmon. Whos to say the salmon have not
been sufficiently studied and proven to be safe? As well, what regulation is
being done to avoid disaster? Furthermore, I would like to discuss the context
and future issues society must consider regarding GE salmon and similar
cases. Zig Ziglar, a motivational author and speaker writes, In your hands
you hold the seeds of failure or the potential for greatness. The future lies

Clark 3
in our hands. What can be done? More importantly, what are we going to do
about?
On November 20th, 2015, news networks around the United States broadcasted the
groundbreaking FDA approval of Aquabountys genetically engineered salmon to be produced
and sold on the food market in the coming years. Aquabounty, a biotechnology company based
out of Massachusetts has faced controversy over the years, but finally received the FDAs
approval last November. The FDA published the following: The FDA scientists rigorously
evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer, AquaBounty Technologies, and other
peer-reviewed data, to assess whether AquAdvantage salmon met the criteria for approval
established by law; namely, safety and effectiveness. The data demonstrated that the inserted
genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that food from the GE salmon is safe to
eat by humans and animals, that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets
the sponsors claim about faster growth.
Many stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Safeway, Kroger, and Costco choose to not
stock the GE salmon upon the FDAs approval ("Costco Joins a Host of Retailers Refusing to
Sell GMO Salmon.") Will more stores join? For consumers, wary caution be that the GE salmon
are not required to be labeled. Whether consumers are aware or not, what will happen to those
who eat the salmon?
I believe a major concern of any GMO is the potential long term effects on the
consumers. The FDA gives their stamp of approval along with their supporting agencies;
however, who is to say Aquabounty secured every corner and eliminated all defects on their GE
salmon. The FDA is not known to be infallible. Problems can be overlooked and down the road

Clark 4
cause problems with repercussions too large to undo. In 2014 a study was completed on the
chalkiness of rice. Gene alteration affecting of the chalkiness of rice to alter other traits in the
rice (Li, Yibo). Both rice and Aquabountys salmon experience a change in traits due to the gene
manipulation. Aquabounty and studies conducted by other organizations prove that the GE
salmon grow at a rate allowing them to reach adulthood nearly one year sooner than normal
Atlantic salmon. These facts require me to ask myself, how do trait alterations through gene
manipulation affect consumers?
The study of long term effects of consumed GMOs requires time and meticulous notes
which scientists frankly have not come to a solid conclusion on. Some GMOs do in fact result in
carcinogen traits and pesticide traits unhealthy to humans. I am wary to fully trust Aquabountys
GE salmon. Though the FDA currently sees no immediate threat to the health of humans, I
believe the GE salmons progress needs to be carefully monitored.
Einsteins quote brings up a valid point that animals and humans have features which
prevent them from performing certain physical tasks in comparison to humans. As humans we
face the limitation to hold our breath underwater as fish face the limitation of being able to climb
trees. Sure, scuba equipment allows humans to breathe underwater, but what line is drawn when
those physical limitations are altered to the benefit of the species? The quick growth of
Aquabountys GE salmon seems enveloped in the scope of ethical questionability of human gene
manipulation. Where should the line be drawn?
Skeptical concerns of the GE salmon voice candid controversial health risks and question
the morality; however, in search for an open-minded perspective, I decided to seek out someone
who has professional experience with gene manipulation. In the biotechnology department at
Salt Lake Community College I spoke to Alejandro Pabon who has a Masters degree in

Clark 5
biochemistry and seven years experience as the lab manager over E. coli research affecting local
biotechnology companies. In speaking with Alejandro, I came to the consensus that he approves
of the engineered salmon. Furthermore, I curiously asked him where he believes the line should
be drawn on the manipulation of human DNA lies. To my surprise, he responded firmly that he
believes human DNA should not be altered in order to change normal human features ie eye
color, muscle strength, skin color, etc. Alejandro furthermore affirmed his support of the salmon
on the conditions that the FDA and related agencies do their part in proper regulation of the
engineered salmon.
Speaking with Alejandro broadened my perspective of the big picture on DNA testing. In
no way do I approve of unethical practices as mentioned by Alejandro. I still question the ethical
decision of altering living animals through drug DNA manipulation. However, from the
procedures Aquabounty carries out, sterilization of the GE salmon seems as an important
preventative step to breeding with Atlantic salmon if the GE salmon happen to escape
confinement. Correctly implemented regulation has the assurance to eliminate the risk of escape;
however critics of Aquabountys GE salmon should continue to flag weakness in the method of
regulation and accountability.
Furthermore, Alejandros insights sparked my interest to learn what positive future
Aquabountys GE salmon could bring under proper regulation. I found that aquaculture, or the
raising of fish on land facilities, has the potential to alleviate a global crisis facing global fishing.
According the United Nations, 10 percent of ocean litter is contributed to by fishing gear.
Globally, the UN estimates world trade of fish by catch to be 20 million tons, of which an
additional 11 to 26 million is caught unregulated. Atlantic fish are among some of the highest
harvested ocean fish. Additionally, Dr. Yonathan Zohar, of the University of Baltimore estimates

Clark 6
the worlds current seafood consumption to eventually deplete wild fish populations in years to
come. With a growing human population, the world faces the dilemma of exploitation of fish
species. Aquaculture done through GE methods or natural methods seems ideal to control the
amount of consumed fish and alleviate dwindling fish populations.
After researching Aquabountys genetically engineered salmon, I feel that the progress of
GMOs has a positive outlook. By saying this, there is absolutely no exception for a lack of
communication between biotechnology companies and their assigned regulatory agencies.
Regulation must continually improve and checks and balances amongst the biotechnology
community must occur. Additionally, the public must be informed of both positive and negative
impacts of the salmon. In the process of understanding the effects of consumption of the GE
salmon over long periods of time; studies must be conducted to hold the FDA accountable to
their approval last November. I believe that as proper regulation and checks and balances are
implemented, society will benefit with species preservation and cheaper food prices. Though at
this point, I do not believe the founders of Aquabounty deserve credibility comparable to the
Wright brothers; the principle of inventing something which improves the quality of life remains
the same. Those who successfully work through challenges and contribute to society for the
better, make the world a better place.

Works Cited
"Costco Joins a Host of Retailers Refusing to Sell GMO Salmon." takepart Nov. 2015. Web. 2
May 2016.
Li, Yibo, et al. "Chalk5 Encodes a Vacuolar H+-Translocating Pyrophosphatase Influencing

Clark 7
Grain Chalkiness in Rice." Nature Genetics 46.4 (2014): 398-404. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2016
Resumed Review Conference on the Agreement Relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations, May 2010.
Web. 10 Mar. 2016.
USDA. Biotechnology Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). United States Department of
Agriculture, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
Zohar, Yonathan. "Genetically Engineered Fish Can Provide Food and Conserve the
Planet." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Nol Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.
Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Genetically Modified Salmon Is Fit for the Table."
2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.