This article from Wired News.com tells of the genetic engineering efforts being employed to try to eradicate 'pest species' such as the European carp introduced to Australia. The plan is to modify a gene that can be introduced into a population and then inherited by offspring that will only alow male carp to be born. While some might call this an ethics issue, I think it's also a discursive one. How do we construct the "native" community that has been ousted by the pest? How far back in history does one go to determine a species' "native distribution"? Can there be any doubt that embedded in these decisions is some anthropomorphic bias?

If we went far back enough into the idea of "species ditribution," would humans emerge as the worst 'pests' when it comes to dislocating or destroying other species? No one that I know of is looking to breed out humans though. In the face of so many failed attempts to engineer the natural environment (I'm reminded of the Army Corps of engineers in Florida spending millions to straighten Florida's waterways, and then millions [billions?] more to restore them, all the while compromising many species; the entire article reminds me as well of the production of one-shot soybean seeds that can not be used for future seeds--what are the social and political implications of such gene technology?), the assurance that the biologists in this article show regarding their ability to control and understand the implications of their actions seems unjustified (and mostly based on mathematical models of fish breeding rather than ones that take into account things like mutation, or other improbabilities, if such models exist). But then again, since the method of control is not an (in)discriminate poison or contagion, but rather something that can only be passed on through reproduction, perhaps there will be enough opportunity to recognize problems and prevent catastrophes.