In today’s culture there seems to be little difference between “science can” and “science does.” So news that scientists are close to completing a DNA sequence of a Neanderthal man should leave us unsettled.
Fox News reports:
As scientists come closer to completing a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome, creating a living person from an ancient DNA sequence is becoming a real possibility, according to Archaeology Magazine.
Scientists announced Wednesday that they have pieced together most of the DNA of a man who lived in Greenland about 4,000 years ago, a pioneering feat that revealed hints about his appearance and even an increased risk of baldness.
It’s the first genome from an ancient human, showing the potential for what one expert called a time machine for learning about the biology of ancient people.
So we’re looking at a real possibility of cloning a Neanderthal sometime in the future.
Firstly, we’re not even sure why neanderthals disappeared. We might have just mated with them right out of existence. Or we may have just killed them off.
Either way it’s not good. If they want to resume with the mating, I’m not sure how keen how many of us would be with that. And abstinence-only education for neanderthals? Well, I’m not putting much hope in that. On the other hand, if we killed them off all those years ago they might get a little ticked when they find out. So we should all definitely agree to not tell them. And let’s remember if we killed them off all those years ago it’s possible we had a darn good reason.
But seriously, this would be a rather dangerous position. Would Neanderthals be seen as “human?” We know that us humans can be pretty stingy with that moniker. Maybe they’d just be “potential humans” so we could do with them what we want.
Soon politicians could be promising “A Neanderthal in every basement” to handle menial chores around the house or some lawn responsibilities.
Could we “terminate” them if we grow dissatisfied with them or they simply become too expensive to keep around? Could they possibly be a middle step in scientific research. First you test things on mice and chimps. But before you go to human trials why not try it on a Neanderthal. See what happens. Why not?
You might think all this is just goofy fun but how long do you actually think it’ll be between the day that science is able to clone a neanderthal and the day that it does?
February 18, 2010 at 1:41 pm
No need for cloning. You wanna see Neanderthals? Just come to my next family reunion.
Bring your own club.
February 18, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Jasper fforde has already done this in his "Thursday Next" novel series. A huge corporation cloned Neanderthals for medical tesing, but purposely engineered them so that they could not reproduce. They've no rights since they're not human and they do work no humans would want to do. Sounds like a miserable life.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do something.
February 18, 2010 at 3:39 pm
That's an awful lot of hassle just to save 15% or more on car insurance.
February 18, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Are Neanderthals "human"? You jokingly mention how stingy we are with that moniker, but I think it's a valid question. I'm not sure I'm ok with cloning animals, but I'd say it's better than cloning a human.
Has the Church addressed the issue of cloning animals?
February 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm
nightfly, you beat me to it! LOL!
February 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Lavatea-
seems a bit like stabbing someone with a wooden stake to see if they're a vampire; if they're not, you're kind of screwed and just horribly wronged someone….
We don't know if Neanderthals are humans or not– yes, it's a valid question, but horribly violating their human dignity to try to figure out if they are when there's reason to think they may be isn't a very good idea!
February 19, 2010 at 1:05 am
Foxfier,
I agree with you. I haven't done much research on Neanderthals or any of the other "missing links" (like Lucy or CroMagnon…or are they all the same thing?) so I wasn't sure if the scientific community had already settled the question. I did know that one theory of their extinction was the cross-breeding with "us" so if that were true, then they must certainly be human.
But if it were established that they were definitely NOT human, that leads me back to my original post. Has the Church addressed cloning of animals?
February 19, 2010 at 1:20 am
Forgive me, please, if I'm way off regarding the science of this, but my understanding is that you would need a human egg, into which you'd inject the Neanderthal DNA. So, yes, I think you'd have a (very damaged) human.
February 19, 2010 at 1:38 am
Found something on it!
The basic reasons for the inhuman nature of possible human cloning are not because it is an extreme form of artificial procreation in comparison to other legally approved forms, such as in vitro fertilization, etc.
As we have said, the reason for its rejection is that it denies the dignity of the person subjected to cloning and the dignity of human procreation.
The most urgent need now seems to be that of re-establishing the harmony between the demands of scientific research and indispensable human values. The scientist cannot regard the moral rejection of human cloning as a humiliation; on the contrary, this prohibition eliminates the demiurgic degeneration of research by restoring its dignity. The dignity of scientific research consists in the fact that it is one of the richest resources for humanity's welfare.
Moreover, there is a place for research, including cloning, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, wherever it answers a need or provides a significant benefit for man or for other living beings, provided that the rules for protecting the animal itself and the obligation to respect the biodiversity of species are observed.
From memory, Lucy is supposed to be a pre-human, CroMags are closer, Neanderthals are closest to modern. I may be mistaken and CroMags are Neanderthals, or CroMags are just cavemen. Also from memory, there's still some debate on where a lot of the skeletons fit in– like those "Hobbit" bones that were found, that half the folks think are just malnourished and half think are a branch.
I think it would be interesting to see how the variation inside of the human species compares to the bones we've found, but nobody will touch that one– too close to nazi junk.
February 19, 2010 at 1:46 am
Good point, Cathy. They'd also probably "build" the DNA they actually use with human DNA– I don't think they'll be able to manage a good enough culture to sample, and apes have a different number of chromosomes.
I suppose that either way, we'd end up with a deformed ape or human.
February 19, 2010 at 3:05 am
Cloning: So easy a cave man can do it. Makes "Planet of the Apes" sound scarily prophetic.
February 19, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I don't think the clip from the article said anything about cloning, so what was the point of this post?
February 19, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Anon-
might want to read more carefully; the word "clone" wasn't used, but by "creating a living person" from an "ancient DNA sequence," that is cloning.
February 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm
They'll make a Neanderthal Park… and I dunno, but Jeff Goldblum is on the phone, and he says to tell you that's probably not a good idea.
February 20, 2010 at 2:27 am
nightfly- HILARIOUS!
February 21, 2010 at 11:44 pm
I think Cromagnons are biologically identical with modern humans; they are homo sapiens. Neanderthals existed at the same time and then disappeared. All kinds of neat stories have been written trying to imagine the interactions between the two.
Susan Peterson
February 21, 2010 at 11:50 pm
There is always Google and Wikipedia when you don't really know something!
The term Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) refers to one of the main types of early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens) of the European Upper Paleolithic. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are dated to 30,000 radiocarbon years. The name derives from the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.
Today, the term "Cro-Magnon" falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is often used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, while remaining, anthropologically speaking, a specific (but very frequent) subtype among the fossil remains. In more recent scientific literature the term "European early modern humans" (EEMH) is used instead of "Cro-Magnon". The oldest definitely dated EEMH specimen [1] with a modern and archaic — possibly Neanderthal — mosaic of traits is Oase 1 from 34,000–36,000 14C years ago.[2]
…
Cro-Magnon were anatomically modern, only differing from their modern day descendants in Europe by their more robust physiology and slightly larger cranial capacity.[13]
Surviving Cro-Magnon artifacts include huts, cave paintings, carvings and antler-tipped spears. The remains of tools suggest that they knew how to make woven clothing. They had huts, constructed of rocks, clay, bones, branches, and animal hide/fur. These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created the first calendar around 15,000 years ago[14].
All from the Wikipedia article on CroMagnon man.
February 21, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Don't trust wiki; use wiki, if you must, to find a starting place for research.