Nature: Should we clone a Neanderthal?

[denem]

Return of the Neanderthals
If we can resurrect them through fossil DNA, should we?

Last week in Nature, scientists reported major progress in sequencing the genome of woolly mammoths. They reconstructed it from two fossilized hair samples. One was 20,000 years old; the other was 65,000 years old. Now, according to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times, biologists are discussing "how to modify the DNA in an elephant's egg so that after each round of changes it would progressively resemble the DNA in a mammoth egg. The final-stage egg could then be brought to term in an elephant mother."

Cool, huh? But that's not the half of it. Wade notes:

The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for Neanderthals.

In fact, Wade points out, there are good reasons to re-create a Neanderthal: "No one knows if Neanderthals could speak. A living one would answer that question and many others."

http://www.slate.com/id/2205310/

Yikes. Isn't eight years enough? A living one can't answer questions. We know how they speak: Ya'betcha.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Hmmm. Jeebus says cloning is immoral, but the base of the GOP is dwindling fast.

What a conundrum!

[ashling]

2. I was gonna say, I don't want to clone a neanderthal

I just want to get him out of the White House!

[theoldman]

12. You are forgetting that they had bigger brains than us.

They also managed to survive longer than we have been around.

[LisaL]

58. So why did they die off? I think cloning a Neanderthal would

be a fascinating thing to do.

[ashling]

71. Oh Gawd! Science geeks that don't get satire!

just kidding :)

[RedCappedBandit]

86. Lots of animals have bigger brains than we do

What's your point?

[gizmo1979]

3. No

We already have Palin Republicans.

[goddess40]

15. there's loads of them in freeper land nt

[FloridaJudy]

65. Don't you dare insult Neanderthals like that!

The prevailing theory is that it was climate change - not lack of mental ability - that did them in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4251299.stm

Homo sap would be wise to pay attention.

[YOY]

4. Why clone them...they're breading like rabbits worldwide.

n.t.

[LibDemAlways]

74. One's been living in the WH for almost 8 years, and

there are many in government right now. What we don't need is more.

[misanthrope]

5. Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it...

...Wisdom and deliberation should temper ability and knowledge in this matter.

[MNDemNY]

9. Why not?

What is your issue with this?

[murray hill farm]

33. It seems rather cruel...

to cause life to be created now from DNA that old and not think of the human being that would have to live with a body and mind not evolved ...and have to live in todays world. And, worse...to be brought to life to be studied and as an experiment. We need first to care about the life of such a fellow human being.

[MNDemNY]

37. Sure, but I wasn't asking you.

(Not to snap at you)

[misanthrope]

63. Because my compassion and empathy tell me...

...this would not be a good idea. I see how modern humans behave, our history as a species and civilization, and it gives me all the evidence I need to see we should not do this.

There is plenty of discussion below touching on all my reasons so I won't waste the bandwidth.

[MNDemNY]

72. Good save.

[misanthrope]

83. Whatever...

...You come across as itching to pick a fight with me and I have no idea why.

Who knew advocating deliberation was so incendiary?

[MNDemNY]

84. Whatever, indeed.

[Taverner]

39. They are evolved

They evolved perfectly for the European Ice Age Environment they lived in

Honestly, I think we should clone a bunch of them, let them live in the wild in a sanctuary of some sort, and watch what happens.

[MNDemNY]

40. Cool, kinda like an "ant farm".

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. "think of the human being that would have to live with a body and mind not evolved ."

I do ...I do. Every day.

[kurt_cagle]

62. That assumes that there has been significant evolution of the brain in 13,000 years.

It's possible, in which case, such a Neanderthal would be unable to adapt. On the other hand, a Neanderthal born in 2010 would be exposed to exactly the same stimuli that most children would, and if the Sapiens brain itself hasn't evolved significantly in that time (that is to say, if the differentiating factor in human civilization was cultural rather than physical) then it may very well turn out that the Neanderthal would likely appear quite "human" acting as an adult - burlier, a bit more of a brow ridge, considerably stronger, yes, but probably not so different as to appear that unusual on a typical New York street:



Of course, it could very well be that the Neanderthals were in fact more intelligent than humans, but were too much of a warm-climate species and thus were pushed to extinction by a combination of the Ice Age and Cro-Magnum hominids that had more readily adapted to the cold. If they were brought back to live in 2010, they might actual hold the advantage.

[wuushew]

6. Where would this be done?

Non-therapeutic cloning is banned in much of the world.

Also, I have my doubts about the quality of the DNA. Even relatively young DNA from well preserved Egyptian mummies is pretty badly degraded after a few thousand years.

[EOTE]

54. I'm pretty sure it involves frogs and supercomputers.

And amber and genetic facilities on La Isla Nublar. It's all very scientific, but you'll have to trust me that it works.

[theoldman]

7. The US may not clone a Neanderthal but the Russians may.

It would not surprise me if the Germans or Koreans did it because they are far ahead of us.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. I thought they already had.

At least from looking at pictures of the old Politburo.

[arcadian]

8. Sure! Why the fuck not?

I just don't give a crap anymore. After they clone it, give it all of our nuclear missile codes, that should prove fun.

[Crankie Avalon]

10. Republicans will have to to offset their inability to draw from Latino and youth voters. nt

[sellitman]

11. Do it.

I'd like them to prove once and for all that republicans are actually stupider than Neandeathals.

[Unvanguard]

13. Yes, definitely. It would be massively interesting. n/t

[pitohui]

14. it doesn't seem fair to the individual cloned

we are not going to re-create the neanderthal species, we are going to keep the earth for our species, so we would be cloning a thinking, potentially intelligent being who is alive just to be a research object, with no chance of meeting a sex partner, raising a child, having a dream and a career -- it just isn't the same as cloning the mammoth who won't have any real clue that she's different from the other little elephants in the herd

i would say "no" to cloning a neanderthal

i feel it's most useful to focus on figuring out a way to clone endangered species that would not be competitors for us and that are actually needed to fix broken eco-systems, or honestly instead of cloning an entire animal to figure out how to create new organs and body parts for injured and sick people who are already here

i do not see how cloning a neanderthal accomplishes anything useful and it seems like it would be cruel to the person created
-- it also seems like it would a major waste of research dollars and grants that could go elsewhere

the people saying this is "fun" and "interesting" -- are you aware that there is reason to believe that the neanderthal people had the same intellectual ability that we have? we are not talking about cloning a glow in the dark kitty to raise funds for research -- how would you like it if you were not a legal person but merely a research object? just doesn't seem right

[Hekate]

22. Pretty much what I was going to say. This would be a person, not a thing. nt

[jpak]

29. Yup - he or she would have a potentially sad and lonely life

and possibly a short one given what we don't know about cloning ancient hominids.

[FedUpWithIt All]

35. Nicely put. I agree with you. n/t

[lynnertic]

41. Dogs, thinking and potentially intelligent, are cloned right now.

Cloning dogs and neanderthals is not different than cloning a mammoth either -- elephants are sentient.

[WindRiverMan]

56. Cloning animals is one thing

Doing this to a human being diminishes us all. I hope this does not happen. What a poor existence that man or woman would face.

[JI7]

82. i disagree when you say it wouldn't accomplish anything useful

we could learn a lot from it.

but the rest of your post shows why it would still not be worth it or even the right thing to do.

[Lyric]

16. Serious answer? No, because we aren't evolved enough

to act like civilized, compassionate beings and treat it with the respect it would deserve. Its mental capacity would be akin to a mentally-deficient "regular" human, but it wouldn't be given the same rights that mentally disabled people are entitled to.

For example, we do not breed disabled people in order to do experiments on them. That is EXACTLY what this would be. And it would be horrifically wrong. What if the Neanderthal turns out to be a lot smarter than we expected, for example? Do we set it free and give it rights? It won't have a family, or a support system, or any way to take care of itself. Do we keep it locked up in captivity until it dies? I think it might be far too "human" for something like that to be ethical.

Maybe in a few hundred years, when we aren't quite so barbaric ourselves, it could happen. But not until then.

[pitohui]

17. i am not aware of any evidence that its mental capacity would be less than ours

it has been awhile since i've read on the topic but the brain capacity is the same and in some cases there is evidence that was larger

there is no evidence that our species came out on top because we were more intelligent that i've ever heard

i would not presume that the clone would be mentally deficient, i think there's a real danger it would be self aware

[Jackpine Radical]

18. I think you're making assumptions about its mental capacities.

We know that their culture was technologically simple, but what do we know of their mental lives?

[Lyric]

24. Well, that's really the point of it isn't it?

I suppose I was giving more of a "worst-case" scenario in regard to mental ability, but what I said would still fully apply even if their mental abilities were the same as our own. Unless we were prepared to give them the same rights that we enjoy, and the same liberties (which would include the liberty to REFUSE to be experimented-on or tested) then we have no business bringing them back to life. It's not like we could re-create the species AS a species. There isn't enough intact Neanderthal DNA left to provide the kind of genetic variation that would be needed for the species to survive in the long-term.

We are just too barbaric and crude to handle that situation ethically. And the treatment for said Neanderthal humans would be even worse if they DID turn out to be less capable of intelligent thought than we are. They'd probably be treated like zoo animals, and that would be nothing short of an abomination.

[pitohui]

47. true! point taken EOM

.

[pitohui]

46. everybody's tech was low in those days, ours included

we know they had jewelry, tools, burial rituals -- everything "we" had back in those days

i would say there is little or no evidence that they differed from us mentally

in the other thread someone cites the differences in the genetic code, it's very very tiny

[Jackpine Radical]

50. Yes--Mousterian culture.

There is much about it, such as the nature of the burial rituals, that is strongly suggestive--to me, at least--that they had language, some concept of an afterlife, etc. It is also clear from some of the finds that they took care of their elderly and disabled. In that respect, they would seem to be somewhat more advanced than Republicans.

[tuvor]

19. WTF?! 18 replies and no Bush jokes?

[denem]

23. Neanderthals were considearably more evolved than chimpanzee.

:evilgrin:

[skamaria]

27. Whe're just showing respect for the Neanderthals........

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Bush is not in the Neanderthal league.

[dbonds]

20. Is Geiko behind this?

[AndrewP]

21. Yes! The next GOP Presidential Candidate!

[OwnedByFerrets]

25. We've already had ONE as president.....why add more to the collective?

[damntexdem]

26. Sure, homo sapiens has really screwed up the planet.

Give the Neanderthals another shot.

[bobd0]

28. It's a trick question. It's already been done.

[AnnieBW]

30. I think I dated one once

Or at least it seemed like it.

[SoCalDem]

31. I know that scientists are "curious", but why do that?

To "create" a living being, just to look at it and study it..just because we "could", seems creepy..and unethical to me.

and IF done, it would be of OUR TIME and environment..not its own, so the benefit would be miniscule.

The resulting being, could offer little insight, other than a being that looked very different, might or might not be able to communicate, and would require a lifetime of "tending to"..

[Evoman]

32. HELLS YEAH.

That would be awesome. We made a fucking nuke, for god's sake....what's the matter with a little genetic tinkering?

[greyl]

69. You've been lobbying for this since May, haven't you? ;)

old thread

[Taverner]

38. Yes. Absolutely.

And I do think they should have their own refuge, where they can be studied untouched

It's the geek in me, I can't help it

[asteroid2003QQ47]

42. All of the body parts must be enlarged.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: For the experiment to be a success, all of the body parts must be enlarged.

Inga: His veins, his feet, his hands, his organs vould all have to be increased in size.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Exactly.

Inga: He vould have an enormous schwanzstucker.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: That goes without saying.

Inga: Voof.

Igor: He's going to be very popular.


Elizabeth: Oh. Where you going?... Oh, you men are all alike. Seven or eight quick ones and then you're out with the boys to boast and brag. YOU BETTER KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
Oh... I think I love him.

[guitar man]

78. LOL

Some of Mel's finest work. :thumbsup:

[liberalpragmatist]

43. The only way this could even possibly be ethical...

... would be if the Neanderthal were allowed to be raised as a human being -- in a family, with his/her identity concealed.

And even then, there are huge ethical and moral concerns. As mentioned above, you would basically be creating a human being purely for research purposes -- and even if that neanderthal were raised anonymously as a normal person, it would still be a very gray area ethically.

Moreover, there are practical considerations. For one thing, if you were to conceal their identity, how could you maintain secrecy? Doctors, perhaps teachers -- lots of people would eventually need to know that Johnny's a little "special."

You would also be exposing the neanderthal kid to a completely foreign world. Who knows if the neanderthal would be susceptible to all kinds of pathogens or diseases that nobody today is susceptible to? How do we know his/her body will respond to the same kinds of treatments as us?

On top of all that, there's still the fact that cloning is still in its infancy. There could be enormous developmental defects with a cloned neanderthal.

All in all, it's an idea that sounds cool, until you really unpack it.

[Retrograde]

44. If he/she is raised as H. sapiens sapiens

would he or she still be a Neanderthal without the cultural background? Would it be an experiment in nurture vs nature? I don't know how close genetically Neanderthals were to us - as close as chimps or bonobos? Even with that closeness there are some very big differences.

That's also the problem I see with cloning, say, a woolly mammoth: you may get something that looks like one, but since its modern relatives depend on their herd-mates to socialize them the new animal will have a hard time being a mammoth. And just think of when it gets old enough to be interested in the opposite sex.

[pitohui]

48. the story of the thick-billed parrot might be relevant here

animals w. a long life span that become what they are based on learning from their parents have a difficulty being re-introduced into the wild, hence the failure of the reintroduction of the thick-billed parrot -- they don't automatically "know" how to be parrots based on instinct

the captive bred parrots don't know how to be wild

the wild parrots quickly figure out how to escape back to mexico

in no case thus far has any population figured out how to replace the extirpated arizona population

and these are parrots! how much more so would it be with the neanderthal? dna can't teach them how to be neanderthal, their society would need to do that

in the other thread, there's a link, in answer to your question, yes, we share more DNA with neanderthals than with chimps/bonobos (neanderthals and "humans" are indeed the same genus)

[Jackpine Radical]

51. Ame genus, and according to some writers, same species.

[greyl]

68. A human being of which culture?

Not true:



True:

[hunter]

45. Look for a big boned redhead with no chin.

I used to move furniture with that guy. Coolest character I ever met. Once upon a time in Oxnard we were accosted by a shaky drug addict holding a gun and he looked the guy over calmly, held out his huge hairy arms, and said, "Nice gun. May I see it?"

The poor would-be bandit freaked out and ran away while I was still blithering some kind of save-my-own-skin nonsense and fumbling for my wallet.

I figure the Neanderthals didn't become extinct, they simply stopped aging.

[xchrom]

52. yes -- as long as said clone had all equal legal standing

with 'modern' humans.

i agree with taverner that a reserve could be found -- and it would be wonderful for us to 'meet' again.

[xchrom]

53. yes -- as long as they had full, equal legal standing. nt

[AuntPatsy]

55. No, they were human as well, why would anyone stand for using a human as a science experiment?

Its just plain disqusting...

[LisaL]

57. They might be different species.

[Gold Metal Flake]

59. A few moments in the new neandethal's life.

[GaYellowDawg]

60. Even given the full genome, we might not be able to.

Maternal effect genes. Look it up. Not only that, there's no guarantee whatsoever that a Neanderthal fetus would survive in a H. sapiens uterus.

But if we could, I'd be all for it.

[mymessageboardid]

61. We already cloned one

Not long ago...

[Rhiannon12866]

64. LOL! I was sure that you were going to say

He's in The White House...:rofl:

[oxymoron]

66. No, not enough payoff. Fund particle physics. (nt)

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

67. Yes. We should.

Might help humans figure out exactly how unexceptional we are.

[W_HAMILTON]

70. Maybe...

...once they finish cloning mammoths and miniaturize them so I can have one as a pet :)

[MilesColtrane]

73. Creating a genetically altered human being for the purposes of studying them is unethical.

That's Nazi shit.

[HamdenRice]

75. You INSENSITVE PRICK ! Always ignoring this community that's ALREADY HERE !!!

"We" never went away!

Just kidding.

:hi:

[guitar man]

76. why do that?

there is already an entire community of them, they can be found here:

www.freerepublic.com

:D

[Jamastiene]

79. The Neanderthals would be far too advanced for them.

:evilgrin:

[Jamastiene]

77. Sure. Why not? In order fullfill evolution's "missing link"

between Republicans and Democrats, the Neanderthals would be a perfect...or would the Cro Mags be better?

[ContinentalOp]

80. We should clone those indonesian hobbit people first. -nt-

[Geek_Girl]

81. No we have plenty of Neanderthals walking around

Just look at the GOP for proof

[LeftishBrit]

85. No. I don't think we should clone Bush!

[old mark]

87. Sure, what the hell. nt