E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Peter Andrews / Reuters file
A volunteer dressed as a Neanderthal woman walks inside a cage at the Warsaw Zoo in Poland. Volunteers agreed to dress like Neanderthals and spend hours locked up in cages in an effort to educate the public that apes should be treated with respect. So how would neo-Neanderthals be treated?
Harvard geneticist George Church caused quite a stir in suggesting in a new book that we might someday be able to clone a Neanderthal baby — and although he now says his original point was lost in translation, that point is still well worth considering
Church notes that since we have fragments of Neanderthal DNA in fossils, someday it might be possible to assemble them into a complete genome that could be put into a human egg to create a cloned embryo. That embryo could be then put into a human surrogate mother, and a human relative long extinct could be brought back to life.
It is a fascinating scientific speculation. It is an ethical nightmare that should never be tried.
Trying to assemble a complete genome from fragments, even using technology that does not yet exist, would pose a huge risk that some bit of code would be missed or simply wrong. That could mean a stillborn or horribly deformed birth.
Worse, trying to clone a baby from a reconstructed genome using a human egg raises another set of safety issues, in that the Neanderthal genome might not grow properly in the setting of the contents of a human egg. Risking a deformed or dead fetus simply created only for reasons of human curiosity is not a sufficient reason to take the chance, now or ever.
Put the safety issues aside: Suppose you could clone a healthy Neanderthal baby from a reconstituted genome and a surrogate mom. Would you create someone who would flourish in our environment? What new viruses and bacteria are out their waiting to kill a child with a 30,000-year-old genome and corresponding immunity system? Native Americans found out through mass death what it was like to encounter European diseases such as smallpox and syphilis. What allergies, asthma and other debilitating diseases would assault this cloned creation?
What if the Neanderthal child was very aggressive by nature? Would it mean a life confined, or drugged, or both?
And what would life be for a cloned Neanderthal baby? Created not out of love but only as a science experiment, the child would be subject to endless inquiry and observation by doctors and scientists eager to know the past through the baby, but not especially interested in the baby for the baby’s sake.
Making Neanderthals — or, for that matter, dinosaurs or mastodons or any other ancient creature — sounds cool. But it is actually far more likely to be cruel. Cloning cannot bring back the dead or the extinct. It is neither safe enough nor ethical enough to be worth trying.
More about the ethics of cloning:
- Fixing genes using cloning is worth the risk
- Could 'Cloud Atlas' clones be in our future?
- Who cares about cloning? Debate is shifting
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
Leave a Comment:
whats the big deal? this gov't kills 100,000's of innocene humans every war it gets into! whats one Neanderthal going to matter?
EVERY government in the history of the world when at war kills people, thats war. The only good thing is you can say "this government" does not target "innocent humans" ..... very different than just about any other, exception being European governments .. they have pretty much the same cultural bias against deliberate targetting.
The government does indeed kill innocent human babies yearly, wholesale, not just our governmen, but most of them. WELL, generally the government doesn't do it (one exception: China.) However the government is definitely complicent in the slaughter.
Considering the timing of the Cro-Magnon exodus from Africa, and the disappearance of Neanderthals, it seems quite likely the two events are related. Whether we killed them off or merely outcompeted them, Neanderthals as a species likely died out because of us. A case could be made that the "ethical" thing to do is to bring them back (in a humane way), along with all of the other species that we modern humans have caused to go extinct.
Then you would have to deal with legal courts because "they were here first" and evicting from large areas all the Europeans and Asians etc, plus the monetary costs every year in compensation, free schooling housing food etc.. The exceptions would be N.America and possibly Australia and pacific islands, as far as I know there were no Neanderthal in those regions.
Somehow I thought we'd already created 538 Neanderthals.
Yet somehow we smarter, more developed humans, elected all of them into the house. Whose' the dummy now?
FOOL .. evidently you? The 538 is the total of Congress, not the house. Not to mention that not all 538 belong to the Democratic Party.
TY Dennis - saved me the trouble. I weep for the future.
Of course it's a bad idea. We shouldn't even begin to consider creating a human for the sole purpose of studying it. And what would we do with this person for the 30-60 years it lived?
Given we have utterly poisoned our tiny home and that we are unable to flee the consequences of our outrageously foolish behavior, it should be clear we are not a viable species. It's time to explore in earnest creating a variant that could go to the stars. The neanderthal experiment might be a useful stepping stone to our exiting this homo-sapiens folly.
Scientifically, cloning a Neanderthal would be the ultimate experiment. It could tell so much about our development as early humans and may tell us why they as a species didn't survive. Even a still born Neanderthal would be scientifically useful.
This Neanderthal would be studied by knowledgeable scientist, not thrown to the masses to see how it survives.
Who is to say it wouldn't be cared for and loved. Reality is a personal point of view. Don't put your baggage on something else.
I have also read the possibility of humans having Neanderthal DNA, but wonder if it was from inter-breeding or from a common ancestor.
Morally, I don't have a problem with it. There are probably surrogates lining up for a chance to participate in the experiment.
I hope people aren't objecting because they would rather believe that they where put on this earth by God and evolution doesn't exist.
Now let the games and name calling begin. I would appreciate a real discussion instead of name calling and questioning of my intelligence. But I guess you will have to answer this however you are able.
There are a couple of issues involved. So far it appears that every individual from every region on earth has Neanderthal genes to a varying degree, the exception being humans from subsahara Africa. It has even been suggested that the introduction of Neanderthal traits had some effect that made civilization itself possible. One thing you can be sure of is a Neanderthal is going to have a different way of percieving things and reacting to them. You cant even bridge culture differences and project your world view and can not expect someone with a different language to view and react to the world the same as you, that is a major flaw with the PC cultural diversity and tolerance agenda ........ what are the chances a different genetic base will be any different? I dont know if its still the same but at one time it was said the speech structure of the throat was different, if that is true the brain would be wired to recognise attempts to communicate in a different way and interpret communication differently. I for one think that YES there are ethical questions involved. Its one thing to experiment or clone an animal but would it be ethical to do the same to a sapient being? It may not be the same sapience as a human but it IS a thinking, tool using, adapting and self aware being close enough that interbreeding took place.
Foolmeonce <<<<<>>>>> ""I would appreciate a real discussion instead of name calling and questioning my intelligence." <<<>>> Fair enough!!! But, only if you do not exempt yourself from the stricture you have placed on me.
Why do scientists persist in wanting to bring back species that are extinct? They are gone and bringing them back artificially is unethical and not economically feasible, because you and I would be paying for it! These scientists certainly would not want to be responsible for footing the bill for raising a woolly mammoth or a saber toothed cat, much less adopting a neanderthal being to raise. Scientist push the ethical boundaries of what the know every day and still get to play with all that cool equipment in a clean lab with air conditioning. Just say "NO! HELL NO!" to all their cloning sh1t!
Would you feel differently if the scientists were bringing back us?
No
Because it would be cool to own one? The animals not a sapient being
Dennis ----- "The animals (sic) NOT A SAPIENT BEING" (SIC). Seriously, yes or no, how would you know?
Why would we want to do this anyway? There is zero chance a cloned Neanderthal would ever act in a manner considered "normal" per the society the child might otherwise have grown up in. It is likely the child would never be able to fit in with any other group except perhaps with its mother and all the scientists who want to observe it. What a rotten way to grow up. We all know how rough kids can be to each other.
What new viruses and bacteria are out their (should have been "there") waiting to kill a child with a 30,000-year-old genome and corresponding immunity system?
I think Art Caplan might take a different stand if the Neanderthal had wiped us out and then discovered, 40,000 years later, that they could bring us back. Wouldn't Art Caplan want to see his species given a second chance?
Why
There is actually a really good commercial reason to raise enough for a football team. Neanderthals have huge hands to wrap around the ball and apparently they made their living by wrestling cave bears. First guy to raise enough for a team will clean up.
The question is what new viruses and bacteria might mutate in the clone of a healthy Neanderthal baby from the reconstituted genome and surrogate mom? Maybe pathogens from us killed off the Neanderthals and we could bring them back to do likewise to us.
Why are we even talking about this? Our doctors and scientist can't even find a cure for the common cold, or any diseases on our planet. More science fiction. Take a pill, and go back to to your comic books.
We are talking about this because of success in cloning. With the right Genetic materials and techniques it is very possible it can be done.
The main worry's seem to be that the child would be mentally deficient. I can't see that. If a child from an Indian village in, say the Amazon, was raised in, say America, went to school & then went to University. There is no reason that they would be any different from a child who was born in Civilization to start with. It's called environment.
As for love. I'm sure the parents & their kin, who raised the child, would love the child as much as if it was not an experiment. I'm sure, unless there are some very stupid people around, that the child would be accepted as any other child.
The reason that child from a stone age tribe, raised in civilization would be mentally indistinguishable from any other child is because it has the same genetic potential as other members of the species. That is not true when discussing Neanderthal relative. Physical differences, mental wiring, the way it is designed to perceive the world ... all different. You can not project your world view on an individual from another culture and language and expect them to reach the same conclusions and we are talking about differences much more drastic than that based on what potential is endowed genetically.
humans have no problem imprisoning and torturing all sorts of life whats one more??!
the last article invoked a lot of pro responses for this unethical proposal, those against were in the minority...
this "modern" society irrational, immature, full of disregard, lacking wisdom, devoid of ethics, narcissistic, johnny knoxvile jack-asses, endangering not only an unsuspecting public but themselves as well. Many times only for a buck, fame or infamity.
The harvard professor claims he was misunderstood, "lost in translation" a harvard professor shouldn't have communication problems to begin with. The professor should be reviewed thoroughly.
"modern" society irrational, immature, full of disregard, lacking wisdom, devoid of ethics, narcissistic, johnny knoxvile jack-asses, endangering not only an unsuspecting public but themselves as well"
That is a direct result of 2 generations of dumbing down in public education system so
"every student feels included" and "feels good about themselves". Every symptom you describe is the inevitable outcome of the welfare nanny-state where the citizen never has to grow up and be an adult (at least until the unavoidable collapse). The world of academia, at least the portion not related to hard sciences, is one that has a very fragile connection to the real world.
"Harvard geneticist George Church caused quite a stir in suggesting in a new book that we might someday be able to clone a Neanderthal baby — and although he now says his original point was lost in translation, that point is still well worth considering" That's because Alan Boyle, who wrote the story "Help wanted: 'Adventurous' woman to give birth to ... a Neanderthal baby?", for Science on NBC News, is a hack journalist who apparently believes he's a scientist.
The rise of the planet of the apes........is at hand.
Actually it's been around for a long time--it's called 'Congress'.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Well the citizen base put them there so what does that say about the level of expectation of the general population?
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America". Alexander Hamilton
How many citizens even know that name anymore or what he is referring to? Dont blame the apes, blame those who think the public education system is a tool for social engineering in a historically failed belief system the last 2 generations. It is also why the founders tried to prevent to much direct democracy
...it might go into politics................
Probably do pretty well too. It would get the "progressive" vote based solely on the fact it would be an oppotunity to ease guilt at extiction and prove how understanding they are. Of course they would not want to have the Neanderthal as a nieghbor but hey.
"Here's why creating a Neanderthal clone is such a bad idea"
There are Neanderthals already living amongst us in our society today!
See the Bush family! Jenna is a dead giveaway!!! Barbara (Granny) is a female silverback.
Of course there are Neanderthals in society. Every group from every corner of the planet has traces of Neanderthal genetics ...... except subsahara Africe groups. It was suggested that introduction of genetic material is responsible for civilization itself and Empirical evidence would support that theory. Are you suggesting the Bush administration was more civilized as a result of your implied higher level of genetics?
See the Bush family! Jenna is a dead giveaway!!! Barbara (Granny) is a female silverback
Did you come up with that all on your own??? Sure hope you didn't hurt yourself.
Get real. Individuals who would make comments like that are not capable of coming up with anything not spoon fed to them. But watch the ire if someone was low enough to make a similiar inane comment like that about darling obama family and similiarities are MUCH closer. Either childish mentality is wrong.
I totally disagree with this article. It could..., it might..., what if... Don't try to build an airplane, you might fall and kill yourself. Don't build a ship that can sail under the waters, you might drown. Don't leave earth's atmosphere, you might die horribly.
Every time a child is conceived, something bad might happen. As has been stated above, many of us have a little neanderthal in us now. He would be part of us, just as the neanderthal of old are part of us today.
hey come on they could be The new source of protein the third world and poverty stricken countries are lookin for
(blog nazi's please note humor same for 'LOPO' League Of Perpetually Offended)
"Harvard geneticist George Church caused quite a stir in suggesting in a new book that we might someday be able to clone a Neanderthal baby — and although he now says his original point was lost in translation, that point is still well worth considering" That's because Alan Boyle, who wrote the story "Help wanted: 'Adventurous' woman to give birth to ... a Neanderthal baby?", for Science onNBC News, is a hack journalist who apparently believes he's a scientist.
This is the kind of experiment that is most likely to be done by people who are the least sensitive to the needs of a child, because anybody with any sense or love would shudder at the thought of possibly exposing a person to painful genetic disorders.
Neanderthals had large brains like Einstein, and they also respected and cared for other people according to what has been found in their graves: Neanderthals healed and cared for with aging problems. They needed a much higher protein and calorie diet than we eat. Who knows what their life-span was: 30 years? 150 years? These would not be "pets."
Before a whole clone, I hope that more research is done about the genome and figuring out why there are so many recent mutations causing tumors that were never before in family histories. If anything can be done, it might not be in genetics, but preventing chemical and radiation pollution that causes these negative mutations. If there is a tumor or other protective gene found in Neanderthals, that might be a start of working with those genes, but a whole clone? Not until every gene's function, all proteins and processes in the body are known.
What we know now is that the body is so complex it almost defies the probability of any randomness. I'm not saying that molecules did not evolve, but that the mechanism is not known at all beyond natural selection: how many mutations does it take to produce the many proteins and processes? The mathematician Tony Crilly said that a monkey typing 30 letters on a keyboard, one stroke per second, would take over 20,000 years to type "TO BE OR." The years to type "TO BE OR NOT TO BE" would be longer than the sun has existed, according to probability (1.2276 times 10 to the 19th).
Just a side note, Tony Crilly's estimate - and it is just an estimated probability, doesn't take into account feedback loops or natural selection.
1) Its just as possible for the monkey to hit it on the first try as it is the 10billionth try.
2) If the monkey was given a small electric shock whenever it hit a bad combination and a little piece of when it hit a good partial match, the odds would go up.
3) Since a monkey can't live millions of years, we could select for monkey kids that are more likely to favor the "O" or "T" keys. This is how natural selection works and would vastly decrease the time needed for the him or her to start typing the right combination
And, if the monkey got a whole banana when he hit the right one, you better believe he'll start hitting that one much more often. Neanderthal was a very successful ancestor to modern man & not so very different from us.
We already have enough republicans, no need to clone more !
You're dissing the neanderthal when you say that.