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


By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Nov. 24, 2008, at 7:57 AM ET

Here's the next question in the evolution debate: We know roughly how the sequence of life ran forward in time. What about running it backward? How would you feel about rewinding human evolution to a species that's almost like us, but not quite?

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."

Whoa there, says Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans." Wade concedes that "there would be several ethical issues in modifying modern human DNA to that of another human species."

Note the qualifiers: modern human DNA. Another human species. As this uncomfortable reality of the past becomes a future prospect—transitional creatures between human and nonhuman—the "human dignity" framework starts to look a bit shaky. George Church, a leading geneticist, suggests (in Wade's paraphrase) that scientists could "modify not a human genome but that of the chimpanzee," bringing it "close enough to that of Neanderthals, [with] the embryo brought to term in a chimpanzee." No human clones or products involved. At least, no "modern" humans. This leaves the question of whether we're entitled to mess around in the lab with "another human species." But it's hard to see how the bishops and other religious critics of biotechnology can plunge into this area, having drawn a tight moral line around our species.

Every serious scientist knows that we and other animals evolved from the same ancestors. The real question today is whether to put our DNA and theirs back together. Until now, that question has been raised in the form of human-animal hybrids made in labs for research. You can argue that these are somehow wrong because they're newfangled and artificial. But what can you say about Neanderthals? They were made by nature, not industry. In fact, we're the industrial villains who apparently wiped them out. They're as natural as we are.

If we do this Church's way, I don't see how conservatives can object. They didn't object last year when scientists announced the cloning of rhesus macaque embryos. That, too, was the creation of nonhuman primate life. Follow the human lineage three branches beyond the primate order, and the rhesus macaques are still with us. Follow the human line two more branches, and the chimps are still with us. One more branch, and you're down to us and the Neanderthals. If it's OK to clone a macaque and a chimp, it's pretty hard to explain why, at that last fork in the road, you're forbidden to clone a Neanderthal.

Is the idea repugnant? Absolutely. But that's not because we'd be defacing humanity. It's because we'd be looking at it.

------------------------------------------------

Well, should we? I say hell no. Their not around anymore for a reason, I say the same thing about the mammoth crap, have none of these morons watched Jurassic Park?

Apparently not. Definitely not a good idea.

I dunno. If we could learn something we don't already know.. Sure what the hell. But, if it's just to do it... WTF is the point? LOL about jurrasic park.. That's true, but how cool would it be to have mammoth jerky or steaks like in the flinstones hahahaah

Yeah, okay Mammoth ribs that can tip over my car, that would be a great novelty for a tailgate party, but yet another thing these scientists aren't taking into consideration is that they have no idea what diseases, genetic marker type of things, either of these species carried, whether or not we are immune to their illness or vice versa. What's worse is that it's opening pandoras box, if we let them do it with these 2, then they are going to feel like they have carte blanche to do it with others.

I'm with ya on the disease. The rest w/e I don't really care. Cloning and all that jazz will always be for the rich just like everything else in today's society. It will never go to the poor cancer patient w/o insurance or the average joe. Member of the armed services who loses a limb in battle or something. Which is sad but well there's nothin we can do about it. The rich own the world. I say we go back to trading beads and pelts haha

I say no,not because of mammoths but because some crazy f@#$k will decide to bring back Hitler or Stalin or some other equally evil person.

Barter system? Nice.

You're probably right about that, I'm sure that the elites would love to be able to extend their lives into infinite.

Thats not to say clones will automatically be just like their DNA counterparts. A good portion of what makes a persons attitudes and personality is their life experiences and education. If Hitler was raised in a home, with a great set of parents and never joined the military, but instead stayed in art school, he wouldn't have ever became the evil that he did.

Of course, the same goes for Ghandi, but in the reverse.

Hitler got kicked out of art school because he was mediocre.I am watching a documentary about the raping and stealing of art by the Nazi's during WW2.Very interesting.
I see what you mean about being raised different but what about nature vs nurture argument?

Or if the big beefy jews wouldn't of picked on him in the gym giving him an image complex. lmao sorry I was thinking about an episode of Family Guy

funny show..

Now we're gonna to start getting into philosphies and esoteric mind sets. Nature will only take you so far. Lets reduce the scope of this. If you and I both take puppies from the same litter, they are going to be born with the same inate instincts. However, I'm going to assume for this hypothesis, that I'm an awful Micheal Vick kind of owner, while you're more of a Martha Stewart kind of owner. My puppy is going to grow into a maniac dog, who bites people, humps legs and probably isn't house broken very well.
Your puppy is going to be well mannered, plays well with kids and is the kind of dog that people in the neighborhood see and enjoy.

This same application works for people, even though, for the most part, people tend to be more complex than puppies. It really comes down to being a product of your enviroment, once you get past the basic genetic makeups.

Yeah... If a kid craps themselves it's kinda frowned upon if you rub they're noses in it