Playing God with Neanderthals

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your replies. I would say we'd need to be careful though, if it's almost certainly going to have birth defects, I'd say no myself. If it's at reasonable levels, I'm fine with it as well. However, should it develop birth defects even then. I say abort it. No point in bringing something into the world with a birth defect that is basically just a study object. That's hard enough on it already.

Thanks, Bluejay. Absolutely not. In whole, I was commenting on what seemed to be your view that JUC shouldn't just assume "poking and prodding and fencing in" could be a possible result. Yes, I agree we shouldn't just assume anything in particular, but wouldn't this include not assuming there would be no poking and prodding, etc? My point was that indeed, this is a distinct possibility. Is it your view that no experimentation of this type could ever occur? Again, not a thing. Like I said before, we all know some pretty heinous things have happened in the name of science for as long as science has existed. That said, much valid and useful information has been gleaned from what one could call "questionable" experimentation. So do I think restriction or outright elimination of Neanderthal cloning would stop such activities? Of course not. Do you contend otherwise?But I could be missing your point. Edited by Apothecus, : Added last question

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I suspect it wouldn't as big of a problem as people seem to think. throw jeans and a T-shirt on them and i don't think people will notice. He might come off as a short fat kid....

Hi, Apothecus. Chimp wasn't just assuming that it could be a possible result: he was assuming that it would be the result.----- And, who is assuming such a thing?----- I wasn't complaining that Chimp thought it was possible: I was complaining that he assumed that it would happen.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hey y’all,I'm all for cloning a Neanderthal for all the science, known and unknown, this can teach us.However, concerning the morality of a Neanderthal cloning:We are not dealing here with a dodo or a platypus. Since I am a carnivore, not a Buddhist, I do not recognize any high level of sentience in these others. From what we know from the fossil record Neanderthal had some level of culture. Maybe less that us but considerably more than a herd of cows or dodos or platypussy. Our experience with other species indicates that culture is an artifact of intellect and sentience. To error on the side of caution I must assume N. had a level of sentience approaching, if not equal, to mine.Cultural adaptation is of no concern. Looking at various N. skulls most appear to have the proper embouchure to play a sax. Depending on inclination that may even be first chair. What we know of their physique indicates one would make a great offensive lineman in both the NCAA and later the NFL.So now the problem.There are viruses and bacteria around today that the 30k year old immune system of N. cannot have any defense against. We have the history of isolated populations coming into first contact with previously unknown pathogens. It ain't pretty. The birth mother can contribute antigens during gestation.This certainly happens in modern humans. We can assume, with some level of confidence, this was the case with N. mothers as well. They were, after all Homo sapiens.What we do not know:Can this occur across species?
Are the proteins able to breach the umbilical barrier within N.?
Are the antigens provided friend or foe in an N. physiology? Modern medicine can alleviate the condition.One could assume that at least some of our modern meds could be of help. But these meds were geared towards our modern physiology.What we do not know:Would modern antibiotics/antivirals work in an N. physiology?
Could they be teratogenic? Mutagenic? Carcinogenic? Hemorrhagic? There will always be a level of risk. It cannot be escaped.So true. But what level of risk is acceptable?In our modern species we suffer a birth defect rate at about 2-3%. In the cause of Science let's double, no, triple this rate. Round it up to an even 10%. We can debate whether this is acceptable in experimenting with a sentient human in some other thread. Infant mortality on this planet is around 5%. Lets triple this one as well.What level of defect do we expect here? Can we be assured our knowledge and processes would meet a 25% threshold of gross harm? Can anyone reasonably say our knowledge of N. physiology, immunology, endocrinology, anythingelseology can threshold at below 50%? How confident are we of a threshold below 80%?Right now we have no (%&@#^! idea. Well lets clone one and find out.There is a reason in the canons of medical ethics why we do initial test and develop of our medicines and techniques on mice and rabbits instead of on our children. The levels of risk, the levels of harm, are too great to experiment on sentient beings.Ask yourself this: for some unnecessary elective medical experiment what level of risk of gross harm are you willing to accept for your child?Is it moral to clone a Neanderthal?At our present level of knowledge the answer must be no.As our knowledge improves, at some point we could go for it. Juilliard could use a good jazz sax, in the off season when he's not playing right guard for the Cowboys.And, of course, Geico would have a field day.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But they wouldn't give us better evolutionary insight into things that affect us than we would. If we had evolved from Neanderthals, that may be the case. But we didn't. We share a common ancestor with them. Would you not get even more of an evolutionary insight by comparing us to chimpanzees, as they are more distant cousins than Neanderthals and so presumably genetically more different to us.It sounds like Neanderthals are being proposed for resurrection as some sort of Goldilocks genetic saviour for us. Not too far removed from us, but not to closely related to us either. Yet I haven't seen any argument put forward as to why they are genetically "just right". In general, I agree with your point about scientists' attitudes and ethics. But most of the arguments on this forum in favour of reviving the Neanderthal species seem to be from the viewpoint that it is purely to gain advantage for us, and without any humane consideration for the Neanderthals and what possible kind of future they might have.There are so many possible problems that could emerge from such an exercise. Not least of which, what if we found that we simply could not get on with them, whatever we tried. (Let's face it, we can't even get on with each other!) The only options might be to put them in a heavily fortified reserve (effectively a prison), leaving them to fend for themselves and possibly die out very quickly, or to make them extinct again by some deliberate method."Ah, well, it was fun while it lasted!"

Hi, Chimp.You certainly have an extremely bleak and pessimistic opinion of people. Yes they would. You can't really learn much about evolution if you don't have two different things to compare to one another.----- Um... we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, either.----- So, let me ask you again: what would be a good reason for bringing a new life into the world?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay Don't you read the papers or watch the news? I just think we have enough problems on our plate, without creating a whole load of new ones. Why not concentrate on preserving the habitats of existing species, including our own, and sorting out existing racial differences, rather than worrying about bringing back a species that couldn't even cope with things in the past? That's not what I said. I'm saying if we want to study something that has diverged from us, why not just study chimpanzees? They have presumably diverged further from us than Neanderthals did. What's so special about Neanderthals from that perspective? Should we bring back homo habilis and homo erectus as well if we can? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line? Most of those you mentioned, but NOT one where the object was to do so for uknown benefit and with a very high risk of serious problems both for you and your "child".Please understand that I don't have an objection to bringing back Neanderthals on a point of pure principle. I'm simply trying to point out the huge number of pitfalls which would need to be thoroughly thought through and resolved in advance of such an enterprise, and which seem to have been overlooked by most of the pro-Neanderthalists in this case.Unless there is some staggering and urgent scientific benefit that could be foreseen from doing this, priority should be given to considering the ethical and practical implications for both the Neanderthals and ourselves. I don't consider it acceptable to do this on the basis that maybe we'd find something useful.

Hi again, Bluejay. Thanks for (mostly) clearing that up. Looking back, I can see that you tried to present a "glass half full" scenario instead of what JUC was contending would happen. But in doing so, I still think you came across as the ultra-optimist ... ... and that you professed the experimentation would be a picnic for all involved. I was operating from more of a realist's standpoint, and I guess I didn't get your meaning. But thanks for the reply.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Apothecus & BluejayI'm going away for a week, so I'm confident I can leave it in your capable hands to sort out all the issues in my absence.I look forward to meeting our cousins on my return.Enjoy.

Hi, Chimp I'm pretty sure we can go ahead and predict that it will have profound benefits for us. Furthermore, Neanderthals stand to benefit greatly too, don't they? They certainly aren't benefiting from being extinct.----- But, they haven’t overlooked these things: that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.When somebody said, Let’s clone a Neanderthal, you heard them say, Let’s clone a Neanderthal right now without putting anymore thought into it: we’ve got this genome sitting herelet’s see what happens when we stick it into an egg and impregnate some lady with it, whether or not she wants it.Why did you make that inference?----- I agree with you.But, this is exactly what we're doing right now: we're debating the ethical and practical implications of cloning Neanderthals. So, what’s the problem here? Do you want to discuss it, or do you just want to keep saying that we need to discuss it?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay I'm very happy to discuss this and even to work out a solution to how we could resurect Neanderthals in an ethically and practically sound way. But at the moment, all I can foresee is ethical and practical problems.Anway, you want to discuss the issues, so let's look at the various implications to see whether such a project would be viable.Firstly, would you consider it ethically acceptable to "produce" a Neanderthal purely for the scientific knowledge we might obtain about its anatomy, etc, even if it meant we had to keep it in a controlled and restricted environment all its life? (We wouldn't know until we produced such a child how controlled and restricted its life would have to be, because we don't know enough about its natural behaviour and ability to cope with the modern world.) I don't believe most people would consider it acceptable to produce a HSS child deliberately purely for scientific research, such that it may have to be kept in a very restricted environment; so would it be acceptable to produce a Neanderthal child for the same purpose?

Whilst I would like to claim this as the result of Londoners deeply unshockable and easy going nature I suspect it in fact has more to do with the Neanderthal-like appearance and behaviour of the average Londoner in rush hour. It's the hair, teeth and grunts of despair that do it........

No I don't think producing sentient beings purely so that they can lead a lifetime of captivity and experimental research is morally justifiable. If we ever do this with regard to such a closely related being I hope that isn't what happens. But I think it is inevitable to some extent. We wouldn't for definite. But we might be able to get some idea of how likely certain physical problems are. Knowing that this would be the case (or very likely be the case) would indeed pose deep moral questions. I am torn here. Reviving Neanderthals from extinction seems quite a morally noble thing to do in some sense and I have no doubt that we would be forced to learn a great deal about ourselves and what it means to be "human" if we did do this. The perceived seperation between us and other apes would seem that much less in my view.But at the same time the first such "creation" would inevitably lead a freakshow life to some extent. Whether it be mad media interest or unrelenting scientific analysis. Is it fair to create an individual that would experience this? That would be the only one of it's kind in this way. Subjectively I would love to see the re-emergence of neanderthal man but the morality of subjecting individuals to this in practise is not a simple question and not one I think I have the answers to.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Chimp. I'm about the drive Straggler insane with a more-complicated-than-necessary answer, but your question doesn't contain just one bit of information.First, I would consider "scientific knowledge" a valid reason to clone a Neanderthal.That's without adding the bit about a "controlled and restricted environment."Now, if it was to be kept in a controlled and restricted environment, the question then becomes whether or not I was aware beforehand that this would likely be the case, and what my purpose for keeping it in that condition would be.If the purpose is to keep the specimen in good condition for study, then I would have a problem with it.If the purpose is to keep the specimen healthy for its own good, then I would not have a problem with it. It would be just like a bubble-boy scenario.But, I don't view this as a particularly likely scenario. Sure, I'll admit that its possible that Neanderthal will have serious biological compatibility issues with the modern world, but I don't think that that's going to be the case, and we'll never know until we try to clone one anyway. So, I don't see that point in getting hung up on it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.