Remember John Tierney? Sure you do! He was the glibertarian columnist for the New York Times who got bumped down to the science beat, where he could expound on why global warming isn’t real. Because that’s science!
Anyhoo, Tierney noted the news that we’re closing in on completing the Neandertal genome, which will give us more insight into our closest relatives, and help answer some longstanding questions, like why the Neandertals died out, and whether they interbred with modern humans before they did. But Tierney isn’t content merely to see this as an interesting bit of science; he wants to know something a little bit dumber:
Now that the Neanderthal genome has been reconstructed, my colleague Nicholas Wade reports, a leading genome researcher at Harvard says that a Neanderthal could be brought to life with present technology for about $30 million.
So why not do it? Why not give Harvard’s George Church the money he says could be used to resurrect a Neanderthal from DNA?
Um…because they’re human? And we don’t do cloning on humans?
If we discovered a small band of Neanderthals hidden somewhere, we’d do everything to keep them alive, just as we try to keep alive so many other endangered populations of humans and animals — including man-biting mosquitoes and man-eating polar bears. We’ve also spent lots of money reintroducing animals into ecosystems from which they had vanished. Shouldn’t be at least as solicitous to our fellow hominids?
Well, you see, John, there’s a difference between preserving a hypothetical existing band of H. s. neandertalensis and creating some in a lab. The former is basic decency, the latter is performing genetic experiments on humans.
Granted, it would be disorienting and lonely for the first few Neanderthals, but it would be pretty interesting for them as well as us. (What would a Neanderthal make of Disneyland, or of World of Warcraft?)
Wait, what?
Granted, it would be disorienting and lonely for the first few Neanderthals, but it would be pretty interesting for them as well as us. (What would a Neanderthal make of Disneyland, or of World of Warcraft?)
I’m sorry. Did he just say…
Granted, it would be disorienting and lonely for the first few Neanderthals, but it would be pretty interesting for them as well as us. (What would a Neanderthal make of Disneyland, or of World of Warcraft?)
Excuse me a minute.
John, you do understand that a cloned Neandertal wouldn’t be a person magically transported from 45,000 BCE, right? You do know that a cloned Neandertal would be raised, you know, now, right?
Neandertals were on the same order of intelligence as modern humans. They had larger brains than we do; while that doesn’t mean they were smarter, we do know that they were using stone tools, had control of fire, and buried their dead, sometimes with grave goods, something that suggests the same capacity for abstract thought that is the hallmark of H. sapiens sapiens. We don’t know why they died off; it’s possible they interbred with modern humans until they disappeared, it’s possible that as omnivores, we were better adapted than the apex hunters that were our cousins. It’s possible that our progenitors practiced genocide against the Neandertals — indeed, it’s possible that a little of all of these contributed to the demise of the species.
The Neandertals are so similar to modern humans that many scientists don’t classify them as a different species; the biggest differences are things we can’t recreate — their culture. Their worldview. What they thought of the world, and what they thought of us.
We can certainly create a Neandertal clone, of course, but he or she will be raised by humans. He or she will be suffused in our culture, based in our world. World of Warcraft and Disney World will be no stranger to them than it is to you or I — after all, they’ll grow up with it just like us. Assuming — as most scientists do — that Neandertals were close to our cognitive equals, a Neandertal clone would engage with our world somewhere on the continuum between the way a mentally challenged human does and the way a gifted human does.
Except, of course, for the fact that they’ll be raised as freaks, as sideshow attractions for us to poke and prod, to examine and gawk at. They’ll be around not for their own purpose, but for ours. And that, of course, is a barbaric and horrific thing. Would our society give a cloned Neandertal full rights, if he or she proved to be as capable as your average H. s. sapien, or would we view them always as something other? Would their children be free to chart their own destinies, or would they be the property of the lab that made them?
We generally prohibit genetic manipulation of humans for a reason — humans are intelligent, self-aware creatures, and it is inhuman to experiment on them. This can be taken too far, of course (a stem cell line is not self-aware or intelligent) or not far enough (it’s hard to argue that chimpanzees aren’t self-aware and intelligent), but as a general rule, it’s the right thing.
Neandertals were humans, as human as you or I. They may be our ancestors — and at the least, they are our closest cousins, the most similar species to ours ever to walk on this world. They lived and died out, as most species do; let us not bring back one of their number, alone and apart from ourselves, simply because we can.
we don’t do cloning on humans
Why not?
We generally prohibit genetic manipulation of humans for a reason — humans are intelligent, self-aware creatures, and it is inhuman to experiment on them.
Why, necessarily?
I will grant all of the following:
1. What John Tierney wrote was well beyond dumb.
2. Cloning is a medical proceedure and should be regulated as such and go through the same safety and effectiveness testing and approval as any other medical proceedure. (Which would, as I understand it, preclude legal human cloning at our current technology.)
3. Genetic manipulation is also a medical proceedure and should be regulated as such and go through the same safety and effectiveness testing and approval as any other medical proceedure. (Which would, as I understand it, preclude legal human genetic manipulation at our current technology.)
Once you get beyond that, I have never heard a convincing argument as to why cloning or genetic manipulation is wrong – or at least, why it is worse than what we accept as perfectly normal. They are all versions of the naturalistic falacy, which, as an agnostic, I do not accept. Is there any claim against the motives of those who would reproduce through cloning that does not apply to most people who reproduce the way “God intended”? Is there any possible motivation for having a clone that has never been a reason for natural reproduction? I can think of one “bad” reason for having a child the natural way that would never apply to a clone: “Oops.” The one thing we do know about any clone is that they would be wanted, for whatever reason.
And we do medical experiments all the time, once the prelinimary safety tests have been done. Without them, we could make no medical progress at all. Why carve out genetic experimentation as “bad”? Is there any reason that it is worse for parents to chose their children’s genes than it is to roll the dice?
Allow me to ask these questions in a manner dirrected toward the sympathies of most of the Alas community. If a gay male couple wanted to have a child via cloning, would you deny them this opportunity? If a lesbian couple wanted to have a child through the in vitro fertlization of one of their eggs with genetic material of the other taken from, say, skin or muscle cells rather than “natural” sex cells, would you deny them this opportunity? If a scientist was able to use genetic therapy to change the sex of an adult sheep, would you deny this technology to transexuals? Are you willing to stop the intermediary genetic research that will be required to ever reach the day when scientists can change sex at a genetic level? If I could use genetic therapy to cure my ADD, would you deny me that possiblity? If I could manipulate my children’s embrionic genomes to ensure that I do not pass this condition to them, would you deny me that? If the genetic therapies that could cure my ADD were to make me a super-achiever, would you deny the therapy to everyone not “lucky” enough to be born with ADD?
In some sense, cloning happens all the time — every identical twin is a clone. But there are still serious problems with cloning technology as it presently stands that makes it unethical for human use.
At the end of your chromosomes are a batch of junk DNA called telomeres. These bits of DNA don’t replicate on every division, and the length of them is reduced every time your cells divide. Eventually, the entire telomere is worn away, and bits of your DNA start going missing; this is likely part of the cause of aging. Because of this, cells taken from a 30-year-old adult have 30-year-old DNA; when cloned, it gives a child “older” DNA, which may be part of the cause of Large Offspring Syndrome, which can cause either an abnormally large offspring (hence the name), or an offspring with various organs enlarged — with all the obvious health problems that entails.
Because of these and other attendant health problems that can dramatically shorten lifespan in a cloned creature, it is flatly unethical to clone a human being for any reason, given the present state of the science.
Now, if we solve these problems with cloning, then the issue can and should be revisited; to some extent, cloning is nothing particularly special, and if we can clone a human safely and humanely, then there’s no scientific reason not to; that said, there are still ethical concerns about how a cloned human would be received. Would she be allowed to be her own person? Or would she be a “mini-me”? Given the state of stem cell research into zygote creation (scientists have created sperm and egg cells from skin cells), there are much less fraught ways to allow people to reproduce, ones that do not have ethical concerns for the offspring that is produced.
As for genetic manipulation — there is a difference between genetic manipulation in an extant person and genetic manipulation of a fetus. The former can be done with the same ethical controls that govern installing a pacemaker or giving a kid Strattera. But the latter is steering awfully close to eugenics.
I, too, don’t give a rip if something is natural or not. But as thinking beings, we have a responsibility to be smarter than nature is. It’s an opportunity that shouldn’t be wasted. Being smart, for me, includes having some decency and compassion.
“They’ll be around not for their own purpose but for ours” –when I was young, I sometimes thought that my parents had me just so they could have someone to feel superior to (and to provide teachers with similar amusement.) I would say cloning a whole human is off limits not just at the current level of technology but at the current level of ethics. Still, ethics and tech could evolve. I would be laughing up my sleeve, if I was still around, if the world was suddenly inundated with fresh Neandertals who could neither be ignored, overwhelmed or outwitted.
For “mentally challenged” you might want to substitute “mentally whopping different.” I have drug-resistent ADD and some doctors also want to stuff me into the Aspergers’ spectrum too, but I have also been told I am real smart. What if the Neandertal heritage did blend into the modern one, and never completely disappeared– manifesting not as stocky build and built-in sunshades, but as different minds/spirits?
Such speculation is my main point, though. I would rather not be here than be a freak show for the clueless–and I feel like extending that courtesy to hypothetical different humans, seeing as how we can’t even treat right the different humans we have around us now. Genetic engineering could be used to make gay kids/infants/fetii straight, or they could be used to alleviate the bad effects of ADD. It depends on who is in control. And when something is up for grabs, someone who doesn’t really have our best interests in mind might grab it.
Robert Sawyer, I believe it was, wrote some novels about a situation where Neanderthals survived. I haven’t read these, but those who are really interested in this subject maybe should.
Actually, we don’t know how smart Neanderthals were. And there’s huge amount of debate about whether or not they were human. A lot that is tied into what it means to be human, but it also has a lot to do with the fact that there’s just not a lot of their culture preserved. I mean, a paleoanthropologist’s response to the concept of cloning a Neanderthal in a very hypothetical sense is less “what would they think about X,Y, or Z technology” and more “would they be able to use language.” So, if what’s his face doesn’t view Neanderthals as human, he probably doesn’t really care about your argument. Neanderthals wouldn’t be all that much different to him, then, than our other primate relatives. And we stick apes in zoos, and keep them as pets–why would Neanderthals be treated differently?
I agree about the current state of cloning science. But solve those, and I do not see the ethical problems. Of course a child who happened to be clone would be treated as her own person. Twins are born at the same time to the same parents, and they are not as one person, but each is treated as her own person. This is true even in the case of conjoined twins who share the same pelvis and legs. Given this precedent, to not treat a cloned child as her own person would be a bizzarre aberation from current practice.
The genetic manipulation of a fetus would be eugenics only if were an enforced government policy, or possibly if it were so widespread and systemic so as to be the equivalent of an enorced policy. But give the choice to the parents who will raise the child, and it is hard to see that happening. People make a wide variety of different choices about what they want for themselves or their children. Anyone can be a blond now, but most people who aren’t do not chose to be, and some blonds choose to be a different color. Especially in a market economy, there are advantages to being different, and an “over production” of a certain type of person will tend to be self-correcting. If a problem for certain attributes arrose, we could place a ban on genetic manipulation of those attributes, but proposing the greater rememdy of general ban on all genetic manipulation before we have any data as to the actual choices parents might make is premature at best.
You’re right, we don’t know how smart they were, nor if the flower pollen found in their graves wasn’t just blown there by chance.
As for the ethics of cloning–well, I didn’t say that ethics couldn’t evolve along with technical skill. But I bet it won’t get there quickly, and there will be some screwups along the way, not limited to some future teen yelling “I didn’t ask to be cloned!” I can imagine a culture of people deciding to pre-program unborn girls to be docile and stupid; I can imagine some other people snipping out the gay gene if such has been found; I can imagine folks trying for perfect looks or athletic talent and getting a vapid mannequin that just happens to breathe. And what if what they are trying for just doesn’t work? I wouldn’t want to go thru life knowing someone had meant for me to be x when I can’t–or don’t want to. To be a human’s failed project, not just another of nature’s booboos. Nature is mindless; we have no excuse. If I build something and it gives way and someone is hurt, I am to blame; same thing whether it’s a stairway they climb or the body they climb it with. It’s a big responsibility.
Like I said before, it’s a question of who is in control of the technology, the knowledge. So I am not trying to say this should be banned or suppressed. But I would rather someone finds a way to clone food. I’d rather they’d find a way to remove the genes for arthritis, ADD, apnea, astigmatism…etc. at whatever stage this is most effective.
And hey, if you’re that keen on bringing back Neandertals, why not bring back mammoths? And saberteeth!
Actually, there has been work on cloning a woolly mammoth. The idea was to use a modern elephant as a gestational surrogate. So far, the DNA has been too degraded, but that could change. It’s not in the link, but somewhere I read concern about creating just one of an animal that, if it was anything like an elephant, was a highly social creature. I would think the same issue would apply to creating just one Neanderthal.
it is inhuman to experiment on them [humans]
I disagree. It is inhumane to experiment on humans without explaining the risks and benefits of the experiment, obtaining their explicit consent, and making sure that they understand that they can withdraw from the experiment at any time. Butif those precautions are followed I see no problem with experimenting on humans. Admittedly, that cuts out the neanderthal cloning experiment: who would you get consent from?