Cloning a Neanderthal?
About six months ago I wrote an article entitled "Cloning of Humans - How About Your Loved Ones?" in which I suggested that scientists will soon be able to clone deceased loved ones. To be sure, they will not be identical copies of the original human but would share the same genetic make-up. The article is available at http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/05/cloning-of-huma.html. Now scientists are suggesting that cloning of humans will take place in the next few years, although early suggestions have more of a historic and scientific justification.
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."
Wade does not stop with woolly mammoths. He then writes:
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.
You can read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?_r=1.
NOTE: The New York Times often removes articles a few days after they are published. The article is available as I write these words but may disappear without warning.
Another interesting article is available at http://www.neanderthal-man.com.
Would the the scientists stop at Neanderthals? How about a modern human, a recently deceased person?
The moral and religious implications are mind-numbing.
Gee, if they clone a Neanderthal, we may be able to truly determine - once and for all - if it is really "so easy even a caveman can do it!"
Posted by: Bob | November 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM
"The moral and religious implications are mind-numbing."
Perhaps, but the genealogical ramifications will also be there. Cloning a mammoth could benefit the world's food supply, I suppose, but I'm curious to learn what would be gained by cloning humans.
A beloved child who dies cannot be recreated by genetic means alone, since the experience and the times in which she lived will have gone, too. Heck, I don't even go to my high school reunions for the fact that it would destroy my pleasant memories of those young people who no longer exist. I enjoy them just the way they are in my yearbooks and memories. (I AM open to correspondence, however.)
Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com
Posted by: Dae Powell | November 30, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I don't believe in cloning humans, but if this were done, what would be this creature's rights and would he/she be a zoo specimen?
There is a reason that Neanderthals are extinct -- perhaps it is best to leave them that way.
Since I believe in eternal life; I expect to "know" these folks and all other people and have the answers to our questions about our predecessors some day. Meanwhile, I vote to save our research money for better uses.
Posted by: Margaret | November 30, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Reputable scientists are not suggesting the human cloning is around the corner. There are HUGE ethical issues with human cloning and many governments have laws forbidding it. This doesn't mean it won't happen, but it isn't something that is being advocated by the scientific community at this time.
Posted by: Gordon Banks | November 30, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Gosh- you can watch a Neanderthal on the tv ads? Why clone them? Sue
Posted by: sue maxwell | November 30, 2008 at 07:42 PM
If they can clone a mammoth, could they not clone the also extinct dinosaur? Now that would be a zoo I would visit often!
Posted by: Michael | November 30, 2008 at 08:26 PM
This reminds me of an article I read in the news; a man received an organ transplant from a man who committed suicide; he ended up doing the same thing. New neurological studies indicate that everything about us is in every cell. Why mess with human life- you never know what the results are going to be. Nasty people may want to clone some other nasties- Good Grief! Charlie Brown
Posted by: sue maxwell | November 30, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Hmm...what was that Jeff Fahey movie? Body Parts?
Posted by: Jason Presley | December 01, 2008 at 06:26 PM
to Michael:
They might be able to clone the Mammoths and Neanderthals because they have the DNA for them. The dead creatures are only 30,000-60,000 years old, so parts of the creature still exist which have DNA in them. The Dinosaurs however died millions of years ago, and the only thing left of them are rocks, no DNA (or at least very little DNA). So, it would be a lot harder.
Posted by: niveker14 | December 05, 2008 at 08:30 AM
The Neanderthals would have a much better chance of being cloned if they would smile for their portraits! I speculate that like the chimp and my friends the Neanderthals had all the facial muscles to allow them to grin. Yet I have never seen a portrait of a happy Neanderthal. I like to paint happy hominins.
See: http://www.laschools.net/146120827151657640/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=54971 I am an art teacher in Los Alamos NM and I am going to paint a happy "N'andythal" for my students and for you in a couple of weeks. Come on line to see it and judge if a happy guy is not more likely to get lucky and cloned.
Petr Jandacek
Posted by: Petr jandacek | December 14, 2008 at 05:33 PM
If we are scared of loosing species then its a good idea to start with the mammoth and neaderthal. I mean the tigers and lions and polar bears should be easy compaired to the mammoth..
Bring on jurassic park, what could go wrong. lol. Actually im all for it.
The oxygen level was different when the dino`s were around so they would probebly not make it. The mammoth would be a maybe. The neaderthal would be interesting. Id like to see if its a hot neaderthal chick maybe.
Posted by: dave c | January 04, 2009 at 11:33 PM
It would be very interesting if they cloned a neanderthal; it would provide us alot of answers; as to how they looked, how they behaved, their type of intelligence, their language abilites etc. However, they are as close to humans as you get... In fact, they are humans... Wouldn't it be cruel to have a baby being born as an object of research? What rights will he/she have? Thinking about that makes me feel bad for being curious and in a way wanting the researchers to clone neanderthal DNA.. :-/
I think the neanderthal should have the same rights as a homo sapiens, because he/she will be born 25 000 years later than any of his/her specimen and will probably feel alone as the only neanderthal in the world... To deny him/her the rights we all have would just make it all more difficult
Posted by: Curious | April 09, 2009 at 03:40 PM