Playing God with Neanderthals

You don't say what the intended purpose would be. We might learn something about Neanderthal's appearance and physical and mental capabilities, but you could probably work a lot of that out from their DNA. A Neanderthal baby born into a Homo Sapien world would teach us nothing new about the way they lived and their culture. I don't think there'll be a long queue but some people are desparate enough to do anything for money. But can you not imagine the potential psychological damage you might do to the mother, making her bear a child of a different species and then have it taken away from her? As others have said, we don't deliberately make disabled babies for any purpose, and certainly not to carry out experiments. Yeah, why not? Sounds like a lot of fun. A dodo wouldn't be aware of its sudden reappearance. And we could probably find a reserve for it to live in. Where are your Neanderthals going to live? In some sort of refugee camp of bubble tents? There's only one person who's asking to be punched! There are a lot of Homo Sapiens that don't exist prior to this event. Why not just have Homo Sapien children - at least they'll be born into a world that they fit into.

As many as 20? I reckon only about 17-18. We have a town over here called Great Yarmouth, where I'm sure they'd be equally at home. I'd love to see a Neanderthal in a shell suit and Burberry cap.

It's not quite as simple as that. Native Australians were pretty much isolated from the rest of humanity for around 50k years. (Neanderthals were around until 30k years ago.) I believe it's the case that any modern homo sapien baby born anywhere in the world can be adopted and grow up in a completely different culture from its birth with no direct social implications. (Some physiological implications can apply though, such as lactose and alcohol tolerance - which can of course indirectly lead to social problems.)The main problem would be if the Neanderthal could understand that is was very different to everyone else (which is likely) and this could give it psychological problems. Also, it is widely speculated that the demise of the Neanderthals was caused by their not being nearly as adaptive as we are. So, if they found it hard to fit in with modern homo sapiens when we were all still hunter gatherers, it seems likely they'll find it even harder to fit into most societies today.

Hi Meldinoor We might gain some knowledge, yes, although how truly significant or useful that knowledge would be is debatable. But is it morally right to bring back another human race for them to live either in a laboratory or on some kind of nature reserve?If some contemporary human race died out, say an Amazonian tribe, would it be acceptable to clone one new individual soley for the purpose of our scientific research, to prod him about in a lab. That may be fun and interesting for you, but is it fun or interesting for the lab kid?And if we started a tribe of Neanderthals in some kind of nature reserve (which would be very hard to do anyway in an authentic manner, because we wouldn't know how to bring them up culturally as Neanderthals), if they overbred, would we let them expand out of their reserve, maybe start attacking or stealing from us? Or would we keep them fenced in and let them fight it out or die of disease?It sounds to me like it would all be purely for our scientific benefit, but I don't think it is morally any more acceptable to treat Neanderthals in this manner than it would be modern homo sapiens.

Women are like quantum physics; if you think you understand them, you don't understand them. Again, this comes to the point that we don't deliberately create autistic people. Would it be acceptable to you to create an autistic person deliberately in order to study them and the cause of their condition?Yes, you're right in some sense that shy people and tall people can have trouble fitting in (I can speak from experience on both counts!).But the fact is that we simply don't know how different a Neanderthal would be from us, how self-aware it would be of its differences and the reason why it's here.OK, I'll let you have one go, and if your N man - or woman - gets on just fine, then go ahead, fill your boots; if not, will you agree to leave it and take up a new hobby?

Hi Bluejay The "big deal" is that on one hand I think we know enough about Neanderthals to assume that they are likely to be sentient enough, and similar enough to us, that they ought to be treated with the same respect. Most people would not consider it ethical to bring a modern homo sapien child into the world specifically for the purpose scientific study, so why would it be acceptable to bring a Neanderthal into the world for that purpose? Unlike us, it wouldn't have the prospect of growing up to make its way in the world and find a mate (although it sounds like you may hang out with some likely candidates ). It wouldn't be the same at all as just studying a modern H.S. child.And on the other hand, we don't know enough about Neanderthals to know how one might be affected by being brought up in the modern homo sapien world, whether it was kept in a lab or lived in a family. We can assume (based on experiences with chimps and other animals brought up in modern human homes) that as a baby and young child it might be quite happy and unaware of its status, but who knows how it might feel and behave as an adolescent and adult?I obviously concur with you on the 2nd question: "What's the point?"

Wouldn't it be easier and more appropriate to genetically engineer variations of modern homo sapiens if we want to find cures for diseases for modern homo sapiens? There is no guarantee at all that the specific genome for a Neanderthal would happen to have anything useful for us at all. We could create multiple variations of our own genome, which surely would have a much higher probability of finding something useful - for us.

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 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.

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 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?

Hi Bluejay Well if the ultimate purpose is not to study the cloned Neanderthal, what is the point of the exercise? I assume in this case you mean where you don't know beforehand whether or not it would have to live in the bubble for its own health. So I assume your main purpose behind resurrecting Neanderthals is simply to allow their species to live again.However, in my view, the first Neanderthal(s) would have to be kept in some kind of controlled environment and subjected to a lot of testing (not necessarily inhumane testing). This would be for its health and even for ours. Aside from possible behavioural incompatibility, we would have to carry out all kinds of tests for susceptibility to diseases being transferred both ways.Anyway, let's assume we take the chance and even accept the fact that the first few individuals have to be brought up in very controlled conditions for their benefit and ours. What next? What is the ultimate objective? What do we do with them when they grow to adulthood? Are they forever to be kept in a controlled environment or do we grant them freedom? This is where I foresee the biggest problems. I don't want to get too far ahead so I'll let you make an initial response before I go into detail on the problems I foresee.

Hi Radz Is there a specific article on this subject on Jane Goodall's website? I couldn't see one. If there is, please could you point me to it. Sorry if it's staring me in the face.

Hi Taq Let me jump straight to what I see as the most obviously controversial problem. Whether we keep the neanderthals in some kind of controlled environment, let them live as equals in our society, or send them off to live in the woods, they will to some extent be in contact with HSS (us). What would then be the impact if one or more of us fell in love with them, or was raped by them (or vice versa - I don't want to be politically incorrect!) and produced hybrid children?Should we allow our 2 species to mix eventually into a hybrid species? It would be taking the issue of racism and multiculturalism to a whole new level!I don't know whether or not this would happen, or even could happen. But it surely has to be given really serious consideration.

OK, so that means no natural reproduction. All neanderthals must be cloned. They'll never get either to live amongst us as equals or to live and breed "normally" in a reserve. But remember they are not abnormal or disabled. They are absolutely normal. What if they are intelligent enough to express outrage at being sterilized and generally treated like this, as it is very likely they would? Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It may make us see different ways of behaviour that we had never even entertained. As it's unknown, that could come with as many problems as benefits though.It also leads to another point and possible problem. These new neanderthals will have no cultural link to the extinct neanderthals. They might as well be regarded as completely new species that just happens to have the same DNA as an extinct species. That refers back to an earlier point I made. Why specifically create neanderthals? Why not just genetically modify HSS or chimpanzees. What is it about neanderthals that makes them "just right" for this purpose? The first generations will have to be brought up by HSS, so it could take many many generations for the neanderthals to re-invent their own natural culture, with no guarantee that it would closely resemble the culture of extinct neanderthals. So again, what's the point? If we do currently have any neanderthal genes, that will likely only exist in some races, because I don't think that Australian aborigines, for example, ever came in contact with neanderthals. In any case, today, we are what we are. Do we want to change that?Although I am very pessimistic about the whole idea, I do share Straggler's natural excitement at the idea of seeing neanderthals. It's just I can't see any practical, ethical or reasonable way of doing it.