Cloning Neanderthals could answer questions of human evolution

Kristin Hugo / Opinions Editor

Humans have been struggling to find the origins of life for quite some time, and in our attempts to do so, we’ve stumbled upon something grand: the ability to create life ourselves.

Researchers in Japan’s Kyoto University plan to resurrect the woolly mammoth within the next four years, after it was eradicated from the Earth over 5,000 years ago.

While bringing back the mammoth seems impressive, there lies a more philosophical issue: What if we could take it a step further and revive a close hominid cousin?

Scientists say there is a possibility that we could clone Neanderthals, a type of human that lived during Europe’s ice age and became extinct 45,000 years ago. They are our closest relatives as our bloodlines split roughly 500,000 years ago, and I believe learning about them is the key to unlocking the secrets of human evolution.

Trying to obtain this knowledge, however, raises some ethical questions. Would these clones have human rights? Is experimenting with human DNA o.k., as it may pose health threats to the cloned experiment?

Presuming that cloning is safe, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. The cloning process makes a genetic duplicate of the original, like an identical twin. If cloning is “immoral,” then so is a fertilized egg splitting into two embryos. The clones would definitely be considered human, and could be granted rights, as we share 99.9 percent of the same DNA. We’ve already experimented with the human genome in the past, and have had little opposition in doing so.

The advantages of learning our ancestral past far outweigh the disadvantages. We could learn how humans behaved long ago, if they could speak, create languages and use tools. We could validate the evidence we gathered that indicates they buried their dead, wore clothes and interbred with us. But most importantly, we could gather more information about the branching tree of life, and our place in it.

However, the disadvantages can’t be overlooked. Father Paul Keller, a Catholic priest, says that the Catholic position is human life is sacred, and shouldn’t be tampered with.

“Human life shouldn’t be manipulated, experimented upon, or commercialized (i.e. growing people to harvest organs),” said Keller. “That’s the traditional Catholic view.”

Many people share this view, the majority of Americans believe human cloning is immoral according to a 2001 Gallup poll. But claiming that life is sacred isn’t valid scientifically as it operates under the assumption that humans were created.


Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • http://profiles.google.com/donjrose Donald Rose

    They should make software based on actual scientific information that makes logical predictions on the results of inter-species genetic combinations of dissimilar animals. Like combining an elephant and an octopus. Or wolves and man, or an eagle and a lion. Maybe a dolphin and a monkey. Flipper in a tree.

  • http://profiles.google.com/donjrose Donald Rose

    You cannot give human rights to a lab animal. Either the Neanderthal is fully human and free to make it’s own way, or you condemn it to unsympathetic monster doctors. Who in turn will find an excuse to make thousands of them and a slave community. The problem is the psychology of the persons suggesting the action. The underlying actual motive is something far worse than anything a Nazi movement would do.
    Worse yet is the next phase where animal human barrier is broken, and politicians actually are related to elephants and donkeys in the future. If not presently.

    • BigMac

      Animal Farm, literally.

  • Anonymous

    David is mostly right, but he’s wrong about finding out if they could speak or not. Either they’re capable or they’re not.

    • BigMac

      The ability to speak is not even a question, it’s a given. What can not be learned from cloning is: did they have a language. You could test to see if the ability to learn a language is present. You could test their intelligence. But what they knew about the world around them and how they interacted can never be learned from a clone.

  • David the small-L libertarian

    The advantages of learning our ancestral past far outweigh the disadvantages. We could learn how humans behaved long ago, if they could speak, create languages and use tools. We could validate the evidence we gathered that indicates they buried their dead, wore clothes and interbred with us. But most importantly, we could gather more information about the branching tree of life, and our place in it.

    This would not work.  The clonees would have to be completely isolated from the rest of humanity otherwise they’d be affected by modern man and the experiment would fail.  I would, however, be in favor of cloning libertarians or conservative Republicans.

    • Anonymous

      I propose a liberal cloning tax to achieve this. The more liberal that a clone is the more that its cloner must pay yearly. 

    • BigMac

      Good one David. Now try explaining nature vs nurture to the author. 

top
Take our daily poll!