Scientist seeks surrogate mother for Neanderthal baby

reply to post by sdcigarpig

How far do we go till it crosses a line that should not be crossed?

While we have the ability to do such, playing god, the question should be, are we wise enough to hold this responsibility in our hands to do such?

'God' gave us the capacity to play. 'God' dropped us off in a sandbox with a shovel and bucket of water and left. Limits we place are as impermanent as the morals they sprung from. What we deem ethical is in a constant state of change. I believe our sense of morality is only getting better, but what universal truth do I compare it to? We should believe in morality, because it works for us, but not pretend we understand where God would or wouldn't place those limits. So yes.....the question truly is...are we responsible enough to handle it right now? I believe so.

From those who find it unethical

Not everyone, however, shares Church's enthusiasm for cloned Neanderthals,

in light of the ethical issues involved. "I don't think it's fair to put people ... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared," bioethicist Bernard E. Rollin of Colorado State University in Fort Collins told the British newspaper The Independent.

It's also possible a Neanderthal baby would lack immunity to contemporary infectious diseases, and therefore might not survive, the Independent reports. Neanderthals, our closest known genetic relatives, died off some 30,000 years ago.

"Setting aside the ethical issues behind creating the lone survivor of an extinct human species, doomed to be a freak under the microscope of celebrity … I have to question Dr. Church’s contention that it would really be that easy to clone a Neanderthal," Alex Knapp said in Forbes

. "[O]ther mammals have been cloned.
But at a cost — clones often experience a host of health problems," Knapp said. "For example, the first cloned sheep, Dolly, was one of 29 cloned embryos. He was the only one to survive."


Any surrogate mothers chosen to give birth to a Neanderthal clone might also suffer, Knapp said. "The reality is that success would require dozens of women — many of whom would almost certainly go through the trauma of miscarriage and stillbirths that appear to be inevitable when it comes to cloning. "The ethical implications of just this simple aspect of the process are pretty damning," Knapp said.

Source

I may be wrong on this but didn’t Neanderthals have larger brains than us?

What are the chances that they were very peaceful compared to us? I think there is a possibility that our ancestors murdered their species. Our species does seem to have an innate irrational fear or hatred of anything different or resembles ourselves.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Scientist seeks surrogate mother for Neanderthal baby

news.ninemsn.com.au

A Harvard scientist is reportedly looking for an "adventurous woman" to give birth to the first Neanderthal baby in 30,000 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

i'll adopt him and name him fred

Originally posted by violet
You have a point.

Aren't they half human, half Ape though?

See to me this is whats wrong with alot of things in this thread...

They were about as half ape as you and I am. They weren't creatures, beasts, monsters or animals they where people just like us, different but just look at how different culturally and mentally (not ability wise but frame of mind) the many breeds of modern man are.

Stick one in a suit and have them growing up in our culture and world and you wouldnt even know there was any difference.

The notion of the stooped hairy and naked drooling brute died out decades ago, and it was simply applied to our ancestors in my opinion since the idea that they could have been like us horrified the early scientists and researchers in the field (im talking 19th century) so they had to make them like animals. Always had to make sure the Victorian man was the pinnacle of nature and civilization.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

In the spirit of equality....

If this psychosis manifests in ways that harms others, apply the same repercussions we 'normies' face. It's not a crime to have psychosis. At least here in the States where Harvard is.

Saying the neanderthal will be psychotic is unfounded.

Any living creature would have a hard time adjusting to life under a microscope. The nature of the caregiver/environment would have to be carefully considered.

In the spirit of equality of course it's not a crime to have psychosis but Neanderthal's version might not be equal/similar to ours. It could invite cruel treatment.

Another poster suggested the possibility of shady reconstruction. With nothing to compare their growth/development to how would we know if we had a "normal" Neanderthal to observe? Would it matter to science? I think it would.

Bringing them back in a damaged state would be too tragic. Science wouldn't stop until they got it right. How many rejects might suffer needlessly if our meds/caregivers couldn't ease their symptoms? I don't like the idea of scientists messing around with babies, human or neanderthal.

It's like a new Race of human, amazing.. just like those movies with different races.. anyway imo this is bad idea as many folks have said.. The kid will be treated like $***.. they don't even treat the black kids properly what makes you think the Neanderthal kid will go through?

Don't play God Mr scientist..

To me this sounds like a mad scientist.. this is what he had to say

"When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet or whatever, it's conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial. They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force. The main goal is to increase diversity. The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity."

Seriously though, he is crazy..

Link

reply to post by Zatox


I truly don't see what was so mad or crazy about what he said there....

He essentially said perhaps they could think of something new and innovative that would help society.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


And why would they want to? Have you ever been a subject of a science experiment? It's not sunshine and roses and I would say that there would be a huge amount of legal question as to the treatment of any neanderthal child. Look at this thread. People are comparing them to chimps and apes and we use those in scientific testing, do we not? We've had laws in regards to human experimentation since Tuskegee and those are still constantly being questioned in regards to renewing medical experimentation on prisoners. Take a child whose humanity would potentially be questioned or dismissed out of pure xenophobia and there would be no immediate legislative protections or any hope for a parent to act as a shield (see foster children being used in drug tests as an example of what happens when no parent exists). I'd really rather not see another child, neanderthal or sapiens, constantly being tested for curiousity's sake to see how x body part/function works and is different from our own.

Check the box for one more who immediately thought of The Ugly Little Boy by Isaac Asimov. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

And why would they want to?

Clarify what you're asking

Have you ever been a subject of a science experiment?

I have.

I would say that there would be a huge amount of legal question as to the treatment of any neanderthal child

Right, and good.

Look at this thread. People are comparing them to chimps and apes and we use those in scientific testing, do we not?

The uninformed are calling them that. Not Harvard Medical. And not everyone outside this thread. Some will, and some won't. It would be combated the same way as any other issue; communication and awareness.

and there would be no immediate legislative protections or any hope for a parent to act as a shield

Are you certain? You sound certain.

Concerning the legislation. That's what I asked in the beginning. I don't know for sure if current laws would apply or if new ones would be written. Surely if deemed a human being, as I believe would be the case (right?), US Laws would provide human rights and protection. I have zero doubt there would be support/interest in the well-being of the baby.

(see foster children being used in drug tests as an example of what happens when no parent exists).

I have to comment here. Since this is my world.
I was raised in a care home that took in children and teens. My family acted as parents. As a result I have had near 30 brothers and sisters so far... not all foster (and other terms you're probably not familiar with) children are abused. Some have much much better lives after their 'bio parents don't exist'.

I'd really rather not see another child, neanderthal or sapiens, constantly being tested

Constantly? I wouldn't want that either.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

And why would they want to?

Clarify what you're asking

You stated, "He essentially said perhaps they could think of something new and innovative that would help society." Why would they want to do that?

I have.

As have I and I'm not so fond of the individuals involved. Could be my resultant "structural anatomical defects" that bias my opinion on them though or the fact that my child may carry those defects forward.

The uninformed are calling them that. Not Harvard Medical. And not everyone outside this thread. Some will, and some won't. It would be combated the same way as any other issue; communication and awareness.

And unfortunately, it is the uninformed who, through the mimicry of political and media dictum, tend to also hold a lot of sway in terms of constituency. As far as thinking that Harvard Medical would somehow be above that, I'm not so sure. Scientists do not always have the best set of ethics or even social interaction skills that would be necessary for the rearing of a child, particularly one which could be so potentially isolated. We're talking about the same sort of people that also have, in the past, injected radioactive cortisol in human infants less than 15 hours old. Yes, they can do great things but they can also do equally despicable things.

Are you certain? You sound certain.

Concerning the legislation. That's what I asked in the beginning. I don't know for sure if current laws would apply or if new ones would be written. Surely if deemed a human being, as I believe would be the case (right?), US Laws would provide human rights and protection. I have zero doubt there would be support/interest in the well-being of the baby.

I am quite certain. Our government is not set up to be hasty and this would be such a complex issue on many grounds. You're making the mistake of assuming that any such child would be instantly regarded as human when such a thing would oppose some very strong fundamental worldviews. Not to mention, if they are closely related to us but aren't entirely us, does that set a precedent for defining what it is to be human by some perhaps arbitrary percentage? It would not be easy. It would most likely, as nearly everything controversial in politics is, be a nasty, long fight.

I have to comment here. Since this is my world.
I was raised in a care home that took in children and teens. My family acted as parents. As a result I have had near 30 brothers and sisters so far... not all foster (and other terms you're probably not familiar with) children are abused. Some have much much better lives after their 'bio parents don't exist'.

Then you were very, very lucky and I do agree that bio parents can be bad. No argument there. However, personal experience in a foster home versus decades of unethical medical experimentation on orphans and foster children does not negate the possibility of not having an advocate or potential abuse by the medical or pharmacological establishment. If a homo sapiens child has that potential issue within the existing system, then what about a neanderthal child born to a laboratory?

Human nature demands that if it can be done, it will be done, by someone, sooner or later.
I am always of the opinion that if they are going public with their intentions, it has probably already been done, or tried, in secret.
I say, let's do it and it get it over with. I'm sure there will no shortage of women willing to make history and get her name in Wiki

Somewhere I think I read that neanderthals had a better immune system than Cro-mags. I'm thinking that any baby born with more neanderthal in them might actually be healthier than those with less .... but of course that could be wrong because no one really knows for sure.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I do not believe we are wise enough to handle this. You create one, well it is an oddity and will then long for what it can not have. What happens if it shows intelligence, the kind to figure out how to say ask for its freedom, do we then deny it that right, all in the name of protecting it.

What if this potential child, grows up and then wants to mate, or have young, it is possible and doable, then what, do we create another one? Is that not creating a new race? Can we handle that responsibility for bringing such into being?

Some would say we are responsible for such, but are we? After all as a species, we seem bound and determined to eliminate those who hold posing ideas or resources, even tinkering with biological agents that if released would ultimately kill all of us off, or put the human race into another bottleneck.

Then there is the differing point of views, what if the Neanderthals were not wholey human, but something totally else? How close is the DNA, is it 100% or is it say 99%?

And ultimately the question is why bring back a species that has had no contact with modern humans? After all is there no other species that has had contact with modern humans that could not be brought back, as a show that we have the wisdom and the means to do such, to where it can show that we intend to bring back the world from the brink where at one time there was an ecological niche and we have understanding on how such survived?

We seek to bring something back or even do something good, why not species that are on the brink of extinction or even has gone extinct that is due to the extermination from man kind? Far better to play it safe and show wisdom than to proceed without concern and ultimately cause more problems in the long run.

I've thought about this a bit and I'm honestly curious, is it not a good thing to bring back an extinct species? Regardless of how it's done, shouldn't this be something that we as an intelligent species be moving towards?