Cloning a neanderthal

Scientists are seriously talking about cloning a neanderthal child to study it: Return of the Neanderthals

What do you think of the ethics behind this? Keep in mind neanderthals are very similar to us homosapiens. Would you like being raised as a science experiment?

I'm personally conflicted because I think this would be an important test of not only science but could give us some really good anthropological insight to our origins as a species. On the other hand, this would be a sentient, intelligent being raised as a science experiment. I don't know if I'm OK with that. Where should we draw the line?

 

My understanding is that it is very likely that we interbred with them so they sort of are still around anyway. I am generally ok with cloning and researching the clone as long as the clone is treated well and has freedom and can decide to tell them to fuck off and live their own life but others clearly have a bigger issue with it. The real question comes down to whether or not we will learn enough to justify the moral dilemma.

 

This really comes down to what 'study it' entails. On the assumption that the neanderthal child is morally equivalent to a human child, I'd say whatever we would allow to humans, we would allow to the neanderthal child (with perhaps slightly more flexibility given the greater potential for insights to be discovered). You could distinguish the two by saying human children are going to be inevitably born, and so long as you limit your sample to those whom are going to be born anyway, you're not 'playing God' in that sense. Contrast a neanderthal child were none will be inevitably born, and so you really will be 'playing God'. Same arguments come up with stem-cells, etc.

I think another interesting consideration is how people who argue that humans are special will react. Eg. justifying human rights on the basis that humans have something special. Since a neanderthal technically isn't human, would they extend their definition?

As for some of the concerns in the article, those arguments could also be deployed to argue that the low SES should not reproduce. I think a bit of consistency should be demanded on that front.

 

I was gonna say something similar to malakadang. This neanderthal would've not otherwise existed if not for the fact that someone decided to clone it. If it's studied in a way that would not be considered animal abuse if it were say a dog being studied I have no problem with it. If they're beating it within an inch of its life to see how fast it recovers I do have a problem with it.

 

What are your thoughts on crispr being used to edit millions of bps? If that's the only genome editing technique they plan on using it doesn't seem feasible. Even with single knock ins the guide rna can bind to non complementary areas and cause lethal mutations.

Side note, what sort of research are you doing?

 

Has it been done on a mass scale though? Most papers I've read are editing tiny regions successfully. From what I understand it's still in its infancy and a large scale job like the neanderthal would take years+++++. I suppose we are in the biotechnological revolution atm, guess something will come up.

 

Honestly doesn't sound like a problem. I think in general people should stop being afraid of advancing the human races knowledge/understanding of life and the universe.

Cloning is right up there with everything else.