As some scientists are preparing for the future of mankind by exploring space, fighting climate change or trying to cure disease, one man is taking a much different approach — bringing back an ancient humanlike species. Dr. George Church, a professor at Harvard Medical School, has recently claimed that he will be able to recreate Neanderthal DNA. If Church is correct, his research could potentially lead to the creation of the first Neanderthal since that species went extinct tens of thousands of years ago. Church says that all he needs is an “adventurous female human” to gestate and birth the Neanderthal.
Church’s plan does not seem too ambitious. Given scientists’ present knowledge of genomes and cloning, being able to implant Neanderthal DNA into an embryo that will grow into a Neanderthal seems entirely possible. And from a purely scientific standpoint, Church’s work, if successful, would result in one of the most interesting projects imaginable. Who would not want to study the closest human ancestor in the flesh and catch a glimpse of how the world was hundreds of thousands of years ago? Even so, Church’s plans are fraught with ethical issues, and his ultimate reasoning for creating a Neanderthal may not be enough to see his goals come to fruition.
Church’s work derives its purpose mostly from Neanderthal anatomy. Evidence strongly indicates that Neanderthals had a similar anatomical structure to humans. There were some differences, though. They were shorter than the average human, yet appeared to be more muscular. And, as Church has duly noted, Neanderthals appear to have had a brain that was at least as large as a human’s. The cranial cavities found in many Neanderthal skulls are actually larger than in humans, and it is thus conceivable that Neanderthal brains could have been larger as well. Church is interested in the possibility that Neanderthals could have been more intelligent than humans. That intelligence, he argues, could be useful for humans in the future.
On the surface, Church’s reasoning seems valid. It is true that in today’s society, the Neanderthal species has been portrayed in an unfortunate and misleading manner. In reality, it is not accurate to characterize Neanderthals as of lesser intelligence or inferior evolutionary fitness than Homo sapiens. Neanderthals also developed the use of tools, lived in complex social structures and exhibited other humanlike traits. Moreover, Neanderthals existed for longer than humans and inhabited harsher environments, as they lived for thousands of years in glaciated environments. If they were actually more intelligent than humans, it could be argued that we could benefit from that intelligence.
There have been compelling arguments that human beings have been getting less intelligent over time. Stanford University geneticists claim that humans have slowly been accumulating more deleterious genetic mutations over generations, which may have ultimately resulted in less intelligent humans. Those mutations, coupled with the fact that humans have allowed natural selection to act less strongly on intelligence, mean that Neanderthals and early humans could have indeed possessed greater intellectual capabilities.
That being said, cloning Neanderthals for potential use in solving human problems is not sufficient for Church’s goals to overcome the ethical boundaries they face. Cloning, as of now, is widely condemned as an ethical and legal violation. Though Neanderthals are technically a different subspecies than humans, their humanlike qualities and the fact that they may have been just as intelligent as humans should place them under the same ethical protection. Scientific evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could have mated with each other reinforces this idea. Genetic analysis has shown that many ethnicities have trace amounts of Neanderthal DNA. This is especially relevant because of how many people would no doubt view Neanderthals as a lesser species. Cloned Neanderthals would be viewed as either scientific property or as inferior, even though they may well be cognizant of that discrimination against them.
Furthermore, there is no telling how a Neanderthal’s intelligence would manifest itself if that species were raised in today’s society. Just because a Neanderthal’s brain may be larger does not mean that it would develop superior intelligence on a level that would quickly advance mankind. Or at least the evidence for Neanderthals having greater intelligence is not strong enough to warrant the cloning of Neanderthals for the purpose of benefitting humans. There is no reason to suspect that Neanderthals would even thrive in the modern world. Diseases or the difference in modern day habitats could have severely negative effects on Neanderthals living in the present.
Church says he has the best interest of the human race in mind, and our investigations into the DNA and genome of the species could yield information about the Neanderthals that may be useful to humans. We do not, however, want to risk creating zoo exhibits or science projects out of organisms that are essentially humans. Cloning Neanderthals seems like too much of an ethical quandary to become a reality in the near future.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 32 minutes agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 19 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
