A team of researchers led by geneticist Svante Pääbo at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany announced last week that they had completed a draft sequence of the genome of Neanderthal humans.
Bailey writes that a scientist who suggests cloning of a Neanderthal is possible...
would modify a modern human genome so that its DNA matches the Neanderthal version. To avoid ethical problems, [...] this Neanderthal genome would not be inserted into a human cell but instead into a chimpanzee cell. This chimp cell would be reprogrammed to an embryonic state, and then introduced into a chimpanzee's womb where it would develop into a Neanderthal infant.
Assuming that cloning is safe, would it be ethical to clone a human being? The short answer is yes. Clones are basically delayed twins—and there is nothing inherently immoral about twins.
Yet, public opinion polling suggests most Americans oppose cloning of humans.
So I suspect [Bailey writes] that the proposal to use chimpanzee cells to clone a Neanderthal is an attempt to do a kind of ethical end-run around this "yuck factor" reaction to human cloning. In this case, researchers could argue that they are cloning a different species, not a human being.
But a problem there is that Neanderthals are human beings!
I fear that using chimpanzee cells to clone Neanderthals would likely be taken as an indication from the outset that they are in some sense subhuman, and thus less worthy of moral respect.
But let's set that worry aside and assume that scientists are able to produce healthy Neanderthal clones. What rights would they have?
Read the article and post a comment regarding what you think.
2 comments:
Actually I think bringing back Neanderthals might be one way to preserve "intelligent" life on this planet:
They adapted within the context of ice age climate. For example, it is hypothesized that their large sinuses relative to humans' were beneficial for warming air on its way to the lungs. When the ocean currents fail due to global warming, and we descend into the next ice age, having Neanderthals around might ensure that somebody survives to keep the home fires burning. I guess in this case the ethical dilemma would be whether any suffering Neanderthals might experience upon being reborn into this present world would be justifiable in terms of preserving the species. If they were to be treated as human, then I guess this would be not very different from choosing to have kids.
This might actually be a positive development in that it will highlight the insignificance of species as a moral factor. What actually matters here is not whether the Neanderthal is "human" in the strict sense of the word but rather whether it is a "person." It seems clear to me that Neanderthals qualify for personhood.
Post a Comment