Bringing back extinct species

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I was just reading an article on a supposed misunderstanding of a scientist speaking to a German publication stating that bringing back the Neanderthal species is theoretically possible but would take an "adventurous woman" for the task of carrying such a being to term.

Apparently some thought this meant the scientist was actively looking for such a woman, when in fact he said that is not at all the case, he was just reacting to the very idea that it would take an adventurous woman to do this.

What are the possible issues of this? Not just Neanderthals, but I have often heard of the possibility of bringing back wooly mammoths using elephants as surrogates.

My personal feeling on the matter? there's a reason that these beings became extinct, and there's no good reason to bring them back (except maybe an island like Jurassic Park).

What are the ethical quandaries of this?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/sci_tech/despite-news-reports-scientist-says-he-is-not-seeking-a-woman-to-bear-a-neanderthal-baby-187950001.html

NEW YORK, N.Y. - A prominent genetics expert from Harvard Medical School wants to make one thing perfectly clear: He is NOT looking for a woman to bear a Neanderthal baby. Not even an adventurous one.

"Definitely not," said George Church.

Is he advocating for creating a Neanderthal? No. Does he plan to pursue such a project? "We have no projects, no plans, we have no papers, no grants," to do that, he said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

You wouldn't know that from some press reports that shot around the Internet the past few days, which made Church sound like he was supporting the idea and even looking for an "adventurous" woman to bear the Neanderthal child.

Church says those reports are based on misunderstandings of an interview he gave the German magazine Der Spiegel. The publication had approached him to talk about his recent book, "Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves."

Church said the idea of bringing back Neanderthals gets brief mention as a theoretical possibility, and the book refers to an "adventurous" woman merely to point out that the process would require a woman who no doubt would be adventurous.

"It said you're going to need someone like that if you're going to do it," he said. "It's certainly very different from taking out a want ad."

Neanderthals were stocky, muscular hunters who lived in Europe and western Asia. They died out sometime after modern humans arrived in Europe, which occurred some 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.

Scientists have recovered DNA from Neanderthal fossils. Making a Neanderthal would start with putting such DNA into human cells. They would be used to make an embryo, which would be carried to term by a surrogate mother, Church said.

Such a process would face ethical questions involving respect for the mother and child, as well as safety issues, and it would also require societal approval, Church said.

Scientists have long talked about bringing back long-extinct animals, such as by recovering genes from the remains of mammoths and using elephants as surrogate mothers. That has its own ethical issues, although not as troubling as a Neanderthal project, Church said.

Although he's not saying that a Neanderthal project is necessarily a good idea, "I think it is up for discussion, and hopefully for several years we can have a calm discussion about it," Church said. "It's way better to think of these things in advance."

whgarrett

That would be F%^$^G Awesome!

brianlux

There are at least a few dozen jokes here (like the fact that my friend Tony used to refer to me as a Neanderthal) but in all seriousness, I think it would be a terrible thing to do. First of all, what would the purpose be? To create a freak to be gawked at and put on display or prodded and probed by less than ethical scientists? And secondly, the poor creature/person would simply be confused living amongst the rest of society. There are people, of course, who have the IQ of a Neanderthal, but for different reasons and these people have their own set of issues to deal with. Besides, in their time and place, those early humanoids developed great survival skills- had they not, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

To me, the whole thing sounds like a bad idea- something to be carried out by bored left brained people with nothing constructive to do.

But I would be interested in hearing a rebuttal. Is there a good reason to do such a thing?

brianlux

By the way, Hugh, fascinating article!

brianlux

whgarrett wrote:

That would be F%^$^G Awesome!

Can you expand on that comment, masked man?

(PS, it's ok to say "fucking" )

know1

I'll agree with the opinion that species are extinct for a reason and should not be brought back.

I'll take it a step farther, though. We sometimes go to great lengths to keep species from extinction and I've often wondered about the ramifications of that. Are we preventing some new and stronger species from gradually evolving to fill the niche of the weak one clinging to existence?

USARAY

why would anybody want to do tis justdumb somebodys got too muchmoney

Jason P

I wonder if the actor in the Geico commercial is getting nervous?

hedonist

Jason P wrote:

I wonder if the actor in the Geico commercial is getting nervous?

Love that dude! I believe he was on Oz, too.

As to the OP, I echo some of the replies here. Remember that old commercial that ended with "you don't mess with Mother Nature"? (I'm sure brian does ). That's how I feel. Evolution is a wondrous thing, and we shouldn't fuck with it.

...which brings me to know1's excellent point. Perhaps when we have a hand in the extinction process, whether by taking over land, or poaching, etc...then we have an obligation to try and reverse the damage we've caused.

(or maybe that's evolution too?)

JimmyV

This has bad idea written all over it...

Jason P

JimmyV wrote:

This has bad idea written all over it...

We should send the Germans a copy of Jurassic Park and a summary of the chaos theory.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

know1 wrote:

I'll agree with the opinion that species are extinct for a reason and should not be brought back.

I'll take it a step farther, though. We sometimes go to great lengths to keep species from extinction and I've often wondered about the ramifications of that. Are we preventing some new and stronger species from gradually evolving to fill the niche of the weak one clinging to existence?

I have often thought that if a species is at risk of becoming extinct via natural causes (not human caused) then we shouldn't intervene.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

whgarrett wrote:

That would be F%^$^G Awesome!

Jason P

Oops! Turns out the media didn't dig deep enough, ran a false alarming headline, and created a ruckus over nothing. There are no plans to actually clone a neanderthal after all.

Man, it's been at least five or six days since the media has done something like ...

:fp:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/no-harvard-geneticist-not-trying-clone-neanderthal-baby-213859546.html

JonnyPistachio

These ideas are fascinating to ponder.. but I think we all kinda agree, its sketchy.

And on the survival of the fittest angle -- it always makes me wonder about things that doctors can do these days too. Such as, fertility doctors. Many, many people out there might not have had the ability to reproduce just a few decades ago. Now with the help of science, many people have that option through surgery, in vitro, etc..

JimmyV

Jason P wrote:

Oops! Turns out the media didn't dig deep enough, ran a false alarming headline, and created a ruckus over nothing. There are no plans to actually clone a neanderthal after all.

Man, it's been at least five or six days since the media has done something like ...

:fp:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/no-harvard-geneticist-not-trying-clone-neanderthal-baby-213859546.html

The media really is the world's biggest cocktail party.

even flow - question mark

Just what we need to bring back things from the past. And then we can enlarge our zoos so we can all have a good look at them, as we wouldn't and couldn't be stupid enough to put an old species back into the cycle of life, so we could have a thread on how zoos are a horrible thing to have and we should have never introduced something like that back into the world.

When we make seeds that can kill themselves off after one harvest I don't really think that mankind should be playing around with other things.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Jason P wrote:

Oops! Turns out the media didn't dig deep enough, ran a false alarming headline, and created a ruckus over nothing. There are no plans to actually clone a neanderthal after all.

Man, it's been at least five or six days since the media has done something like ...

:fp:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/no-harvard-geneticist-not-trying-clone-neanderthal-baby-213859546.html

yeah, my original post states that pretty clearly that it was a misunderstanding, probably lost in translation.

Jeanwah

brianlux wrote:

To me, the whole thing sounds like a bad idea- something to be carried out by bored left brained people with nothing constructive to do.

But I would be interested in hearing a rebuttal. Is there a good reason to do such a thing?

I'm thinking the same thing. The article fails to mention WHY they would want to do this, a point they want to make, a reason for exploration and like the article mentions, there's all kinds of ethical issues...

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I have often thought that if a species is at risk of becoming extinct via natural causes (not human caused) then we shouldn't intervene.

I agree, we shouldn't mess with nature. But at the same time, it would be interesting to find out all the mysteries of the neanderthal and how we came to be.

brianlux

know1 wrote:

I'll agree with the opinion that species are extinct for a reason and should not be brought back.

I'll take it a step farther, though. We sometimes go to great lengths to keep species from extinction and I've often wondered about the ramifications of that. Are we preventing some new and stronger species from gradually evolving to fill the niche of the weak one clinging to existence?

The problem is that due to human impact on the environment we are causing more species to go extinct than can evolve. That is a scenario in which stronger species cannot evolve. The major extinction event we are seeing unfold is unique in that it is being caused by an animal (humans) rather than cataclysmic weather or geological or meteor strike events. Our efforts to save species is a logical intervention.

whgarrett

I just think that it would be interesting. If the subject was treated well. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe we could have an entire population of Neanderthals. They could be used as slave labor. Or maybe they could be gladiators. We could watch them battle. I guess we already have UFC, but we could give these guys weapons. Maybe they are extremely peaceful. They could teach us something about life, and possibly gives us incite as to how they were a part of nature and not apart from nature as we like to believe we are.