Raising Lab Neanderthals

Harvard Professor George Church thinks that he will see a Neanderthal baby in his lifetime born of "an extremely adventurous female human", as he explained in an interview with Der Spiegel. He considers that this would be a good thing, as these ancient people might have genes which would strengthen genetic diversity.  He overlooks the fact that modern humans already have Neanderthal genetic material.

Here are some extracts from the interview:

SPIEGEL: So let's talk about possible benefits of a Neanderthal in this world.

Church: Well, Neanderthals might think differently than we do. We know that they had a larger cranial size. They could even be more intelligent than us. 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.

SPIEGEL: How do we have to imagine this: You raise Neanderthals in a lab, ask them to solve problems and thereby study how they think?

Church: No, you would certainly have to create a cohort, so they would have some sense of identity. They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force.

SPIEGEL: Wouldn't it be ethically problematic to create a Neanderthal just for the sake of scientific curiosity?

Church: Well, curiosity may be part of it, but it's not the most important driving force. The main goal is to increase diversity. The one thing that is bad for society is low diversity. This is true for culture or evolution, for species and also for whole societies. If you become a monoculture, you are at great risk of perishing. Therefore the recreation of Neanderthals would be mainly a question of societal risk avoidance.

The "extremely adventurous female human" is mentioned on pages 11 and 148 of Church's recent book, Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves.


Related reading: Cloning Neanderthals; Modern Humans and Neanderthal Humans Intermarried; The Nile-Japan Ainu Connection; A Kindling of Ancient Memory; Getting the Facts About Human Origins

Human Cloning Predicted

This year's Nobel Prize in Medicine co-laureate, English scientist Sir John Gurdon, has predicted that within 50 years it will be possible to clone babies. Although mammals have been cloned, all attempts to clone humans have failed. Many of the animals have been deformed.

Sir John feels that the public will overcome its revulsion at cloning if they perceive that it offers health benefits. He said: "I take the view that anything you can do to relieve suffering or improve human health will usually be widely accepted by the public - that is to say if cloning actually turned out to be solving some problems and was useful to people, I think it would be accepted."

Sir John was the first researcher to clone an animal - a frog, back in 1962. He was speaking on BBC Radio Four's program The Life Scientific.

Related reading:  Cloning Neanderthals; Reproductive Cloning Ban Means Death for Some Embryos; Israel Extends Moratorium on Human Cloning; Animal Cloning Trials Fail

Disgraced Libyan Cloner to Discuss Collaboration

There is even a bioethics angle to the conflict in Libya. Disgraced Korean cloner Hwang Woo-Suk travelled to Libya on February 10 to discuss a US$135 million collaboration with the government. According to Yonhap news, Hwang has travelled there around 10 times since 2004 and was given a retainer of just under $850,000 for collaborating on stem cell research on incurable diseases. The present deal was supposed to include a research center in Libya and the relocation of Hwang's cloning-related technology. The Libyan uprising reveals how failed statess are often get seduced by profitability of science, while basic human needs go unmet.

According to the Chosun Ilbo, Hwang was to sign a collaborative agreement with DANA Bioscience and Medical Service, a company recently set up by Libya. However this month's war has probably put the whole project in jeopardy. Reporters spotted Hwang at the Tripoli airport amongst a group of 198 people being evacuated by the Korean government.

But what was he doing there anyway? His presence suggests that Libya is (or was) trying to develop expertise in stem cell research. Abbas Rattani, of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, explains why so many small countries are interested in the field:

"In a global world where the scientific advancements of developing countries are overall incomparable to nations such as the United States, many countries see scientific research as an excellent opportunity to attract publicity and/or establish a presence in the Western-dominated scientific environment...

"[S]tem cell research has become a lucrative endeavor for many, and a new avenue for proving one's scientific prowess. Countries that are lagging behind in scientific innovation and development may resort to supporting questionable treatments and research as an attempt to establish themselves as the "epicenter of stem cell research" in order to compete with similar institutions in prominent developed nations." ~ Bioethics Bulletin, March 16; Nature, Mar 1

Animal Cloning Trials a Failure

BioEdge reports that a leading animal cloning organisation, New Zealand’s AgResearch, has ended cloning trials because of unacceptable death rates. But the science agency says it will continue to design genetically engineered animals using new research methods. AgResearch says that arthritis, lameness, blood poisoning and pneumonia were among the causes of goat, sheep and cattle deaths. Only about 10% of cloned animals survived the trials. A number of calves from mid gestation onwards either spontaneously aborted or died. ~ Stuff.co.nz, Feb 21

Cloning Neanderthals

Neanderthal is a byword for backwardness, but this relative of ours, which disappeared only 25,000 or 30,000 years ago was clearly human. The Neanderthals had burial rites, buiilt fires, probably had language, made tools and even had a larger brain than homo sapiens. Now, according to an article in the journal Archeology, some scientists want to clone them.

According to George Church, a genetics professor from Harvard Medical School, Neanderthal cells could be significant in the discovery of treatments for largely human-specific diseases such as HIV or smallpox. He says that if they are different enough to modern humans, they may possess genetic immunity to these conditions. Also, differences in their biology could lead to new gene therapy or drug treatments.

A first draft of the Neanderthal genome was released a year ago, but it is likely to contain many errors. Creating an artificial genome is an even greater challenge, but if it can be done, is it ethical to recreate Neanderthals?

The bioethicists interviewed by Archeology were largely in favour of it. Bernard Rollin, a bioethicist at Colorado State University, has no serious ethical reservations, but warns that it all depends on how they are perceived by others. "I don't think it is fair to put people...into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared," he says. Lori Andrews, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, doesn't see any problem with cloning, but points out that the Neanderthal's legal rights would include the right not to be experimented on. Since experimentation is the main purpose of the exercise, this makes cloning useless.

James Noonan, a geneticist at Yale University, takes a dim view of cloning. "If your experiment succeeds and you generate a Neanderthal who talks, you have violated every ethical rule we have, and if your experiment fails...well. It's a lose-lose," he says.

On the other hand, Dr Church believes that it could be unethical not to clone them.

The Neanderthals' differently shaped brains might give them a different way of thinking that would be useful in problem-solving. They would also expand humanity's genetic diversity, helping protect our genus from future extinction. "Just saying 'no' is not necessarily the safest or most moral path," he says. "It is a very risky decision to do nothing."

John Hawks, a University of Wisconsin paleoanthropologist, says that he does not believe that it is ethical to recreate a Neanderthal, but also that it is inevitable that some people will ignore the ethics of the situation. "In the end," he says, "we are going to have a cloned Neanderthal, I'm just sure of it." ~Archaeology Vol 63 No. 2 Mar/Apr 2010

Israel Extends Moratorium on Human Cloning

The Israeli Knesset has once again declined to ban human reproductive cloning. Instead it has extended a moratorium on it for another seven years. Scientists had apparently persuaded them that a permanent ban would make some researchers would abandon their cloning research.

They seem to have won the day, as the government had only proposed a five-year moratorium.
Israel is a world leader in human embryonic stem cell research. A recent report in the journal Stem Cells ranked Israeli scientists second in the world, after the US in in absolute (not per capita) numbers of publications in scientific journals up to the end of 2005. And four of the best-ever hESC peer-reviewed articles have been written by Israelis.

One of the leading hESC scientists in Israel, Benjamin Reubinoff, told the Jerusalem Post: "I am very happy that Israel has such a prominent role in hESC," he said.

Read it all here.

Scott B. Rae's Moral Choices

I recommend Dr. Scott B. Rae's Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. It is a fine text for college ethics classes, providing students with a sound basis for making ethical decisions in today's postmodern culture. This book presents the theory of ethics and its application to social issues and uses cases studies to address current ethical issues.

Professor Rae outlines the distinctive elements of Christian ethics such as the concept of a fixed order of creation (the basis for Intelligent Design). He introduces students to ethical systems of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant.

Rae's seven-step procedure for tackling ethical dilemmas provides students with a template for ethical reasoning.

Now in its second edition, Moral Choices is expanded and revised to provide the most current insights on:

• Abortion
• Reproductive Technologies
• Euthanasia
• Capital Punishment
• Sexual Ethics
• The Morality of War
• The Legislation of Morality
• Genetic Technologies and Human Cloning

Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics
By Scott B. Rae
Edition: 2
Published by Zondervan, 2000
ISBN 0310230152, 9780310230151
288 pages

Zavos' Priority: Homosexual Couples

Dr Zavos: On ethics, his motives and technology

The doctor at the centre of the cloning row yesterday answered readers' questions on The Independent's website. This is a selection of his answers. To see the full exchanges go to www.independent.co.uk/pzavos

How do you justify the use of cloning technology in this way? For you, what is the ultimate goal and what drives your desire to clone people?

Zavos: I am a fertility doctor and I have been creating children to thousands of people for the last 30 years. I consider reproductive cloning as a modality to assist infertile couples to become parents via this technique. This is a very small group of people that have exhausted all possibilities of becoming parents via any other way. However, I am interested also in developing similar technologies in using embryonic stem cells that are derived from cloned embryos to treat a variety of diseases and possibly creating body parts in vitro but not creating human beings for spare parts. If all of those technologies are developed and applied properly this can make it a better world for all of us.

To what extent do you think people like yourself should be involved in ethical dialogue? Do you feel you should have a say in the process, or do you see yourself as simply providing a service which others have to deal with?

As a fertility doctor for 30 years I have assisted thousands of couples, straight, lesbian, gay and single, in becoming parents. During the consultation I assist those people to make the best decision as they attempt to become parents. I am definitely not the person to make the ultimate decision for them but advise them in the best possible way in using treatments. I do get involved in such ethical dialogues at all times but I cannot dictate to those people my feelings about their decisions.

Would you consider fertilising eggs with the genomes of two women?

This technology can only help 3 to 4 per cent of infertile couples that have exhausted all possibilities of having a child. Helping a distressed mother that missed her daughter is not very high on my agenda at the moment. As to me helping same-gender couples to have children, I do that every day via sexual reproduction. At the moment, the cloning technology cannot assist either two men or two women in having a biological child of their own. However, the future may allow us to do that. I remain optimistic.

Read it all here.

Reproductive Cloning Ban Means Death to Some Embryos

Dr. Maurice Bernstein, a teaching physician in California, recently posted this at his blog:

Reproductive cloning, that is cloning for the purpose of implanting the cloned embryo into a woman with the expectation that a cloned human will be born is not acceptable and not approved in the United States but there are as yet no federal prohibition laws.

However, there are a number of states which have specific laws to restrict cloning for therapy and/or reproductive cloning. For example, in California, the Business and Profession and Health and Safety codes can be summarized as follows: “Prohibits reproductive cloning; permits cloning for research; provides for the revocation of licenses issued to businesses for violations relating to human cloning; prohibits the purchase or sale of ovum, zygote, embryo, or fetus for the purpose of cloning human beings; establishes civil penalties”

The March-April 2009 issue of the online Hastings Center Bioethics Forum has a statement written by some members of the President’s Council on Bioethics (who joined the Council during the Bush administration) trying to express some balance between the research and use of stem cells but also the limitation of creation of stem cell lines from embryos. Yet, a very interesting dilemma is brought up by these members with regard to the recent statement made by President Obama. It is this dilemma which I would like my visitors to write about.

Here is what the group wrote pertinent to this issue:

In his remarks on March 9, President Obama promised to “ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” While this may seem comforting, it stands in need of clarification.

The president’s announced policy would permit federal funding of research not only on stem cell lines derived from “spare” IVF embryos but also on lines derived from created and/or cloned embryos. In the latter two cases, we would be producing embryos simply in order to use them for our purposes.

What researchers most desire, in fact, are not spare IVF embryos but cloned embryos, produced in order to study disease models. The funding decision announced by the president on March 9 will encourage such cloning. Nor should we be reassured that, at the same time, the president opposed “the use of cloning for human reproduction.” If cloned embryos are produced, they may be implanted and gestated. To prevent that, it will be necessary, as we noted in Human Cloning and Human Dignity, “to prohibit, by law, the implantation of cloned embryos for the purpose of producing children. To do so, however, the government would find itself in the unsavory position of designating a class of embryos that it would be a felony not to destroy.” We cannot believe that this would advance our society’s commitment to equal human dignity.”

So, unlike the current status where unused embryos created by artificial fertilization techniques can be stored frozen until implanted or simply destroyed at the option of the parents of the embryos, if embryos would be cloned for research, by law they would have to be destroyed. I suspect the California law, currently, would meet that case. So, if some embryos, those embryos cloned, by law must be destroyed, would this change the way we look at dignity for human embryo? Or does human dignity really begin when a human is born?

Read it here.