Geneticist seeks woman to help make a cloned cave baby...

Hundred · January 2013

WTF! :eek!: If this true, Jurasic Park, here we come.

http://now.msn.com/george-church-says-human-woman-could-bear-neanderthal-baby

Hundred · January 2013

What if the neanderthal whose remains the alleged DNA was extracted from, died of some horrible, near cataclysmic disease? A disease that had the potential to wipe out all of humanity, but because his/her "tribe" was so isolated, the disease didn't have a chance to spread like it could have...

today · January 2013

Looks like the original story was badly translated from a German Tabloid and then eventually wound up on a news aggregator. Since it's essentially gibberish, I'm not too concerned by it.

today · January 2013

Hundred wrote: »

What if the neanderthal whose remains the alleged DNA was extracted from, died of some horrible, near cataclysmic disease? A disease that had the potential to wipe out all of humanity, but because his/her "tribe" was so isolated, the disease didn't have a chance to spread like it could have...

Yes, because there's a mechanism for genomic DNA to be contagious.:rolleyes:

You can't catch someone else's genes, that makes about as much sense as saying you're going to catch cancer or alzheimer's or any other genetic disease from someone.

rojren · January 2013

The idea of making a person as an experiment is damned creepy.

today · January 2013

For reference, the guy's actual group webpage: http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/BBS/fac/church.php

Seemingly doesn't say anything about wanting to "Clone a Neanderthal"

today · January 2013

By the time a "science" story makes its way into the public eye it's usually already degenerated to the level of total nonsense.

Researcher: "My lab synthesized a small molecule with some tumor suppressing capability"
University publicist: "[Researcher] investigates potential cure for cancer"
Credible-ish News Outlet: "Researchers claim to have cured cancer with nanotech!"
Credible-ish News Outlet 1 week later": "Scientists fail to cure cancer with nano-robots!"
Tabloid: "Nano-robots cause cancer!"
News Aggregator: "Nano-robots developed by [Researcher] will create a cloud of science dust that will bring about the zombie apocalypse. Stop them now before it's too late!"
Researcher: *Sigh*

It's essentially a game of telephone.. for lack of any other adequate analogy

Hundred · January 2013

@ today: If you read my original post I started by stating:

Hundred wrote: »

If this true...

I didn't know if he planned to do it or not, I was just on MSN earlier and saw the story. Man, you're really passionate about something you've reffered to as gibberish.

@ rojren: Yes... very creepy indeed.

today · January 2013

Hundred wrote: »

Man, you're really passionate about something you've reffered to as gibberish.

Unfortunately, what I see as the real issue here is that research is essentially gibberish-ified by the time it reaches the general public. And funding for science is controlled almost entirely by laypeople, so this actually is an issue that I'm passionate about.

Using my above example:

today wrote: »

Researcher: "My lab synthesized a small molecule with some tumor suppressing capability"
...
News Aggregator: "Nano-robots developed by [Researcher] will create a cloud of science dust that will bring about the zombie apocalypse. Stop them now before it's too late!"

People at this point divide up into two camps:
1) The evil scientists are trying to turn us into zombies! We definitely shouldn't encourage them and/or fund their research!
or
2) Hey, nano-robots sound cool. We should take funding away from people doing real science and set up incentives for people to make nano-robots.

Neither is particularly beneficial to anyone.

today · January 2013

And just in case you thought my example was ridiculous hyperbole:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46417931/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/dna-nano-robots-will-hunt-down-kill-cancer-cells/#.UP6uAI7A9So
Citing the very same research group!

Hundred · January 2013

Well, IMO, I hope he doesn't go through with the making of a neanderthal child. I mean, think of the child, her/she/they won't have much of a life. From the time they are born they'll have to spend they're entire lives in a lab. And who knows what kind of mental deficiencies they'll be born with. We are talking about a semi-ape-like creature here. And if you look at individuals with down's syndrome, (and I'm not comparing those with down's syndrome to apes), as well as those with other forms of mental retardation, they have it hard enough just being born that way naturally. And he's talking about making a child with such limitations on purpose... That would be a bit like cloning an infant John Merrick (The "Elephant Man"), to study his illnesses from start to finish. Now that would be cruel. And the child would not have asked for that life...

Now as for cloning in general, I'm all for it: livers, hearts, lungs, limbs, eyes, and any other vitally needed human replacement part.

Chris2005 · January 2013

The idea of cloning an extinct species from our own genus "Homo" is mind-blowing, in an interesting way...

Found this story on the topic as well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265402/Adventurous-human-woman-wanted-birth-Neanderthal-man-Harvard-professor.html

Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (Homo neanderthalensis).

A reconstruction of a Neanderthal man at the Neanderthal museum:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Neandertaler-im-Museum.jpg

today · January 2013

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/harvard_professor_blasts_neanderthal_clone_baby_rumor_web

a wrote:

He blames a mistake in an article he says was written off an interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel, badly misinterpreting what he said — that such a cloning might theoretically be possible someday — and arriving at the conclusion that he was actively looking for a woman to bear a cave baby with DNA scavenged from ancient Neanderthal bones. He suggested poor translation skills may be part of the problem.

“I’m certainly not advocating it,” Church said.

So, the fact that no one is actually suggesting (nor has suggested) doing this.. doesn't impact the discussion? at all?

Chris2005 · January 2013

today wrote: »

So, the fact that no one is actually suggesting (nor has suggested) doing this.. doesn't impact the discussion? at all?

Well, to me just the idea of doing it is compelling even if it's a lost in translation type story... so whether it's being done or not, or suggested or not... the thought is a compelling one...

today · January 2013

Chris2005 wrote: »

Well, to me just the idea of doing it is compelling even if it's a lost in translation type story... so whether it's being done or not, or suggested or not... the thought is a compelling one...

Fair enough.

Hundred · January 2013

today · January 2013

It's a plausible enough idea, but since the neanderthal genome was sequenced piecewise there isn't a single complete "cave man" genome in physical existence. Knowing the sequence you could synthesize it chemically, which isn't that expensive when you're talking about hundreds of basepairs, but when you're talking about billions of basepairs? Physically, economically, and biologically impossible... given the current state of molecular biology.

Now, of course the human genome project directly resulted in a quantum leap (figurative of course) in molecular biology and biotech in general. So who knows what will be possible in a couple of decades.. which I assume was the original point of his (badly, badly, mistranslated) statement.

Hundred · January 2013

I hope he clone these two...

today · January 2013

today wrote: »

It's a plausible enough idea, but since the neanderthal genome was sequenced piecewise there isn't a single complete "cave man" genome in physical existence. Knowing the sequence you could synthesize it chemically, which isn't that expensive when you're talking about hundreds of basepairs, but when you're talking about billions of basepairs? Physically, economically, and biologically impossible... given the current state of molecular biology.

Now, of course the human genome project directly resulted in a quantum leap (figurative of course) in molecular biology and biotech in general. So who knows what will be possible in a couple of decades.. which I assume was the original point of his (badly, badly, mistranslated) statement.

Hundred wrote: »

That works. He makes the above points far more eloquently than I did (or can). It's worth giving a listen to the whole interview.

Coolhand · January 2013

Looking around at some people, I wonder if neanderthals really did die out;)

A neanderthal is not a 'semi ape creature' btw lol. they're not that far removed from what we consider modern humans, any experiments that produced such a person would have to treat them in the same way as they would anyone else, IE, they would or should have the same rights as any person.

So, there's no way you could do this openly and just keep the person in a cage, jabbing them with needles occasionally, nor would any of them be grunting cavemen with crudely fashioned clubs, excess hair or sabretooth tiger clothes - unless they really liked that look.

Hundred · January 2013

I listened to the whole thing alright. I especially like the part he changes the "once human cloning is-" "to if, human cloning is considered as justifiable and ethical...". If, if? Hmmmmmm?

today · January 2013

Hundred wrote: »

I listened to the whole thing alright. I especially like the part he changes the "once human cloning is-" "to if, human cloning is considered as justifiable and ethical...". If, if? Hmmmmmm?

Wow. He has an opinion on a scientific/ethical issue.. I for one am shocked!

Hundred · January 2013

Don't be shocked, I don't have an opnion on it. I was just baiting a response from you. Man do get this work up about everthing?

today · January 2013

Hundred wrote: »

Don't be shocked, I don't have an opnion on it. I was just baiting a response from you. Man do get this work up about everthing.

As I said, public perception of science is something I care about. Which is why I usually try to avoid these kinds of discussions, since for the most part little or nothing is accomplished by getting dragged into them.

Hundred · January 2013

No one dragged you into it my friend, you clicked the Post Quick Reply button. You're going to give yourself a stroke getting this excited over nothing. Because that's what it is, nothing. To my knowledge no one has ever made a cave man clone. So why worry over it?

today · January 2013

Hundred wrote: »

No one dragged you into it my friend, you clicked the Post Quick Reply button. You're going to give yourself a stroke getting this excited over nothing. Because that's what it is, nothing. To my knowledge no one has ever made a cave man clone. So why worry over it?

I'm not overly invested in this, I just stated my take on it. Yes, disengaging from these sorts of discussions isn't my forte.. which is why I typically avoid them. But, don't mistake fast typing and sarcasm (yes, my sarcasm is fast too) for actual frustration..

At this point this has turned into meta-discussion anyway, since we're now discussing my motivations for discussing things on the internet. At least I think we are?

rojren · January 2013

Anyone read (or seen) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy ?

Chris2005 · January 2013

I have no ethical issues with cloning a person, if the person being cloned consents to being cloned, but just because it's a clone doesn't mean it's an exact copy, it'd only be an exact copy genetically... life experiences, etc. would shape the individual like anyone else.

However, I do like the idea of cloning organs from a person's own stem cells...

I read they used pig stem cells to create bacon, thus removing the need to slaughter a pig, which is really nice, would certainly be something vegans and animal rights activists could possibly support, while it's for all intents and purposes pig meat, it's not harming a pig... since no pig was killed to make it...

I mean so much is possible...

Deks · January 2013

Scientific knowledge and practical application of it is 60 to 100 years ahead of any technology/science currently in use - and this 'gap' is accelerating at an exponential rate.

We have had the resources and technology to do things 100 years ago that would shock most of the world today (such as solving most/all worlds issues) - let alone of what could be done today if we actually unleashed latest technology/science (and not the outdated 'toys' we use now) into social parts of our lives.

Social awareness was never in line with our latest scientific knowledge (granted, this is changing with many people having access to global communications - at least those with the purchasing power to afford access in the first place), nor are Humans exposed to relevant general education (which makes them today that much prone to being manipulated and used by others).

As for the possibility of creating a clone of a neanderthal... hm... it could be interesting from a scientific point of view, but if they actually do so, they cannot keep him/her confined in a lab.
Mind you... what is today seen as 'human rights' is arbitrary to most governments - namely, if you don't have the purchasing power to do anything, you effectively have no rights.
Just look at the amount of violations on human rights being done to people who are 'respected' citizens. We live a society of distorted values and a completely outdated socio-economic system that outlived its usefulness over 100 years ago.

Also... this could be an exercise in futility for some of you who might be wondering what kind of behavior a potential neanderthal specimen could exhibit:
That depends on the environment in which they are developing - modern humans are no different.
There's nothing in our DNA influencing behavior... DNA merely accounts for physical traits.
And while I will agree we are born with certain tendencies... whether or not they manifest is up to the environment (and the amount of knowledge we are exposed to).

So if this 'specimen' is made, grows up in a lab and is exposed to relevant general education... apart from some potential physical differences when it comes to appearance, mentally, he could be on a similar level like us, if not surpass most people (which depends on whether there's something inherent in neanderthal physiology inhibiting learning capabilities - but in this instance, it might simply translate to the neanderthal learning slower than modern humans and requiring other methods to teach - something that the entire educational system in general needs).

Greetings!

Geneticist seeks woman to help make a cloned cave baby...

Posts

Greetings!

Quick Links

Geneticist seeks woman to help make a cloned cave baby...

Posts