Another take on the ongoing discussion about cloning a neanderthal. My objection would be more along the lines of ethics – once you clone her, she is a person, and has the rights of every other person, including not to be studied, etc. Granted, she needs some tutelage to be able to cope with a world which will NOT be “unfamiliar” to her, no more than a baby is – it’s all new. She would be like any other child. Whether her brain structure is different is a question that can only be answered by testing, a lot of it, and is that the purpose we clone people for? That becomes the stuff of SF where a subset of the human population is just that, sub.
The original debate:
and the response:
and the response from the original writer that this article refers to:
I guess when I read the article it seemed like they were talking more about raising her in a lab and taking her out for experiences, etc. I.e. not a real life she owns. I wrote a seminar review paper in law school in 2002 on the parentage of a human clone. Interesting where it can take you, and when one is grown in a lab, does the government step in, DFS, and claim the child? It’s not strictly “human.” Our laws haven’t caught up to our science yet is what I found. Because we have laws banning cloning of humans, etc. But Neanderthals are not strictly “human” so do those laws apply? Technically, a neanderthal kid would be non-human, so can it be afforded the protections of a human? It should or course, but the law is slow.
Bringing a Neanderthal to life’s been done before in movies and books, but usually with a full-grown one that has somehow been preserved and brought back to life. Then they are already culturally steeped in their values. But if raised from birth as a human, could they talk like us, think like us, or as I said, is their brain different, less intelligent, or just not the same, so it’s learning processes are not the same, and it sees things in a different way? (Using “it” because I hate saying he/she constantly. )