Rebuilt DNA Could Lead to Cloned Neanderthals

[KRonn]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/10/scientists-clone-neanderthals/?test=latestnews

Rebuilt DNA Could Lead to Cloned Neanderthals

As scientists come closer to completing a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome, creating a living person from an ancient DNA sequence is becoming a real possibility, according to Archaeology Magazine.

In 2005, 454 Life Sciences began a project with the Max Planck Institute to sequence the genetic code of a 30,000 year old Neanderthal woman. Now nearly complete, the sequence will let scientists look at the genetic blueprint of humankind's nearest relative, understand its biology and maybe even create a living person.

The work is possible today thanks to vast increases in computing power over the past few years. 454's Thomas Jarvie told the magazine, "Six years ago if you wanted to sequence E. coli... it would have taken one or maybe two million dollars, and it would have taken a year and 150 people. Nowadays, one person can do it in two days."

The restoration of DNA tens of thousands of years old has been challenged by chemical changes, breakdown of the biological matter and contaminants. And once the DNA sequencing is complete, creating a clone from it is still an inexact science.

Some scientists believe that by making changes to the DNA inside a human cell -- thousands or even millions of changes, that is -- the human genome can be altered to match the recreated Neanderthal one. One cell is just a step towards  a living creature, but it's a key one.

Advances in stem cell science have led to proposals to alter a stem cell's DNA to match the Neanderthal genome. That stem cell would be left to reproduce, creating a colony of cells that could be programmed to become any type of cell that existed in the Neanderthal's body -- even an entire person. Archaeology cites Robert Lanza, biotech firm Advanced Cell Technology's chief science officer, who notes that species such as cows and goats are now routinely cloned with few problems.

There are many technical obstacles, but it's reasonable to suppose that scientists could soon use that long-extinct genome to safely create a healthy, living Neanderthal clone. But should it be done?

That's the question that inspired author Zach Zorich to dig into the issue. He points out that legal precedents are on the side of Neanderthal human rights, noting that such a creature would deserve human rights.

"I've been following Neanderthal gene research for years, and it started to dawn on me that all of these decades-old academic questions about how Neanderthals were related to modern humans might suddenly have human rights implications," he told FoxNews.com.

"My hope is that the article will get people to think about what it is that makes us human beings so that there is a larger and better informed debate about how our society should proceed with cloning genetics research."

For more on this fascinating story, see Archaeology.org.

[The Brain]

OK, Tim.

[KRonn]

OK, Tim.

You are such a Neanderthal!   

[Viking]

Anything with Homo in it's species name gets human rights. Morality on this issue, I think, should be determined by whether the person would be capable of being human. If the Neanderthal would be a mere curiosity or "programmed" to fail then creating this person would be unethical.

[The Brain]

a 30,000 year old Neanderthal woman

Wow. Just wow.

[Josquius]

The morales come in with how this kid would be treat. Would it have a free life or be a scientific curiosity and nothing more.
To some extent being a subject of science is unavoidable but would this be able to be kept to a low enough degree that the kid could still be happy?

[garbon]

Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.

[alfred russel]

Anything with Homo in it's species name gets human rights. Morality on this issue, I think, should be determined by whether the person would be capable of being human. If the Neanderthal would be a mere curiosity or "programmed" to fail then creating this person would be unethical.

What would be interesting is a clone of a person from 10-15,000 years ago. Would the person behaviorally be able to cope with civilization, or have we silently evolved since the agricultural revolution to cope with societies more complex than hunter gatherers?

[KRonn]

Interesting... more info on how much scientists are finding out via ancient DNA research.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/10/dna-suggests-ancient-man-baldness-issues/?test=latestnews

Even Ancient Man Had Baldness Issues



NEW YORK — Scientists have pieced together most of the DNA of a man who lived in Greenland about 4,000 years ago, a pioneering feat that revealed hints about his appearance and even an increased risk of baldness.

It's the first genome from an ancient human, showing the potential for what one expert called a time machine for learning about the biology of ancient people.

Analysis suggests the Greenland man probably had type A-positive blood, brown eyes, darker skin than most Europeans, dry earwax, a boosted chance of going bald and several biological adaptations for weathering a cold climate, researchers report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The DNA also indicated the man had dark, thick hair — a trait the scientists observed directly, since that's where the genetic material came from.

More importantly, comparisons of his DNA with that of present-day Arctic peoples shed light on the mysterious origins of the man's cultural group, the Saqqaq, the earliest known culture to settle in Greenland. Results suggest his ancestors migrated from Siberia some 5,500 years ago.

It's not clear how or why they migrated, said Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, an author of the paper. The analysis shows the now extinct Saqqaq were not direct ancestors of today's Inuits or Native Americans, he said.

The researchers nicknamed the man Inuk, which is Greenlandic for "human" or "man."

The DNA was recovered from a tuft of hair that had been excavated in 1986 from permafrost on Greenland's west coast, north of the Arctic Circle. The thousands of years in a deep freeze was key to preserving the genetic material. But most ancient human remains come from warmer places with less potential for preservation, and scientists said it's not clear how often DNA from such samples would allow for constructing a genome.

Willerslev said he believes many hair samples from around the world, perhaps from South American mummies or in collections, probably would be usable.

"I won't say it will become routine," he told reporters, but "I think it will be something we will see much more in the coming five years."

Over the past few years, scientists have reconstructed at least draft versions of genomes of other species from much older DNA. One used woolly mammoth DNA from about 18,000 years ago and 58,000 years ago, and a draft Neanderthal genome unveiled last year used 40,000-year-old DNA from three individuals.

For the new paper, the researchers identified particular markers in the man's DNA, and then turned to studies of modern-day people that have associated those markers with particular traits like eye color, blood type, and tendency toward baldness.

As scientists link more and more markers to biological traits in modern people, they will be able to apply those findings to learn more about the Greenland man, said Eddy Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"It's sort of a time machine," said Rubin, who studies Neanderthal DNA but was not connected to the new work. While the DNA-based picture is not definitive, it's a "pretty good guess," he said.

"I think it's a very important study," Rubin said. "We're really beginning to zoom in on physical characteristics of individuals which we'll never see."

[Viking]

Anything with Homo in it's species name gets human rights. Morality on this issue, I think, should be determined by whether the person would be capable of being human. If the Neanderthal would be a mere curiosity or "programmed" to fail then creating this person would be unethical.

What would be interesting is a clone of a person from 10-15,000 years ago. Would the person behaviorally be able to cope with civilization, or have we silently evolved since the agricultural revolution to cope with societies more complex than hunter gatherers?

1) Homo Neanderthalis is NOT our ancestor. The last common ancestor we have with them is during one of the Erectus emigrations from Africa or Heidelbergensis, this places our last common ancestor around 300 to 600 thousand years ago.

2) Cultural evolution. It is not genetic or morphological. It is cultural. We should be able to take a Homo Sapiens from most of the period of the speicies and raise it as a modern human. Neanderthal is different both genetically and morphologically.

Neanderthalis separates from us about 1/20th of the distance between us and Afarensis (Lucy) and seems to be significantly different from us not only culturally but also in the brain functions that allow cultural adaptation (since we lived in contact for about 50 thousand years in europe before they went extinct), they did not learn from us, they did not adopt culture or technology from Sapiens. They kept their own technology unchanged throughout their existence.

If we did clone one I suspect he or she (not it) would appear to us to be a heavy set mentally handicapped stable and capable of simple tasks person. He or she would learn language and would being able to do what he or she were taught, but might not be able to understand the concepts "red" or "hope".

[The Brain]

I'm a stable person myself.

[Barrister]

I'm a stable person myself.

You're sitting down?

[alfred russel]

2) Cultural evolution. It is not genetic or morphological. It is cultural. We should be able to take a Homo Sapiens from most of the period of the speicies and raise it as a modern human.

How do you know that?

Without getting into all the behavioral changes that may have occured, just the genetic changes regarding disease will mean any person with DNA from 10,000 years ago is probably going to croak fairly quickly.

[Fireblade]

If we did clone one I suspect he or she (not it) would appear to us to be a heavy set mentally handicapped stable and capable of simple tasks person. He or she would learn language and would being able to do what he or she were taught, but might not be able to understand the concepts "red" or "hope".

Then what's the point? We already have enough Icelanders as it is.

[Viking]

2) Cultural evolution. It is not genetic or morphological. It is cultural. We should be able to take a Homo Sapiens from most of the period of the speicies and raise it as a modern human.

How do you know that?

Without getting into all the behavioral changes that may have occured, just the genetic changes regarding disease will mean any person with DNA from 10,000 years ago is probably going to croak fairly quickly.

I don't know that. The scientific consensus does suppose that, with good reason of course. Thats why I used the word should. The reason we consider all 200,000 years of humans to be humans are the consistency of the traits identifying the species, these include brain architecture.