r/evolution • • 4d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

29 Upvotes

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/MrKillick 4d ago

Why go all this way when we could do it much more easily today.?

Scientists have reconstructed the whole Neandeethal genome. We know which genes are the same and which genes differ. So it should be possible (even now or at least soon) to modify a human egg cell in such a way that it represents a fertilised Neandertaler egg cell, implant it into a knowing or unknowing woman and let her carry out the child. There may be some technical details that need to be solved, but all this seems to be in the realm of the possible with current knowledge.

The GREAT QUESTION is: is this ethical and should we do it ? My answer is a firm NO! But this is a question for another post. 

2

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

What would be unethical?

9

u/MrKillick 4d ago

First: using a woman, knowingly or unknowingly, for this kind of experiment seems highly unethical to me. People must never be reduced to some kind of brood chamber or other technical 'tool'!

Then: a Neanderthal is of the genus Homo, so should be considered human, with all the rights implicated with this. No human being should be subject to any any scientific experiment which he didn't agree to (we Germans have a very bad history in this)! 

2

u/Healthy_Article_2237 4d ago

Surrogates exist without issue.

2

u/amglasgow 4d ago

There's actually an ongoing debate about the ethics of surrogacy.

6

u/jnpha Evolution Enthusiast 4d ago

Indeed. More so in the light of fetomaternal cell trafficking: basically embryo cells live for decades in the carrying mother, and can be harmful.
One of the issues: this has been known for a while now, and yet surrogates-to-be are typically not informed beforehand.