We Are the Neanderthal

Oscar Wilde once said, "Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." This mantra is perfectly upheld in the way in which research on neanderthals permeates the public sphere. Much news of early Homo sapiens remains from Israel has been triggered on the notion that it could have been among the first anatomically modern humans to have sex with neanderthals. This fascination with interbreeding comes out of the precariousness of a competitor to modern humans, commonly viewed as the teleological end point to evolution. Any threat to that clean viewpoint has difficulty gaining acceptance. It is for this reason that neanderthals have for so long and continue to endure the cave man brute stereotype.

If it was not the humans who engaged in a bloody war to defeat the neanderthals to gain their rightful place as rulers of this domain, then what happened? This is the question that surrounds much publicity of middle paleolithic archaeology. Dying out quietly for a species is not exciting however, but sex is. Thus, there is relatively extensive media coverage of that encounter. It is an implicit desire by contemporary society to still see the human species on top (no pun intended). In accordance with the statement of Wilde, inter-species sex is about power. The encounter between a neanderthal and human may have been peaceful, but nevertheless, a modern human, rather than a neanderthal was born from it.

There is also an academic and public rhetoric that is uncomfortable with seeing anything other than humans having agency and cognition. For much of human history how humans have distinguished themselves: agents and actors with high-level cognition. Everything else is secondary and the other. But evidence problematizing this notion is difficult to reckon with because it gives way to the much feared identity crisis of humankind.

The resulting conservative treatment of hominids in the Middle Paleolithic is one akin to the socially conservative rhetoric observed in America, and the perversity of sexuality. However, this mindset crucially dictates the mindset with which we deal with the study of these early hominids, or 'photo-humans.' It becomes a perverse discourse in the media realm whereby readership is secured through the alluring taboo of the sexual encounter. This defines the rhetoric and regard to which the subject is considered by the public. This narrative captures the erotic imagination and succeeds as a public image: the fair-skinned maiden encountering the chiseled, dark, hairy beast of a neanderthal. Thus, neanderthals are kept in their brutish quarters by the means with which we described them. Perhaps this is a purely a narrative that plays to our sexual imaginations. Or maybe it is an instantiation of fulfilling humanity's desire to tame the beast. Through sexual encounters, humans tamed the brutish race, overcoming them and displacing them, giving way for the eventual and destined rise of humanity. Regardless, through this narrative, the neanderthal remains the other, even if in fact we are the neanderthal.

Bringing Back Neanderthals... Could We or Should We?

In a June 2011 conference in Dubai on science, religion and modernity, the question “should we clone Neanderthals” was raised. Cloning Neanderthals will help us answer many questions. Such as, according to DISCOVER, “did we mate with Neanderthals, or did we murder them?” how are the Neanderthals related to our own species? What were the Neanderthals actually like? We will actually be able to see and study the Neanderthals, unlike how scientists have to draw analogies between chimps and prehistoric hominids to find out more about the Australopithecus. The benefits of cloning Neanderthals are to be craved for: everyday people will be able to meet with the Neanderthals that broke away from the lineage of modern humans around 450,000 years ago, that evolved larger brains than us, thatdeveloped a wider variety of stone tools and more efficient techniques for making them. But even if we could clone them, should we clone them?

Approximately two years ago, researchers had publishedthe rough draft of the Neanderthal genome. The genome was not perfect, of course; it contained many errors because the DNA obtained was simply prehistoric. Apoptosis, a process where cells begin to break down, takes over within hours of death, as dying cells release enzymes that spoil and scramble the DNA. Since scientists do not have living Neanderthal cells to catalyze the process of cloning, after reconstructing the genome, the re

searchers have to put the right amount of DNA into the chromosomes, and get those chromosomes into the nucleus of a cell. Other scientists suggest the pre-existing idea of tweaking the genetic code in living human cells so that they match up with the Neanderthals. However, for this way to work, scientists may have to make up to millions of changes to a human cell’s DNA. Nevertheless, even if scientists perfect the process of putting a Neanderthal DNA in a cell nucleus, creating a baby clone by moving the cell nucleus into the egg of a related species, in other words, humans, will be gruesome. Even in processes of cloning other living animals, the egg where the cell nucleus has been transferred to often dies, meaning that there will be dead Neanderthal fetuses in a human’s womb. Even since the successful cloning of Snuppy, the first dog clone in 2005, cloning involves trial and error. Are we ready to put humans through this?

Let’s assume that Neanderthals can be easily cloned flawlessly for a moment. In many ways, these Neanderthals will be extremely different, yet similar to the Neanderthals in Geico commercials. In the Geico commercials, the Neanderthal seems like he may fit in, but at the same time, he can be viewed as extremely clueless in the modern world’s society. We simply don’t know what the consequences of successfully cloning a Neanderthal will be. Their brains are different, implying that their consciousness may be drastically different from ours as well. It is also a common belief that they had the power of speech, but then again, some says that is doubtable. According to Andrew Brown, “the minimum ethical thing to do would be to clone 20 or 30.” No one wants to be the only one living of his or her species. We can watch and learn from these 20 or 30 clones. Keep in mind that Neanderthals had traditions and beliefs; they buried their dead, and created mythologies. If we study these clones, we will be studying a brand new set of Neanderthals relative to their ‘enclosure’ (is it even right to put them in an enclosure?). We will NOT be learning more about the original Neanderthals, their culture or myths.

It has become a question of ethics then. In 1997, Stuart Newman attempted to patent the genome of a chimpanzee-human but lost his case because the patent office believes it would violate the 13^th amendment prohibitions against slavery. Neanderthals will also be much more “human” than chimpanzee-humans. So what kind of laws will the Neanderthals be under? According to Andrew Moseman, “a Neanderthal could be granted enough legal protection to make doing extensive research on it illegal, not just unethical.” How will a Neanderthal actually live in the current world though? There is an assumed consequence far worse than culture-shock: a Neanderthal from 25,000 years will basically have no immunity to any of the diseases that have evolved since then. We happen to be the lucky ones with the gift evolution has brought to us. Will the Neanderthals want live in our world?

Cloning Neanderthals: Not a Pipedream

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/tech/main6201715.shtml

Should We Clone Neanderthals?

http://www.archaeology.org/1003/etc/neanderthals.html

Should We Clone Neanderthals?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/23/clone-neanderthal-technology-ethical