I would say... NO...... Let bygones be bygones!

At first I was quite intrigued by the idea of learning from a living Neanderthal. However after thinking about it for a while and reading some of the comments, there really isn't a reason to bring them back. Actually I think it would be inhumane to bring them back because of how they would be viewed.

I one one hand it would be interesting for research.

On the other hand, I think the money invested in something like this would be much better spent researching better ways to keep the current population healthy and disease free.

besides they'd just sue us for reparations for supplanting them, for "stealing their land", for winning the race of the fittest.

Using them for research.

This would be for all intents and purposes a person.

True, not Homo Sapiens, but if we were to create one...would they not have the rights of any of us? Retarded persons are not viewed as any less of a person, so why would this? A gorilla does not have human rights, but should a Neanderthal?

Very very thin ice here.

Has no one seen Encino Man? A compelling argument for both sides. *nod*

They would make for great athletes, especially football, rugby, anything rough.

On the discovery channel special it said an adult male Neanderthal could carry a 300 pound deer on his back for 6 miles in the snow.

They were tough as hell.

What would we learn? It is not as if they would harbor memories of their past ancestors. Their culture died with them. Resurrecting the species would not shed any light on their social constructs. Other than an unattainable sociology, I wonder what else would be learned? Soft tissue anatomy, but this could bring them down to the level of a genetically engineered lab rat. I agree with Moe that this would be a slippery slope. They may not be our direct ancestors, but they are basically “human”, whatever that means.




Anyway, from what I've read we only have around 60% of the genome. How would a Neanderthal minus 40% function? As well, the DNA is from one individual. Not too good of a sample for a whole species. How would we know this is representative DNA for all Neanderthals?




Besides, I went to school with what, for all intents and purposes, could’ve been a living Neanderthal. We called him John – (last name withheld for fear he may read this and come over and club me). Protruding brow ridge, prognathus jaw line and man, some real sloppy eating habits. Because of John I am convinced that early H. sapiens did interbreed with their cousins (so to speak).




WAIT! Geico could hire them as spokes-cavemen.

Darn it Fentwin, I had this great thought all ready to post that began "What would we learn?" and then I scrolled down to your post. You summed it up. There is nothing to be learned, no place in our world for a deficient humanoid. We treat our deficient homo-sapiens with enough contempt that an engineered being would just be a tragic figure. Not free to walk the streets, enjoy life as it was meant to, have children. It would be an elephant man, pointed at, ridiculed, feared.

We climb a mountain 'just because it is there'. We should NOT do science 'just because we can'.

At least they could get work making Geico commercials.

Wouldn't it be better to create a new Einstein, Tesla, Newton, or maybe a Da vinci, Michelangelo. Wouldn't it be more interesting to see if they could continue to bring advances as great as they did in their day if they were "recreated" today. I think 30 million spent on one of the above would be better then bringing back a neanderthal. Just my opinion

Why bring them back? If they need to research Neanderthals they could just go to any bar in NJ.

What if we brought back a gay one?

nevermind the neanderthals. they should get to work on decoding giselle bundchen's genome.

Because giselle isn't human?

Especially in Keansburg.

exactly

a gay one could carry a 300lb bareback... 6 miles, in the snow.

Well, all the rousing arguments I had ready have already been said. Good work, plime :)

Just another note, scientifically, we're not even close to being able to do this. We can hardly even insert the gene for flourescent proteins in monkeys, let alone an entire genome. The sheer number of embryos we would use to maybe (MAYBE) get one implantable fetus that would maybe (MAYBE) be carried to term and maybe (MAYBE) survive isn't really practical. While, hypothetically, we -could- maybe do this, it wouldn't be cost effective or practical to do so. Especially since, like many have said, we won't be able to really learn much about them anyway.