Fiction in Science
The current issue of Science features a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome. This is accompanied by a web feature, complete with video interview of Svante Pääbo, the senior author, as well as a news focus [sub required] and podcast. The big news is the theory that modern humans may in fact be partly (maybe 2%) descended from Neanderthals.
This may not be correct, or may not be significant. Paleontologists are expressing skepticism, particularly about the suggestion that interbreeding may have occurred not in Europe, where humans and Neanderthals are thought to have coexisted extensively 30–45,000 years ago, but in the Middle East and perhaps as long ago as 100,000 years. We look forward to further discussion.
Regrettably, Science decided to spice up its coverage of an already sensational story by including a speculative box about cloning Neanderthals [sub required]. No, they do not support the idea. In fact, they call in some heavy hitters to disparage it. Robert Lanza says it's technically impossible because of the degenerate state of the available DNA. Ian Wilmut notes that primate cloning "works very poorly." George Church gets another opportunity to push his reprogram-a-human-or-chimp concept, but the box makes it clear just how unlikely that fantasy is. Oh, and Pääbo points out that Neanderthals are a species of human:
"Not even for medical purposes are we thinking about creating a [modern] human being. Why would we consider something like this, which is much less pressing?"
And why would Science include this conjecture, which even they call "Sci-Fi"? Isn't the actual research interesting enough? Are they trying to nip speculation in the bud? (But what's with the Godzilla image?) Or is the top rank of peer-reviewed journals going tabloid?
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
.jpg){kind=link}