Resurrecting a Neanderthal?

Last week in Nature magazine a pair of scientists speculated that it is now feasible to resurrect extinct species (60,000 years and less ago) through genetic engineering. The first resurrected animal might be the Mammoth. Soon the Mammoth genome will be mapped from clumps of Mammoth hair frozen for millennia in sub-arctic regions. Next a cell from a contemporary elephant could be altered (painstakingly) on some 400,000 differing genetic sites to make it resemble the Mammoth genome. The altered cell could then be converted into an embryo and implanted in an elephant's womb until term. Voila! A resurrected Mammoth.

The Neanderthal genome will soon be mapped. And in a similar way a human cell could be altered on differing sites to result in a resurrected Neanderthal. Now this strikes secular as well as religious ethicists as unthinkable, something of an abomination against nature.

However, would it be unethical to take a Chimpanzee cell and alter it so as to produce that same resurrected Neanderthal? For some, this seems less odious or more justifiable.

In my estimation this ethical quandary--from chimpanzee to Neanderthal or from human to Neanderthal--is an exquisite ethical conundrum to tease out what is possible versus what is right and good.

I cringe at resurrecting a Neanderthal from either a chimpanzee or from a human. But I'm fascinated by the possibility of a Mammoth or group of Mammoths once again walking the earth.

Right now we have a window to speculate, to ponder in depth the meaning of Nature and Human Nature. What resources do we have to resurrect a Mammoth or a Neanderthal? And having those resources for what reasons do we proceed. And ultimately whose decision is it?

Same-Sex Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

The recent elections featured several plebiscites on same-sex marriage, including California's now infamous Proposition 8. Fifty-two percent of Californians voted against same-sex marriage. Some commentators speculate that an assertive campaign by Mormons tipped the balance. In the final weeks they raised nearly five million dollars and canvassed the state, house-by-house, claiming they were not anti-gay but pro-marriage.

According to a November 15 NY Times' article, "First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=november%2015%20mormon&st=cse&oref=slogin

This coalition's campaign raised concerns regarding the Separation of Church and State.

In my estimation the Separation Issue that Proposition 8 raised is worth scrutiny. For perspective read Barack Obama's 2006 speech before the Call to Renewal convention, in which he opined on the role of religion on public policy: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ In this speech Mr. Obama asserted that religion has a place in public policy, yet religion must argue, not from narrow faith perspectives, rather from universal values that can persuade even the most ardent secularist.

Barack Obama and Same-Sex Marriage

Barack Obama personally opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. In 2004, while running for the Senate, he said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

According to an article in today's New York Times he's not doctrinaire about same-sex mariage. He also acknowledges he might be wrong about this, relative to his religious beliefs, just as he might be wrong about where his faith takes him regarding reproductive choice.

In my estimation this punctuates what I've been saying for some months, that Barack Obama, if elected, would prove to be the most religious president since Woodrow Wilson. His words suggest that he's informed by his religious beliefs. Yet he acknowledges a curious tentativeness about that faith: he might be wrong and he acknowledges that in a secular setting faith has certain limits relative to policy.