HUM-MOLGEN archive: ETHI: 4 responses to what is human

We had some interesting responses to Bob Resta's observation concerning the Neanderthal/human distinction. Several responses posed the query whether a Neanderthal who was found to have survived (or one reconstructed from Neanderthal DNA) would be considered human. It is not an entirely academic inquiry because increasingly around the world, a variety of human rights are being determined on the basis of an individual's genetic status. Moreoever as transgenic creatures and organs become available, other questions of status will arise. Hans Goerl ETHI Editor ***************************************************************************** * 1) from: erland@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de Hi Bob, it was interesting to read your comments on the Neanderthal DNA. Obviously, you've misread the paper. Nothing in the paper claims that Neanderthals branched off from the hominid line about 550,000-700,00 years ago, before modern humans branched off. To say such a thing is not possible from the limited data presented. It is only possible to say that the branch between modern humans and Neanderthals took place 550,000-700,00 years ago. Which of course is something completely different. Then, there is no-one trying to judge the culture of the Neanderthals by showing this difference in DNA. We dont know what culture modern humans picked up from Neanderthals or vice versa. Best regards Rikard Erlandsson, PhD Tel +49 89 5902 326 Abt. Prof Paabo Fax +49 89 5902 474 Department of Zoology <rikerl@ki.se> University of Munich <rikard.erlandsson@medgen.uu.se> Luisenstrasse 14 <erland@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de> Postfach 202136 D-80333 Munich Germany ======== Fwd by: Bob Resta / S ======== Thanks for pointing out the subtle distinction. But doesn't your paper state that the mitochondrial data are evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans are different species? If they are different species, doesn't that by definition make Neanderthals "non-human," though not necessarily "non-hominid?" Whatever the interpretation, it is an excellent paper. Bob Resta ************************************************************ 2) From: Alastair Gunn <a.gunn@WAIKATO.AC.NZ> Ethicists have disussing this problem for a while, mainly in connexion with the ethics of abortion. Many people make a distinction between *humans* and *persons*. Humanity, in this view, is a biological concept: an organism is a human being if (and only if) it is genetically human. Thus, the Neanderthals were probably *not* human. Personhood, however, is a moral concept. A person is a being with "moral standing' whose wellbeing and interests ought to be taken into account. Thus there may be non-human persons, beings who are genetically non-human but are entitled to moral consideration (perhaps equal moral consideration) with genetic humans. Examples might include aliens (ET, Mr Spock, Alf from the old TV series), gods, and, for some, whales and other animals. A being's genetics are irrelevant to its moral standing. If non-human beings (even non-carbon-based life forms) from a planet in a distant galaxy contacted us, we might well decide that as intelligent, rational, emotional beings they should be treated as persons, even though they weren't genetically human. Recognizing the distinction betwen genetic humanity and moral personhood thus dissolves the problem about Neanderthals - you don't have to be human to be a person. Alastair ******************************************************** 3) From: "Wallace, Bruce" <bwallace@AMGEN.COM> Good point - I suspect (and fear?) that the psychological and political bottom line is that WE are human and no one (thing) else is. Perhaps it is pointless to attempt any other definition of humanity than "US". (Bearing in mind, of course, that a very short time ago [if not still now] "US" was highly ethnocentricly defined.) ******************************************************** 4)From: Arthur Falek <psychaf@EMORY.EDU> The focus should not be that humanity is defined by DNA. It is that all living organisms including hominids are defined by their DNA. While different species may have similar behavior patterns, if they are shown to have DNA differences which would result in an inability to mate with one another, that is the basis of speciation. Many of the behaviors of the Neanderthals would seem to be similar to those of the hominid line. However, the mitochondrial DNA evidence now indicates these two species, if they had existed at the same time, would have been unable to mate with one another. This is an objective and consistant measure of identifiying species from the most primative to the most advanced organisms. We live in a remarkable time with the ability to verify speciation at the molecular level. Arthur Falek Laboratory of Human and Behavior Genetics Department of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences Emory University School of Medicine ***********************************************************