The mapping of the genome of the vertebrae connecting us to the chimpanzee, which will probably be possible in a few decades, will crush the distinction that exists today between the human and the animal
By Richard Dawkins
Lucy's skeletal remains, found in Ethiopia. A 3-million-year-old woman-couch like the landing of man on the moon, the mapping of the human genome - the outstanding scientific achievement of the year that has just ended - is the culmination of skillful, organized and brilliant work, refined by scientific progress made over centuries.
The medical benefits of mapping the human genome will become more and more clear during our lifetime (which will become longer thanks to it). In the half century since the discovery of the DNA double helix, the number of DNA codons that can be mapped for a nominal sum of money has increased at the rate of an engineering column and has doubled every 27 months.
If this trend continues, in 2050 doctors will be able to order a computer output containing the genome of a specific patient for the price of an X-ray. With it, they will prescribe not an average dose, but a medicine tailored according to the size of that person's genes. But enough with the practical benefits: as with the photographs of the moon, the long-term benefits of the human genome project will derive not necessarily from reaching the narrow goal itself, but mainly from the way in which it was reached. The new skills will be directed towards other goals.
The chimpanzee genome will be mapped in a fraction of the time it takes to map the human genome. Molecular biologist Sidney Brenner has already voiced the amazing hypothesis that a sophisticated comparison between the two may allow us to reconstruct the genome of our common ancestor - that "missing link", which lived in Africa about 6 million years ago.
If we continue with Brenner's line of thought, after the ancestor's genome is mapped, our computers should be able to split the difference between his genome and the human genome and arrive at an approximation of the genome of Australopithecus such as "Lucy", the famous 3-million-year-old Koopa woman whose remains Her skeleton was found in the Ethiopian plateau.
Such speculations belong to the future, but it is a future measured in decades, not centuries. During those decades, the science of embryology and cloning technology will advance, and it is not an exaggeration to assume that by 2050 it will be possible to use a reconstructed genome of Australopithecus to bring into the world a living and breathing Lucy; And with the same methods, to create a living match of the "Child from Turkana" (Homo erectus, one of the evolutionary links between Lucy and us) and of other branches in the chimpanzee family tree.
Many of us are terrified of such a possibility. But we don't live in 2050. Things will look different then. Although I am not afraid of the ability to "play God", I admit that I have concerns, which stem from compassion for Lucy herself. I can see in my mind's eye how she turns into some kind of parade monster, the kind the tabloids love so much. On the other hand, I see the speculative experiment that I have proposed here as a moral advantage - it may change our approach to animals. The same advantage would arise from a successful hybridization of a human and a chimpanzee, or from the discovery of a primitive population of "lucies", which survived somewhere in Africa. But cloning a new Lucy is more doable, and will crush our notion of the superiority of the human race most effectively.
People who happily eat cows are passionately opposed to artificial abortions. Even the staunchest anti-abortionist would not argue that the pain, distress and fear felt by a human fetus is greater than that which is the lot of a mature cow. The double standard therefore stems from an absolutist respect for the humanity of the fetus. Even though we don't eat chimpanzees (and they do in some parts of Africa), we treat them in other inhumane ways. We imprison them for life without trial (in zoos). If their number exceeds our needs, or they get old and start to suffer, we call the vet to put them down. I am not against these practices; I'm just calling attention to the double standard. As much as I'd like a vet to put me down when I'm unable to function, he won't: he'll be tried for murder because I'm human.
Human means unique, sacred, of infinite value; To live means to be at the mercy of man, to be destroyed (even if painlessly) when you can no longer be used, to be killed for sport, or as a pest. A rampaging lion that kills people will shoot - not out of revenge, not as punishment, not as a deterrent to other lions, not to please the relatives of the victim, but simply to remove the disturbance: not punishment, but pest control. A riotous person who kills people will receive a fair trial, and if he is sentenced, it is likely that he will not be put to death. If he is killed, it will be done in a gruesome ceremony, after appeals and in the face of massive and principled opposition. Of all the justifications offered for the death penalty, one justification that will never be heard is pest control. Humans, for the absolutist mind, are never separated from the "animals".
A real, live Lucy would smash this double standard. Of course we already know that we are cousins of the chimpanzees. But the middlemen are all dead (how convenient), so it's easy to forget. If we succeed in cloning Lucy, and alongside her a series of biological species that link us to chimpanzees and are able to give birth to fertile offspring, what will the opponents of abortion do?
At the height of apartheid stupidity, South Africans set up courts to determine whether certain people should be "considered white". These indecent courts sometimes separated brothers, when the luck of one was darker than the other. Opponents of abortion will be faced with two choices: to turn to this absurd path, or to adopt the chimpanzees as human. Then, of course, we'll go up the slippery slope to gorillas, orangutans, and on to the entire animal kingdom.
In fact, Lucy may not need to be cloned. The idea I am trying to convey can be understood from the undeniable fact that we, the animals, are all relatives. The fact that the evolutionary mediators between the chimpanzees and us are extinct is a coincidence. Unfortunately, there are people who have to see the words in a heartbeat to be convinced. Lucy, come home!
Richard Dawkins is the author of the book "The Selfish Garden"
One response
I would like to see a living and biting Tyrannosaurus Rex.