Your News report "Anthropologists cast doubt on human DNA evidence" (Nature 423, 468; 200310.1038/423468b) refers to our study of two 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, whose mitochondrial DNA sequences were similar to those in today's humans (D. Caramelli et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 6593–6597; 2003). You report views from the community that ancient DNA evidence cannot be used to draw conclusions about the evolution of modern humans because of fundamental problems in the technique. The criticisms you report are not based on the quality of our study. Neither of the quoted specialists questions our methodology, which was defined by one of them (A. Cooper and H. N. Poinar, Science 289, 1139; 2000). The problem is in the results. None of the nine tests we carried out suggests contamination by modern DNA, but the ancient sequences we determined look modern, so there is a suspicion that they are indeed modern, the result of contamination. You report views that the DNA of Cro-Magnons can be studied only if they were different from us. If they had the bad luck to be like us, their sequences must remain unknown forever. That is an unusual way to conceive science, and one that leads to paradox. If we are to apply this criterion of certainty to other areas, we should have abandoned anaesthesia (it may have side effects), air transportation (planes can fall down), cooked food (it may burn your fingers) and sexual reproduction (you might get AIDS). If it can be shown that there is an error in our paper, we shall be happy to reconsider our conclusions. Should our results be confirmed, we will be even happier. But if we did all the right things, as seems to be the case so far, it seems irrational to question our study just because one never knows.
Were Cro-Magnons too like us for DNA to tell?
BARBUJANI, Guido;BERTORELLE, Giorgio
2003
Abstract
Your News report "Anthropologists cast doubt on human DNA evidence" (Nature 423, 468; 200310.1038/423468b) refers to our study of two 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, whose mitochondrial DNA sequences were similar to those in today's humans (D. Caramelli et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 6593–6597; 2003). You report views from the community that ancient DNA evidence cannot be used to draw conclusions about the evolution of modern humans because of fundamental problems in the technique. The criticisms you report are not based on the quality of our study. Neither of the quoted specialists questions our methodology, which was defined by one of them (A. Cooper and H. N. Poinar, Science 289, 1139; 2000). The problem is in the results. None of the nine tests we carried out suggests contamination by modern DNA, but the ancient sequences we determined look modern, so there is a suspicion that they are indeed modern, the result of contamination. You report views that the DNA of Cro-Magnons can be studied only if they were different from us. If they had the bad luck to be like us, their sequences must remain unknown forever. That is an unusual way to conceive science, and one that leads to paradox. If we are to apply this criterion of certainty to other areas, we should have abandoned anaesthesia (it may have side effects), air transportation (planes can fall down), cooked food (it may burn your fingers) and sexual reproduction (you might get AIDS). If it can be shown that there is an error in our paper, we shall be happy to reconsider our conclusions. Should our results be confirmed, we will be even happier. But if we did all the right things, as seems to be the case so far, it seems irrational to question our study just because one never knows.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
