Comments on: Synthesizing life http://www.starchamber.com/2006/01/synthesizing-life.html Ned Gulley's Blog. Resident buzzwords: synthetic biology, ambient displays, swarm robotics, wise crowds. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:50:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Ned http://www.starchamber.com/2006/01/synthesizing-life.html#comment-876 Ned Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:32:54 +0000 http://starchamber.com/?p=1195#comment-876 Excellent! I've been trying to provoke a response from a responsible biologist with my free-wheeling glad-handing shoot-from-the-hip "let's build a lab in the back yard and make life" attitude. And since I haven't heard from Mike in a while, it's doubly good news. I love biology, but I'm no biologist, so it's good to have somebody keeping the discussion honest. Excellent! I’ve been trying to provoke a response from a responsible biologist with my free-wheeling glad-handing shoot-from-the-hip “let’s build a lab in the back yard and make life” attitude. And since I haven’t heard from Mike in a while, it’s doubly good news. I love biology, but I’m no biologist, so it’s good to have somebody keeping the discussion honest.

]]> By: Mike http://www.starchamber.com/2006/01/synthesizing-life.html#comment-875 Mike Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:45:23 +0000 http://starchamber.com/?p=1195#comment-875 As a responsible biologist, I am compelled to take up the gauntlet and point out some oversimplifications in this venture. While I love this "minimal cell" stuff personally, I have to take issue with the quote, "the question is of fundamental importance because practically every cell must have those minimal functions." This assumes that life is composed of autonomous cells, since that's ultimately what they're studying. Assumptions are generally bad practice, and are certainly not scientific. "But," you say, "I learned that all life IS composed of cells." Well, as Karl Popper pointed out, collected observations are not proof; at the time the time the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory" rel="nofollow">Cell theory</a> was postulated, the authors left out the words "identified to date" such that subsequent acellular lifeforms (e.g. viruses) are still regarded as non-living by many adherents. For that matter, the original statement of the Cell theory would place bread mold in the non-living category. Oops. The other problem with the statement is the whole autonomy thing - in humans we refer to "cells that function autonomously" as cancer. As a responsible biologist, I am compelled to take up the gauntlet and point out some oversimplifications in this venture.

While I love this “minimal cell” stuff personally, I have to take issue with the quote, “the question is of fundamental importance because practically every cell must have those minimal functions.” This assumes that life is composed of autonomous cells, since that’s ultimately what they’re studying. Assumptions are generally bad practice, and are certainly not scientific. “But,” you say, “I learned that all life IS composed of cells.” Well, as Karl Popper pointed out, collected observations are not proof; at the time the time the Cell theory was postulated, the authors left out the words “identified to date” such that subsequent acellular lifeforms (e.g. viruses) are still regarded as non-living by many adherents. For that matter, the original statement of the Cell theory would place bread mold in the non-living category. Oops.

The other problem with the statement is the whole autonomy thing - in humans we refer to “cells that function autonomously” as cancer.

]]>