Sunday, March 8, 2009

Definitions: What is Life?

I was reading this very interesting article about the recent sucess in creating synthetic life. Those of you taking AP Bio will undoubtedly understand this better than the rest of us, but from what I understood, the researchers had figured out how to create a self-replicating ribosome, capable of synthesizing its own proteins:

"Harvard University scientists are a step closer to creating synthetic forms of life, part of a drive to design man-made organisms that may one day be used to help produce new fuels and create biotechnology drugs.

Researchers led by George Church, whose findings helped spur the U.S. human genome project in the 1980s, have copied the part of a living cell that makes proteins, the building blocks of life. The finding overcomes a major roadblock in making synthetic self-replicating organisms, Church said today in a lecture at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The technology can be used to program cells to make virtually any protein, even some that don’t exist in nature, the scientists said. That may allow production of helpful new drugs, chemicals and organisms, including living bacteria. It also opens the door to ethical concerns about creation of processes that may be uncontrollable by life’s natural defenses.

“It’s the key component to making synthetic life,” Church said yesterday in a telephone call with reporters. “We haven’t made synthetic life and it’s not our primary goal, but this is a huge milestone in that direction.”

The work may be immediately helpful to companies such as Synthetic Genomics Inc., headed by J. Craig Venter, trying to make new organisms that perform specific tasks, such as converting buried coal into methane gas that’s easier to extract from the ground.

Microbes for Coal

Venter’s plan is to create man-made microbes that can help break down the coal in the earth, much as bacteria speed decomposing plant material.

In a conference for alumni today at Harvard, Church described how his team assembled a reconstituted ribosome, the first artificial version of the structure capable of remaking itself.

Naturally occurring ribosomes are used now when biotechnology companies genetically engineer cells to make the proteins for vaccines and drugs, such asGenentech Inc.’s Herceptin. Normal ribosomes make some drugs slowly, and others can’t be made at all, said Anthony Forster, a Vanderbilt University pharmacologist who has collaborated with Church on synthetic biology projects.

A man-made, or reconstituted, ribosome may be programmable to make all kinds of molecules, Forster said.

Efficient Protein Making

“There would be advantages to having ribosomes that would only make specific proteins” said James Collins, a Boston University biomedical engineer, in a telephone interview. “Then you could program ribosomes so that they shut down much of the rest of the cell, only making the proteins you want to produce. You could shift the cell’s machinery to making certain products or fuels, for example, and really increase efficiency.”

Specially programmed ribosomes might also have the ability to make mirror images of the active molecules in existing drugs, Church said. These mirror-image versions, sometimes called chirals, would be impervious to enzymes that the body usually uses to break down chemicals.

“They would have a longer stability in natural environments,” Church said.

Ribosomes have been synthesized before, some as long as 40 years ago. Because they were made only under specialized conditions of temperature and salt concentration, scientists couldn’t get them to recreate themselves, a key requirement in making artificial life.

Security Concerns

Artificial life and drugs that can’t be broken down by the body’s natural enzymes raise a number of serious concerns, said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.

As the tools of synthetic biology become easier to use, bioterrorists and criminals may attempt to exploit them, he said. Well-meaning scientists might also release potentially deadly organisms and chemicals into the environment.

“A number of proposals have been made about controlling access to this technology,” Magnus said in a telephone interview. “The synthetic biology community takes these issues seriously and are talking about what it will take to make sure we have effective oversight.”

The first artificial organisms are likely to be grown in highly controlled conditions, and would probably be unable to exist outside the laboratory, said Vanderbilt’s Forster.

Lab Escape Improbable

“It might sound scary initially, but it would almost be on life support,” he said. “It would probably be highly dependent on someone feeding it 30 or more small molecules. It wouldn’t be likely to escape into the environment and run amok.”

Church has advised 22 companies on genetic sequencing since 1984. Technology he developed was licensed to Applied Biosystems Inc., purchased last year by Life Technologies Corp. The technology is used to make Life’s sequencing products.

The Harvard geneticist last year received backing from Google Inc. for a project to decipher the genomes of 100,000 people using sequencers, machines that quickly read the genetic code, the instructions for making all its proteins that is stored in DNA molecules. A complementary molecule, called RNA, sends the genetic messages to structures called ribosomes that act like factories producing proteins.

New Help

To reach his latest goal, Church last year hired Michael Jewett, a chemical and biological engineer who had been at Stanford University near Palo Alto, California. Jewett was one of the few people who had the knowledge of protein synthesis to move the effort forward. The project was done within a year.

“We really thought this was going to be hard, I can’t overemphasize that,” Church said. “I’m probably not articulating how exciting this is.”

Jewett quickly found ways to make and assemble the 54 proteins and three RNA molecules that go into making a ribosome. Church said he now has a “tubeful” of reconstituted ribosomes, containing millions of the artificial structures. While the findings haven’t been published, Church said they’ve been replicated many times.

Church “is a pioneer in biotechnology who, with this latest study, has established himself as a pioneer in synthetic biology,” said Boston University’s Collins."


This made me think of the cliche "What is life?" and the endless debates over different definitions of what life is. These researchers have obviously created their own definition of life, and I wanted to hear thoughts on exactly what it is and how you think they would define it.

(Streve Szumski)

5 comments:

L Lazarow said...

Defining "life" is one of the most controversial things to do. Mr. Lazarow even said this; that's why none of us could pick abortion as our term paper topic. We'd spend the whole paper debating the definition of a word and then fail to win after presenting our argument.

I personally find cloning of human somatic cells and other animals to be somewhat unethical. We were made to be unique; let's keep it that way. On the other hand, the ribosomes in this article seem to occur naturally, independently of technological interference. Although the ribosomes are manipulated eventually, the actual formation remains untampered.

Also, the microbes used for coal are indeed man-made, yet they remain microbes, on the lowest levels of the biological chain of life. These microbes are bettering the life of humans, and therefore we find their sacrifice as something insignificant. It's pretty interesting how we never hesitate to kill plants and low organisms, but value human and higher animals lives severely. Hmm.. Why is this? Is it only because we can't necessarily relate to microbes on a certain level?

(Sam Maliha)

L Lazarow said...

As Sam mentioned, defining "life" is one of the most controversial things that can be done. It seems that the authors of this article may be saying that something created artificially can be considered "life."

One thing that I'm wondering about (and I'm not trying to get into an abortion debate, trust me) is the different meanings that life takes on in different contexts. For example, we consider plants a form of life. We consider almost any living and reproducing cell a form of life. Yet, there are some forms of life that we are more prone to "protect" than others. For example, we are more likely to take a wounded dog to the vet than an ant with a missing leg... I hope you get my point. My question is, then, how do we distinguish between the forms of life that we should care for and the forms of life that can be dealt with with less care? Where is the line that we draw in our own minds between a form of life that we must protect and a form of life that we don't feel guilty about not protecting?
I hope I'm getting my question across clearly...

I guess where this falls into the abortion category is, when does a baby in its mother's womb cross the line from being a mass of cells to a baby? Obviously by different definitions everybody would agree that these are both forms of "life," per se. But, a mass of cells is not quite as valued as a person. And this is the basic argument among pro-life and pro-choice advocates. But, the question I'm trying to ask is more general. In general, where is it that people draw the line between valued life and life with less value? Back to the example of the wounded dog and the ant without a leg... why do we tend to care for a dog more than an ant? Why is the dog a more valued form of life than the ant?

Some food for thought. I'm curious to hear what you all have to say...

Emily T.

L Lazarow said...

To answer your question, Emily, I realize that I have to be extremely opionated. Of course, my definition of life and my boundary of what form of life is more significant vary from the rest of you. Therefore, by responding to your question, I feel as if I am going to generate a lot of responses.

To me, the difference of saving a dog and an ant is about its significance and each animal's impact on my life. I know I sound selfish, but I know I like dog better than an ant. To be more honest with you, I actually am not fond of any type of animals (except homo sapiens) so I probably won't take the dog to the vet either(I know it's really mean, but honestly 1)I would be really scared 2)I don't think most people would actually take the time to take the stray dog to a vet).

Obviously, a dog has a bigger impact on people's minds. First of all, it's more visible than an ant. If people see a dog bleeding, they would know that it hurts to lose a leg(especially to those who have experienced a similar type of injury before) whereas an ant can't bleed or even if it does, it's really hard to see it. I assume that a stronger connection to an animal determines its significance to humans and affects our emotions more effectively.

My second thought is that ant's population is much bigger than dog's. To use an analogy, what would you rather choose to lose? a single strand of hair or your finger?

Jennifer Park

L Lazarow said...

This debate made me think back to Harvard Model congress in which we debated legalizing a certain type of stem cell research. The bill refered specifically to Human Animal Hybrids, cells that would be created and allowed to grow for 12 days . They would be created from taking the nucleus from a human cell (a skin or hair cell would suffice- not embryonic or other types of cells) and putting it into an animal cell with the nucleus removed. Sorry if that wasn't the most illustrative of definitions but I have a very limited understanding of all things biology related.

People were infuriated with even the idea of this bill. The argued vehemently against it and eventually voted it down on principle. I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me the issue with this. How is this life? It would be around for only 12 days and the cells could come from a human hair. Would we consider hair life? I mean it seems ludicrous to me. We don't spend our time crying over the the skin cells we clean off in the shower, how could this be so offensive? Can something be considered life just because it came from a human? I simply cannot grasp this. Unlike other debates with abortion etc. where I can fully understand the idea that "life" is being ended even if I don't agree with it, I cannot grasp opposition to research like this.

And if we consider this life, if we hold these tiny skin cells in such high regard, how can we be so thoughtless with regard to life in other cases. We allow and even laud the scientists who perform experiments on animals in research for disease prevention and treatment, though many animals are killed. Why is it that as soon as something as a human element, even one as minute as a skin cell nucleus, we develop a whole new level of caring?

Molly Dunbar

L Lazarow said...

Well, I realize that we've been arguing over the biological meanings of life so far, but there's another interesting avenue of thought...

What about robots, and artifical intelligence? I remember watching the movie Bicentennial Man many years ago, in which a robot attempts to become "human" and thus "alive." After that movie, I recall arguing with my brother whether that sentient, sensitive robot could be considered alive. By many defintions, he was: he could feel emotions, could think as a human, and behaved as one. But ultimately, he was not made of blood and cells but constructed from chips of silicon. So was he alive?

As our robots become more and more advanced, I wonder if this question will more relevant as time passes along...
-Eric Wei