What'sNEW
Scientists have long dreamed of discovering the alchemy by which chemicals can be turned into life. ...A team [has] taken a major step toward that vision.
These are opening words in a New York Times article describing a very impressive research project at The University of Minnesota. A team there attempted to create a minimal synthetic cell by piecing together some basic, molecular parts and a few borrowed parts, like replication and transcription enzymes. They claim only partial success, but it's still noteworthy. With a genome of only 90kb, the cell can divide, take up nutrients and persist for five generations. Wth no ribosome, it cannot synthesize proteins. The project was extremely complex, and the lengthy writeup is informative. Of course they mention possible commercial or medical applications, and safety issues. I haven't digested it all. The research is supported by a newly established non-profit.
One of the most ambitious and fascinating goals of bioengineering is to build a biochemical system that could cross the threshold from chemistry to life, they write. I can imagine that as technology advances, they might manufacture a ribosome and write all the necessary genes and eventually be able to make a cell chemically and genetically identical to a bacterial cell. If so, the manmade cell might get loose, swap genes with a free-living population of bacteria, and disappear into the crowd. That's life, right?
The origin-of-life research industry will see implications in this project. That is evident in the first sentence of the NYT story, and is suggested by the phrase, "the threshold from chemistry to life." Yet this team doesn't mention that subject. They never suggest that any of the countless technological steps necessary to reach the threshold —a biological cell— could happen by itself. The sheer complexity of the project reinforces my suspicion that the origin-of-life is impossible. This research has other objectives.
 This Cell Feeds, Grows and Reproduces. And It's Manmade. by Carl Zimmer and Marco Hernandez, The New York Times, online 01 Jul 2026; re:
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable of Growth and Replication, by Nathaniel J. Gaut et al, (190 pages) [biotic.org: abstract with links | bioRxiv], 02 Jul 2026.
 The RNA World and Other Origin-of-Life Theories has background and updates.
What Is Life? has related discussion.
Dear Martina -- Many thanks for this book; I probably wouldn't have known of it otherwise. Of course, it resonates with me because Kropotkin argues that Darwinism doesn't explain a lot about evolution. He specifically notices the cooperation that animals, from insects to humans, naturally exhibit. His catalog of examples is almost overwhelming. (He extends his argument to include human cultural progress, with relevance to pre-Soviet Russia.)
Today, 125 years later, we know about genes and DNA; this knowledge helps us to understand much about inheritance, genetic defects, microevolution and the like. It does not explain the genetic programming that major evolutionary changes require. However, if new genes aren't really new, surprises like un-selfish evolution are much more logical. As you know, the implications for cosmic life are profound. Thanks, Martina, for knowing about Kropotkin. He was a skeptic and non-conformist who understood life intuitively, 125 years ago. He was my kind of guy.
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin, Introduction and Notes by David Priestland, Penguin Classics, 2022. First published, 1902.
 Thanks, Martina Car and Anthony Audi of Paradigm Shift Films, LLC.
"Horizontal gene transfer observed in human cells," by Amy McDermott, PNAS, with video, 19 Jun 2026.
Thanks, Google Alerts.
![]()
|