Assembling Life From Scratch

In the search for a deeper understanding of the nature of life, some scientists have recently focused their research on developing self-replicating cells assembled from nonliving organic and inorganic matter.

In his laboratory, Steen Rasmussen, team leader of the Self-Organizing Systems section at Los Alamos National Laboratory, combines organic and inorganic materials in an attempt to develop such protocells. These basic units show very little resemblance to modern life. For example, the current protocell design does not have a single biomolecule in common with a modern living cell and exists on the nano-scale, about a million times smaller than a bacterium.

It is hypothesized that after these protocells form, they have the potential to replicate like other forms of life, Rasmussen said during a recent lecture at AAAS. If this path can be scientifically viewed and verified, it may shed light on physical and chemical processes that led to the origins of life both on Earth and throughout the Universe as well as enable new technologies.

“The kind of questions this work seeks to address include: What is minimal life?” Rasmussen said at the lecture sponsored by the AAAS’s Dialogue on Science, Religion and Ethics (DoSER) as part of its autumn series on evolution and the origin of life. “How can minimal life be useful, are we alone in the universe, and where do we come from?”

“While there is a rich body of research findings that support contemporary understanding of the evolution of life,” noted Jim Miller, DoSER senior program associate, “two of the great mysteries of science are the questions what constitutes life and how does life originate.” Possibly the most intriguing aspect of Rasmussen’s research is the shattering of discrete distinctions between nonliving and living matter.

Rasmussen was quick to point out that although this research has the potential to shed light on the origins of life on Earth, at this stage it is more general inquiry into the undefined and poorly understood topic of artificial life. “It’s too early to say where this research will bring us. We need wheels on a bus before it can drive us anywhere. We are in the process of making the wheels,” he said.

If his designs are successful, his work will have great implications for technology and industry. Specifically, it will be possible to engineer living-technologies, which will be robust, autonomous, adaptive, and even self-replicating, if necessary.

Rasmussen notes that most people assume a sharp division between technology and living systems. “Imagine the watch… if it breaks, someone has to fix it; but if you scratch your arm, it heals,” he explained. But “if we can understand how to make self-replicating materials… we will then be able to make powerful technology based on the same principles as living systems.”

With the appearance of this enabling technology, a number of societal, ethical and religious issues emerge. Peter Madsen, executive director for the Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics and Political Philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University, pointed out that the implications of scientific research must be examined to ensure that they are principled and ethical. But he also noted that there are a variety of ethical frameworks that can be used.

He identified utilitarian ethics as the dominant one in contemporary culture. He defined an act as ethical in a utilitarian sense if “it achieved the greatest good, for the greatest number.”

In addition, Madsen, who served as the lecture’s respondent, pointed out that the development of a new area of science and technology — nanotechnology, for example — should proceed with prudence. Specifically, Madsen highlighted the fact that when dealing with the scientific frontier, previous guidelines and protocols, in addition to literature addressing cautionary issues, may be scarce. This leads some to suggest that the guiding ethical perspective should be the “precautionary principle” — that is, where little is understood about the outcome of research applications but some possible outcomes could be extremely bad, great caution should guide the research and development.

Although Rasmussen’s research falls into the category that Madsen classifies as frontier research, the ethicist made clear that the application of the precautionary principle should not cause nanoscience and technological development to cease.

Rasmussen suggested that it is in the best interest of society to engage the various social stakeholders early in consideration of the broader societal implications of such new and possibly profound scientific and technological innovation. This ensures a more transparent process of information-sharing and can reduce the likelihood of unintended consequences either through error or malicious intent.

AAAS established DoSER in 1995 to facilitate communication between scientific and religious communities. DoSER builds on AAAS’s long-standing commitment to relate scientific knowledge and technological development to the purposes and concerns of a society at large. The objectives of the program are to contribute to the level of scientific understanding in religious communities and to promote multidisciplinary education and scholarship of the ethical and religious implications of advancements in science and technology.

Benjamin Somers

8 Decmber 2005