Today’s Popular Posts
- .
Popular Posts
- ,
Posts in this Impact Area: (Synthetic Biology)
- Brillouin Spectroscopy: Using an old technique to get a new picture of spider webs
- Synthetic biology: Pituitary glands from stem cells
- Synthetic biology: Making new proteins with E. coli by adding DNA
- Micromold technology: New technique for fabricating cells and tissues
- Toward a new DNA: thymine out, chlorouracil in
- Synthetic biology: Improve photosynthesis
- Stem cell research: Synthetic retina tissue
- Making a start on a synthetic liver
- Important new tool for research: An artificial ovary
- Update: Synthetic DNA in a bacterium (a.k.a. synthetic life)
- Synthetic life, as developed by Craig Venter et al
- Micromasonry: Building artificial tissues with tiny ‘bricks’
- Bioengineered human skin
- Using artificial photosynthesis (in a virus) to split water
- New medical paradigm: Growing human organs in animals
- Follow-up: iGEM and BioBricks
- iGEM: Proselytizing for synthetic biology
- Synthetic muscle restores the blink of an eye
- Concept News: Engineering tissue from fractal channels
- Replacing the larynx with a palatometer
- More than a prosthetic, it’s SmartHand
- Iterating toward artificial life

Iterating toward artificial life
There’s more than one way to make a stew – but a primordial stew, the original mix of (whatever) materials from which life arose? This was a stew millions, if not hundreds of millions of years in the making. How can we recreate that evolutionary process within the ephemeral lifespan of a science laboratory? Then there’s the complexity factor. So many things contributed – temperatures, chemical processes, availability of component resources (e.g. water, organic compounds, trace elements). We’re attempting to put all this together in order to create artificial life. It seems, at best, daunting; perhaps impossible. (It may also be considered blasphemous, but that’s a topic for another time.) Yet there are many voices in the scientific community that say we will achieve this goal within the century, with certainty, and perhaps much sooner.
One of the reasons for confidence in the eventual discovery of how life evolved and the recreation of the pathways – the ability to create life ‘from scratch’ (…create life in a test tube, as the expression goes) – is the stunningly rapid advancement of microbiology and bioengineering. More and more detail is accumulating about the properties and processes of reproduction (DNA replication), and the life-sustaining processes of living cells. This detail is no longer the raw description drawn from simple observation, but the (more or less) precise description of chemistry. We’re pursuing the detail into the molecular level; into the nanoscale. It’s a painstaking process, but as the tools (scientific equipment) and the theory improves; the flow of results is gaining momentum.
Another approach to solving the mysteries of creating life is to make a model and run it on a computer. Better still, run the model on not one computer, even a supercomputer, but perhaps thousands of computers. A recent article in the New York Times by veteran science writer John Markoff, highlighted an attempt by a scientific team to enlist the help of people with a personal computer to create a network to crunch the fantastic number of repeated (iterated) calculations necessary to mimic the effect of millions of years of evolution.
As pointed out in the article, computer models of such complex systems are problematic. Because the models are tested in abstract terms (not in real life), there’s no guarantee that failures in assumptions or the built-in processes will be detected. Nevertheless, the exercise – if that’s all it is – may provide useful insights. It also expands our knowledge of the capabilities, and limitations, of massive computation. The system being put together for EvoGrid is interesting in its own right: