![]() Today, the fields of chemistry, biology and computing have come together to give rise to modern genomics and genetic science. Depictions of killer cyborgs in the movie Terminator, as well as an AI system gone bad in 2001: A Space Odyssey, indicate society’s concern about artificial “life.”īut popular fears haven’t stopped the train of exploratory science. Popular literature even took up this theme the frightening and vengeful creature created by the mad scientist Frankenstein captured the imaginations of laypeople who feared what science might do.Įven in the modern era, the idea of artificial intelligence also raises moralistic questions. ![]() Those more morally minded fear that creating life artificially will bring down horrific punishment from on high or even that intelligent artificial life might develop beyond our control. Plenty of people fear the potential dangers involved in “playing god.” ![]() Today, the question is whether we should. On the other are individuals who adhere to the idea of vitalism, which postulates that life is dependant on a “soul” or some vital function that animates it.īut the question of whether we can produce life artificially is no longer as pressing as it once was. On one side stands those who believe that “life” is determined exclusively by cellular processes or physical and chemical reactions – nothing more. Society held fast to the idea that human life was precious and special if a scientist could artificially reproduce something a human does naturally, what does that say about humanity’s uniqueness, then? Such a feat might seem inconsequential today, but at the time it was shocking. To show that this notion was false, he chemically synthesized urea, the primary component of urine. The debate began in earnest in 1828, when German chemist Friedrich Wöhler challenged the idea that organic and inorganic materials differed in some fundamental way. Since the nineteenth century, the scientific community has debated the concept of artificial life and the potential for its creation. Latent in this work is the assumption that all biological life can be reduced to the cellular level – an echo of Schrödinger’s hypothesis from all those decades ago. And since 1970, when Crick firmly established the process by which genetic information is transmitted via DNA, scientists have worked diligently to deconstruct and comprehend the entire genetic code. Before their efforts, it was commonly believed that proteins – and not DNA – were the carriers of genetic information.Įver since, scientists have worked to further unravel DNA’s many mysteries. These men also discovered how DNA reproduces and passes its information from generation to generation, work that earned them a Nobel Prize in 1962. They also identified DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) as the crucial carrier of the code that determines an organism's genetic information. In 1953, Watson and Crick took a closer look at DNA and discovered its now well-known double-helix form. Importantly, Schrödinger’s ideas inspired scientists James Watson and Francis Crick in their own work, which led to the discovery of what we now know as the genetic code for human life. ![]() Schrödinger was one of the first thinkers to suggest that everything that happens in a cell can be explained solely through physical and chemical processes. In it, he examines what exactly makes humans “tick” – and essentially set the stage for modern genetics research. In 1944, Schrödinger published What is Life?, a book based on his lectures. (Schrödinger, a Nobel laureate, is also notable for his pioneering work in quantum physics.) How did he achieve this? Schrödinger in essence presented a new way of interpreting biological life. In fact, it was exactly this profound question that led physicist Erwin Schrödinger to hold a series of groundbreaking lectures that provoked not just the gathered scientific minds but also a veritable revolution in science as well. The study of biology asks one profound, powerful question: “What is life?”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |