In Mary Shelley’s classic tale “Frankenstein,” the infamous monster comes to life when an assortment of salvaged human organs and animal parts are stitched together and zapped with electricity. A mystical blend of science and imagination brings the creature to life with a burst of lightning.
Unlike fiction, the real-world creation of life is far from simple. However, using nature’s own biological tools could pave the way to addressing many of humanity’s challenges.
Recently, a groundbreaking innovation took center stage: a “synthetic cell” known as SpudCell. Bioengineered from essential biomolecules like proteins, lipids, and DNA, this artificial cell has sparked excitement among scientists for its potential to replicate living cell functions and its promise for revolutionary therapeutic advancements.
Yet, this leaps us into an age-old philosophical dilemma: Are we daringly taking on the role of creators, much like Dr. Frankenstein?
Synthetic cells hold promise as minuscule couriers for delivering medication directly to diseased tissues. They might be engineered to synthesize crucial substances such as insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines right inside a patient. Envision a future where these artificial cells not only produce anticancer drugs but also transport them straight to a tumor, potentially rendering chemotherapy and other harsh treatments obsolete.
Their potential benefits extend to the stars. Long-term space exploration poses all sorts of medical risks. Artificial cells could heal astronauts when doctors aren’t around. If a space cadet gets sick, all he’d have to do is open a packet of synthetic cells and add water — the necessary medications could be manufactured on demand.
These little wonders could even be deployed into the environment to consume toxic chemicals or clean contaminated water.
What could go wrong?
A lot.
For every positive use of synthetic cells, someone out there would create an evil use. Infectious biowarfare capabilities could be apocalyptic.
Or consider another foreseeable nightmare scenario where we produce synthetic cells that consumes oil to clean up spills. Everything is going gangbusters. Until the cells find their way into the world’s oil reserves and eat those up too.
The entire balance of nature could be overthrown.
What if synthetic cells have better Darwinian fitness than natural microorganisms, outcompeting earth’s native bacteria? Some have sounded alarms about the possibility of so-called “mirror life” — hypothetical synthetic cells that function like normal bacteria. But their internal internal enzymes would be flipped compared to all known bacteria. That means our immune systems — and the rest of nature’s — might not recognize these invaders and would have no ability to combat them. They could devour all existing life.
Could this be our punishment for trying to create artificial “life”?
And the question remains: Should these creations be considered truly alive? If recent reactions to SpudCell are any indication, then the media is eager to hype the inventions as real life.
In response to recent successes by Kate Adamala, a University of Minnesota synthetic biologist, CNN claimed, “Scientists say they have built a cell from scratch for the first time that can feed, grow and replicate like a natural cell.”
But SpudCell isn’t alive — if we mean to describe something that can survive in a natural environment, metabolize nutrients, and perpetually self-replicate. And it was hardly made “from scratch.”
Even the New York Times acknowledged that “SpudCell’s originators do not claim to have created life.” Still, one of the scientists involved called it “a genuine milestone on the road toward” the question of lab-engineered life.
Even this is misguided.
Life excels at multiplying. But SpudCell can only survive for a handful of replications before its machinery degrades and ceases to function. This is because SpudCell cannot produce ribosomes — highly complex biomolecular machines that all living cells make to manufacture proteins. SpudCell must be fed a steady diet of ribosomes — all originally made by other real cells.
SpudCells also lack a functional metabolism. As a result, they must be suspended in a “broth” of biomolecules which allow them to perform fundamental functions.
Another area where SpudCell fails to qualify as life is its inability to fully pass on traits to future generations. As bioengineer Tara Daens stated, “It doesn’t reliably pass on its genetic material.”
None of this negates SpudCell’s impressive abilities, of course. But even if we’re playing God, we can’t become Him.
There’s an old joke about scientists who boast to God that they’ve figured out how to make a man. “We start with some dirt,” they begin, until God interjects, “Hold on — you’ve got to get your own dirt!”
This is the essence of SpudCell: Its creators borrowed all the “dirt” in the form of functional information-rich genes, molecular machinery, and enzymes, stolen from living cells.
SpudCell is a testament not only to the cleverness of man, but also a powerful reminder that life originates only through intelligent design.
Casey Luskin is a PhD scientist and Associate Director at Discovery Institute.