Slashdot Mirror


Primordial Soup: Interview with Stanley Miller

An anonymous reader writes "Stanley Miller's classic 'primordial soup' experiments showed that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask. For its fifty-year commemoration, Miller is interviewed today and reflects on what Carl Sagan called 'the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.'"

5 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Land Sharks by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

    showed that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask

    Of course, certain products of his experiments often indicate that not all of them are necessary. These products are, of course, "intellectual property lawyers." :-)

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  2. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Primordial Recipe: Spark and Stir
    Date Wednesday, May 14 @ 00:48:06
    Topic Extrasolar Life

    No single experiment, according to Carl Sagan, has done more to convince scientists that life is 'likely abundant in the cosmos' than the work fifty years ago by then graduate student, Stanley Miller. This week celebrates his milestone publication, and Astrobiology Magazine interviewed him about his work and reflections today.
    Primordial Recipe: Spark and Stir
    by Astrobiology Magazine staffwriter

    Fifty years ago on May 15, 1953, a University of Chicago graduate student, Stanley Miller, published a landmark two-page paper in Science magazine. He considered if amino acids could be made from what was known about the early Earth's atmosphere. Could the building blocks of life be cooked up?

    "... some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc...", Charles Darwin, on the origins of life in tidal pools
    Credit:Smithsonian

    Miller began his paper:

    "The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis..."

    When Miller first presented his experimental findings to a large seminar, it is reported that at one point, Enrico Fermi politely asked if it was known whether this kind of process could have actually taken place on the primitive Earth. Harold Urey, Stanley's research advisor, immediately replied, saying 'If God did not do it this way, then he missed a good bet'. The seminar ended amid the laughter and, as the attendees filed out, some congratulated Stanley on his results.

    Although Miller had submitted his paper in mid-December 1952, one reviewer did not believe the results and delayed its publication until May 15th. Later Carl Sagan would do many experiments varying the chemical percentages, but described the Miller-Urey experiments as "the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos."
    Early Earth: Flash in a Flask
    Even today, only a few definitive things are known about what the Earth might have been like four billion years ago. It is thought that the early sun radiated only 70 percent of its modern power. No free oxygen could be found in Earth's atmosphere. The rocky wasteland lacked life. Absent were viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. Even the temperature itself is uncertain, since three schools of thought today maintain that the Earth could have been alternatively frozen, temperate or steamy.

    Charles Darwin imagined life springing from a temperate world, with small ponds or runoff channels. Compared to diluted chemistry in a vast ocean, repeated evaporation and refilling have possible advantages, to find just the right concentrations somewhere so that biochemistry could begin. Glaciers, volcanoes, geysers and cometary debris potentially resupplied this primordial pond with both energy and more complex organic compounds. That is a scenario requiring relatively temperate starting conditions, and more extreme possibilities are also in the mix.

    If the early Earth was a cauldron of volcanic activity, then seepage of acidic gases and heating might have circulated vital compounds to the surface. These vents may have been underwater, and precursors to biochemistry like acetic acid may have become reactive in combination with carbon monoxide. Alternatively, if the early Earth lacked any greenhouse of blanketing carbon dioxide, life could still have begun in a ball of ice. When combined with water, even a thin atmosphere of organics (formaldehyde, cyanide and ammonia) can create some building blocks of life (such as the amino acid, glycine). Thawing this 'snowball Earth' could then be triggered by a chance collision with large comets or meteors.

    Terrestrial options for ea

  3. Re:Carl Sagan was missing Billions and Billions of by dubstop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're whining that the odds are too big, but it's guys like Stanley Miller that are trying to figure out exactly how big those odds are.

    You might want to actually provide some facts as to why Carl Sagan was wrong, rather than make an ad hominem attack. Most truly academic scientists generally take a bit more convincing than just being told that, "The guy was an asshole, so he must be wrong."

  4. Re:I tried this experiment in high school...sort o by laughing_badger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It really shouldn't be a shock that you recieved a high mark.

    Education should provoke thought. Just training kids to pass tests is of no value. What you did, analysing your results and thinking about _why_ you got them shows far more 'talent' than someone who just repeated an experiment that is guaranteed to give good results.

    Sigh! Rant over. It is just crushing to see very little evidence of people designing their science lessons to impart the ability to think, like the guy who wrote Clouds in a Glass of Beer did.

    --
    Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
  5. Re:Ah, but does he mention that his amino acids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The significant thing is that Miller was able to produce amino acids in the first place. leonbrooks is using the classic fundamentalist creationist tactic of taking a scientific success and portraying it as a failure because the experiment did not meet 100% of the artificial requirements that he has generated for it.

    This is the same thought process that causes them to say "Evolution can't possibly be true because there is a missing link between species A and species C," and then when species B is discovered, they say "Aha! Now you have even bigger problems, because there is no link between A and B, and B and C!" :-)