Slashdot Mirror
NASA Reproduces a Building Block of Life In the Lab
xp65 writes "NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life. 'We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space,' said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. 'We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth.'"
It's heading towards understanding the origins of life on earth and anywhere else it may have arisen or came from.
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common, but uh it could help in our search for life on other planets, creating useful life-like things on earth, and hey why not some medical applications? Geeze who cares at this point? Not I. This is basic research of the most important kind. Who knows what could result?
The enemies of Democracy are
They just happened by random chance.
Or, as the story shows, by entirely natural processes.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Basically its showing that the basic parts of RNA can form in conditions that are likely in outer space. If they can be shown to do so, then the theory that "life" (in some sort of manner) either started "out there" (cue Patrick Macnee), or that it's plausible that the parts came together on Earth in a natural fashion after being transported here by comets, meteorites, etc.
Wasn't that the secret ingredient that made Sucrets sooth sore throats 27% faster? Or Pampers 14% drier? Or Lucky Strikes the choice of five out of six doctors surveyed?
But seriously . . . cool.
If only because the Discovery Institute will have to scrap another set of creationist text books.
Exactly, my first though: "Oh shiznit, Jesus is gonna be pissed at NASA".
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Sure. Picture this: you really need some uracil, but don't have a lot of scratch to buy it. You're out of luck, right? WRONG! Got some pyrimidine, ice, and a source of UV light? Guess what? THAT'S ALL YOU NEED!
With all the money you'll save with this, maybe you could treat yourself to some fancypants store-bought cytosine.
If you need an application to appreciate that, then we have very little in common ...
Be kind. Most people need something tangible to inspire creative thought. To the OP, imagine, if you will, browsing the aisles of a toy store in your local mall. Next to the ant farm kits, and legos, you see
New from Ronco(TM). LifeBuilder(TM) 1.0.
Disclaimer: Space-like conditions and meteorites not included.
Or something like that.
At this point the coffin is made entirely of nails.
It's almost like a crown of nails, or like nails through the wrists.
Ohhhhh... too soon?
I have a feeling that this will lead to the speculation that Earth was therefore seeded with fundamental biomolecules from space and this paved the way for life to begin on Earth. I hope people don't jump to this conclusion too quickly. Personally, I find it unlikely and think there is a more likely interpretation, which I will get to in a moment. The reason this is unlikely is that just having biomolecules is not enough to start life processes. Especially in the time frame when life is hypothesized to have originated (~3.8Gya), as the surface of the Earth was completely covered by ocean at that time, and any seeding of organic molecules from external sources runs into the concentration problem: the problem of getting enough of the right molecules in the right place with the right concentration and the right inputs of energy and raw materials for biochemistry to begin. Any such seeding from external sources would end up very dilute, and biomolecules would likely break down before they could be gathered in sufficient concentrations.
Personally, one possible interpretation which I prefer is that these findings (and similar ones of finding amino acids in comets and such) indicate that organic biomolecules are fairly common and will form anywhere you have C, O, H, N, S, etc and energy. Not only would this indicate that biomolecules could form fairly easily on Earth, but that they are common in the universe, and organic life may arise just about anywhere you have an input of energy and raw materials and a way of concentrating those molecules so they will react and form self-organizing and self-replicating biochemistry.
My current favorite hypothesis about the origins of life on Earth are those championed by Martin and Russell. They hypothesize that life on Earth began and alkaline hydrothermal vents in the ocean, around which porous rocks of iron and nickel sulfide would form semi-permeable cell-like compartments in which basic organic molecules formed by the geochemistry of the vent could concentrate and react with each other. Raw materials would be constantly input from the vent, and there would be a constant energy gradient in the form of heat, pH, and proton-motive force. This neatly solves several problems of many hypotheses of abiogenesis: the energy problems, the raw materials problem, and the concentration problem to name a few. They outline the overall picture of going from geochemistry to biochemistry to prokaryotes to eukaryotes in this 2003 paper:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85
They further clarify the possible pathways for a shift from geochemistry to biochemistry in this 2006 paper:
On the origin of biochemistry at an alkaline hydrothermal vent - Martin and Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 29 October 2007 vol. 362 no. 1486 1887-1926
A search for either of those followed by clicking on the "Cited By" link on Google Scholar will yield many papers, including some actual experiments supporting them, which expand and clarify these hypotheses. Definitely worth a read if you are interested in the possible origins of life on Earth, as well as perhaps some ideas of what to look for when looking for life elsewhere.
Anyway, point being, this is fantastic work by NASA, and an excellent example of showing that these molecules can form naturally. Just be careful about drawing any definite conclusions from them other than the simple conclusion that Uracil can form in these natural conditions, and possibly or probably others.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
This does not show that the basic building blocks of life were made by entirely natural processes. This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes. I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too. Not to mention the difficulty in getting "building blocks" or "components" to end up forming the actual thing that they are components/building-blocks of.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
There's a committed portion of the US population who don't need to "head..towards understanding the origins of life" because they are absolutely certain that they know exactly how life came about because some Bronze Age scroll tells them so. They're not going to take kindly to anything that could challenge their certainty.
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
You think so, and I think so, but a very vocal and (seemingly) influential minority thinks it's heresy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm glad they at least included this part, eventually:
Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth.
I wish they had gone one better and stated that nobody understands IF life started on Earth.
So Say We ALL!
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Much like how Star Trek has helped inspire technology, I believe Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick pioneered an application that could utilize this. That application would be the orbital baby. How the baby was made and the uses of said baby are left up to the opinion of the viewer. Of course that could be said for the rest of 2001: A Space Odyssey as well.
Full disclosure: I don’t currently believe in such a God, due to lacking supporting evidence. However, as a scientist, I am more than willing to be proven wrong.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Obviously they have decided it's best to start from scratch this time...
No one is saying that this discovery somehow is some giant leap, but it sure makes the likelihood of the chemistry being more tenable. At any rate, at least us "evolutionists" come up with testable hypotheses. I mean, how do you falsify "God did it"? Or do you even bother as your movement spends more time trying to trick dimwitted school boards and judges into buying the pure crapola that is ID?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
On a cosmological timescale, if the separate parts are capable of coming together, then their existence makes that event an inevitability.
No one said what you think they said.
This is, however, one more piece of evidence to support evolution and one more bit of knowledge that we can use to understand where we came from.
There is no scientifically tenable theory for human origins except for evolution from a common ancestor. It's been that was for about a hundred years. Get over it.
I don't think we can use induction, in this case, to try to say that since we uracil can be formed with natural processes, all building blocks of life can be, too.
We can't use induction as proof, because this is not mathematics.
We can use induction to say that we can reasonably expect to discover that other building blocks can form from natural processes as well, though. At the very least, this reduces -- again -- the number of things we know can be formed naturally. The trend is pretty obvious, and if you're holding out on something coming up that can't be formed naturally then you'll probably be disappointed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Do you really think the bible belt in America is becoming more influential? I thought the trend today was moving away from religion (not to say it's moving towards science.) I ask this genuinely & coming from a country where I personally feel very little religious interference in my life, I find people with such strong blind faith really fascinating.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
I wouldn't be so sure that ten years from now this kind of research will be allowed, at least in public institutions. Don't forget that until recently there were bans on publicly-funded research which used cells from deceased embryos and lab-created blastocytes, because they "have souls".
That's just stupid. Simply put, there has to be a lot more fundamentalist Christians than there are for such a thing to come about. My view is that the embryo ban came about because it was an icky, new technology like cloning or artificial insemination. After it's been around for a couple of decades, nobody but a few people will give it a second thought.
Think of it like this... you like, bacon, right? When people go to colonize the distant stars, it would be helpful if there was already bacon there when they arrived. Bacon is made from pigs, which are living things, and almost all living things of which we are aware are in part made of this stuff.
So the odds have improved that our interstellar colonists will arrive at a place that already has salty, delicious bacon -- which is good, since by then they'll probably be almost already out after a long trip.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The first part of your argument I might be willing to swallow, since we (humans) are getting close to understanding how to create life. If we can do it, then it is possible that other intelligent life also has done it. This makes "Space alien ID" at least partially plausible.
The latter though-- that the being(s) resposible in an ID creation scenario would go through such extreme lengths to hide all evidence of such creation from their creations is getting well beyond the veil of possible credibility. In order for an intelligence to do something, it needs a reason, either concious or unconcious for doing so. So, if the creatures on the Earth are the result of an ID creation, then the creator(s) would have needed a reason to expend the resources to do so. (Either pure research, they needed a means to harvest something on our planet, or some other as of yet unknown need to perform the task.) The number of potentially plausible scenarios where an intelligence would need to do this, and then hide themselves from their own creations is pretty slim; Do we hide the fact that we modify corn, from the corn plants? Do we go out of our way to ensure the corn plants, SHOULD they evolve intelligence, never find out they were created?
Of course not. We created the GM corn to satisfy a need for a higher yeild foodstuff.
Likewise, if an ID creation event were to occur, it would be to create lifeforms that could perform some useful (to the creators) function in that environment. It would be no different from engineering germs that digest sulfur products to help process raw coal prior to combustion, or the creation of the GM corn; just on a more advanced/larger scale. There is no incentive to hide from the creations.
That is, unless you like to fantasize about some ID creation scenario where aliens produce intelligent humans out of the box to manipulate tools in an environment that is hostile to the creators, and the creators are fearful of reprisal or revolt against them from their created laborers. But, that is starting to get into the realm of cheesey dimestore science fiction like that found in Dianetics... And little to do with scientific plausibilities.
To be brutally honest, we do not have enough information to properly define the Drake equasion, which would be a prerequisite to determining the statistical liklihood of ID origin for any given planetary biosphere.
Right now the best evidence suggests it may have occured naturally, and that is the direction occam's razor suggests should be given the greatest attention, given the current lack of applicable data.
Is extraterrestrial ID possible? Certainly-- If we can make space probes, AND can engineer life forms, (even if they are just microbes)-- then we can potentially shower a suitable planetary or lunary system with such items, and cultivate life there. Is it the most probable explanation for life on Earth? Current evidence does not support that position.
They're refining the variables in the Drake Equation
Apparently the building blocks of life are not so very difficult to synthesize as to make us, the V's, or little green men, LIFE impossible to exist anywhere else.
On the series Cosmos Carl Sagan threw all the ingredients for life (carbon, nitrogen, water, etc) into a vat, stirred it up, and got nothing. I wonder what we will be stirring up in 20-50 years.
Also another direct application of this technique could be them trying out OTHER substances and situations that exist in space, and seeing what other kinds of life might exist, like with oceans of liquid hydrocarbons from Titan.
Do we hide the fact that we modify corn, from the corn plants? Do we go out of our way to ensure the corn plants, SHOULD they evolve intelligence, never find out they were created?
Um, you mean the ones that Monsanto gave Terminator genes to so they would never evolve into Skynet and kill us all?
This shows that a component of one of the building blocks of life can be made by natural processes.
The Miller-Urey experiment was also fruitful here. Over modest timescales in likely primordial Earth environments it appears that the building blocks formed are the ones commonest to all forms of life-as-we-know-it. The leap from "could have" to "did" is getting more manageable every few years.
The experiment in TFA goes further - finding methods for synthesis of the components not on a primordial Earth, but in space. This is a net positive for the panspermia theory. Oh, and BTW: you left off an important part of that quote.
Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed," explained Sandford.
We'll know more when we start dissecting comets, and even more when we dissect comets that orbit other stars. The tricky thing about life is that it takes darned little of it to make all of the life that we see.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
A argument can be made that this has already happened. LSD anyone?
You're making a very common error in understanding about what constitutes a scientific fact.
Evolution -is- a fact; evolution has been observed and tested and met the criteria of a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The number of scientific papers where evolution as fact has been observed number in the hundred thousand or millions.
This extraordinary body of evidence consists of numerous tests of evolution, and easily fulfills any common definition of fact.
Evolution is also a theory, in the scientific sense-- which means that it is a broadly applicable set of principles that help explain nature.
Much has been written regarding this; a little use of the 'ol google will provide much more to show you wrong.
Who ever moded you Offtopic is confused. NASA has basically repeated early 1950's science; why? If this experiment had been done on the Moon, then I would have lead a 3 Cheer Salute. This repeated experiment only reaffirms what is common knowledge in Middle School. So NASA, how about it, how about putting NASA's administrative offices on the Moon? That way when some scientists does something, the focus of, "Why Are We Here" can be made more clear, and at a level even a child could appreciate.
The example of artificial insemination is a good example. When artificial insemination was first introduced there was a lot of outcry over it. Now the only major objection is from the Catholic Church. Others who still object do so out of side-effects such as the destruction of embryos rather than objecting to the process as a whole (which the Catholic Church does). And in a few years even the Catholics will likely be fine with it.
But at the same time, this sort of example isn't so great. It involves a direct application: people are much more willing to change their ethical and moral attitudes when they see the actual benefits of a new technology.
The general worry of poor treatment of science is a valid one. Sarah Palin railed against research involving "fruit flies" and John McCain complained about research about bear DNA, and neither of those even had any moral or ethical component to them. There's a very strong anti-science attitude in certain groups in the United States. Worse, it appears on both sides of the political spectrum (the anti-vaccination movement and much of the fringier elements of alternative medicine are very much on the left end of the political spectrum). Moreover, strongly negative attitudes about evolution and abiogenesis research have already won out in some Islamic countries. Look at Turkey for example which is a nominally secular country (indeed with disturbingly enforced secularism) and yet evolution isn't taught in schools and universities have trouble doing any research connected to evolution or abiogenesis. See for example http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/11/islamic_creationism_in_the_new.php for a quick summary of the current situation in the Islamic world. Moreover, Islamic creationists in Turkey have succeeded partially due to support and cooperation with Christian creationists in the United States. So it is possible for religious fanatics to really restrict this sort of thing: It has happened in other countries. Is it likely? Probably not. But it isn't impossible.
I agree that research should be allowed on this stuff but some of the opposition isn't crazy Christians. People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human". This has nothing to do with souls and more to do with defining important things like what constitutes murder. When is the magic point where some living thing goes from being thrown away as abortion waste to being something so valuable that society could potentially put someone to death for killing it.
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons. Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I think this scientific research is way more important than a national health care plan, yet I still think boundaries should be respected if a valid reason is brought up. I know we now know how to obtain special cells easily without harm to anything, but in the past that wasn't exactly the case and I think that set off the panic that got the research criticized so much.
Mods can have my karma if they want it, its still a purely religious assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There's no definitive reason why it couldn't have happened, we observe life on this planet, and there is no real competing hypothesis, so it seems a reasonable, though speculative, hypothesis to entertain. Not certainty like the "God did it" crowd seem to have, but a rational inference from the data :-)
It's unobserved and there's good reason to believe its impossible (e.g. the chirality problem).
I wasn't aware the chirality problem was evidence towards abiogenesis being impossible, more that it presents a very interesting and challenging question as to why one particular handedness become dominant.
People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human".
What distinguishes a homo sapiens sapiens from another ambulatory pile of cells, like a bovine for instance?
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons.
You're opposed to research into abiogenesis because you're afraid it will take away our "humanity"?
If you can define what this valuelable "humanity" thing is without invoking religious concepts (like souls), then I'd think there would no longer be a worry about research like this taking it away. I'd suggest it's something to do with sentience/consciousness and the different levels of it possessed by different people (and other animals)
Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I don't think secular moral and ethical systems have much to worry about from scientific research.
Though he seems to be reviled in some quarters, perhaps reading Peter Singer is a start?
its still a purely speculative assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There. Fixed that for you.
It is possible to speculate, and even to hold firm beliefs in the absence of evidence, which are not religious (ie. involving some supernatural intelligence) in nature. In fact they might even be scientific, albeit unsubstantiated, in nature. The attempt to equate any kind of unsubstantiated speculation with "religion," is in extremely bad faith. That 'believers' seem to be doing this, involving as it does the tacit admission that religion is an inferior form of knowledge, is actually quite revealing.
Of course with the accumulation of pieces of evidence such as this, we can begin to move from the merely speculative towards the probable.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The bible belt is becoming more influential because it has more money. Northern liberals have been foolishly dismissing the bible belt as stupid now for 50 years and really at their own peril, for, while they have done so, the bible belt has utterly stacked the deck of American commercial policy to its advantage. The bible belt needs protectionist food, and free trade goods, so it can import cheap tools and labors to sell crops to a captive market, and lo, what is American trade policy? Gee... we write GM bailout size checks to American farmers every year and no one complains, because the bible belt has us convinced that this glaring exception to the free trade they advocate is not an exception at all.
This is my sig.
I wonder what we will be stirring up in 20-50 years.
You don't have to wonder. The results are here. That's just the wikipedia page, but you can follow the links. I hoped they saved a sample so we can check again in 100, 1,000 and 10,000 years.
They are proving that life as we know it should be common. Life as we don't know it? That's still an open question. It may have been here all along and we didn't see it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.