
Putting science content in today’s mainstream media is a bit like putting snails on a racetrack. Some scientists would argue that there is a lot to learn from the latter but then again, it only goes to prove the initial statement. In a day and age where news reporting demands a high level of dynamism, science is just not entertaining enough. But every once in a while, a scientist declares a groundbreaking result at a press conference and sure enough, the media is there to misinterpret it. The latest case being that of artificial life created at the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI).
Over the past few days the sensational claim where biologists – mere mortals – played god has done the rounds invoking a medley of emotion from all walks of life. Curious laymen to offended theologians have all voiced their opinions in one form or the other. Newspaper editorials and talk show hosts have fueled the story further and gone overboard speculating its possible implications. Not amused by what it sees, the church has warned scientists not to play god. Between all this, the men of science who are more accustomed to being relegated to invisibility by the media are now becoming its breaking news! To their credit: creation of life and the audacious achievement of placing men on par with gods.
It may be interesting to note then, that the team of scientists credited with this breakthrough have not claimed half the things the media has said they have. None of them spoke of creating life or of playing god. Even the head of the team, the consummate showman Dr Craig Venter, had a measured approach at a press conference where he announced ‘the development of the first living cell to be controlled entirely by a synthetic DNA’.
Our understanding of what constitutes “life” is well off the desired mark. Even among scientists, there is no commonly accepted definition of life. Thus, it is possible to misinterpret the statement by Dr Venter as an announcement of the creation of life but the media seemed a little too trigger happy to do so.

What was it exactly, that went on behind the doors of JCVI? The press conference was a culmination of 15 years of painstaking work that was carried out by a team of almost 50 geneticists, biologists and chemists. They started out by tracing the entire genetic structure of a known bacterium on a computer. Then they made slight modifications to this code, the most noticeable ones being the introduction of ‘watermarks’. This was a way to brand the species they were creating as their own. The team coded in four watermarks, one of which included the names of all the team members and a website address the new species could call its own. The other three were quotes including “to live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life”.
Armed with this blueprint, they picked up four bottles of chemicals and got down to the task of preparing the DNA. The length of the final molecule was supposed to be 1 million characters. The team prepared cassettes of about 1000 characters and outsourced the job of stitching these together to the organic yeast they had at hand. In the end they had their DNA. Man made and watermarked.
But progress to this level had already been achieved before by this very team. The challenge now was to introduce this synthetic DNA in a half empty, dead cell of a slightly different bacterium and hope that the cell kicks in to life. Would the confluence of the right chemicals at the right temperature be sufficient to trigger life? As it turned out, it would. Not only did this cell come alive, but it transformed into the species dictated by its genome, replicating a few billion times. As it flourished and grew, a quick check of the daughter cells revealed that they were being controlled by the synthetic DNA. It was a breakthrough 15 years and $40 million in the making. The hard work, perseverance and sheer brilliance had paid off.
But was this creation of life? Even though the recipient cell was sans its DNA, it still had most of the other bio-chemical elements essential for life. The cell was not synthesized, only its DNA was. This genome then instructed the cell to replicate and transfer itself in all the subsequent generations. So the team effectively booted-up the cell and then controlled its behavior and replication. As Dr Venter put it this was the “first self-replicating species that we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer”. It had no ancestors, no evolutionary history. That was the significant story. Not the creation of life.
What this did however was to spectacularly debunk any claims of ‘vitalism’ that still existed. For long had the notion existed, mostly in non-scientific circles, that life depended on a vital principle beyond the realms of what chemistry and biology can determine. To them, it must have certainly come as a shock then, that no mystery ingredient, no vital spark, no Promethean lightening was invoked to breathe life. Computer generated information, digitized chemically in the form of DNA not only triggered but even controlled life in the synthesized species. Life turned out to be just a complex array of bio-chemicals with no room for a farce that is the soul.
This result is sure to throw up a lot of ethical as well as regulatory concerns. As part of any scientific enterprise, these will have to be dealt with seriously and transparently. But that certainly does not mean that the scientists have to give credibility to any ridiculous objections raised by ignorant and incompetent members of society. Leading that club are the self-proclaimed religious leaders who are warning scientists’ against playing god (their own terminology, not that of the scientists).

This sort of nonsense stems to a certain extent from media misrepresenting the story but mostly from the defensive nature of these religious groups. They perceive science as a threat mostly because they have based their faith on gaps in scientific knowledge. Every time science couldn’t answer a question they invoked miracles. As science began bridging these gaps, religious claims were left stranded and their leaders accused scientists of playing god.
Interestingly, given that Dr Venter’s work was a project driven by explicit atheism right from its onset, the whole notion of playing god becomes absurd. Scientists after all are concerned only with the natural, not the supernatural. Otherwise, scientists would have surely warned god against playing science.
(First two paintings by Anarya drawing on Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of Adam’ and his sketches. Third cartoon courtesy Sidney Harris)
(Published in Apostrophe’O. Original link here )





