"It's alive! It's alive!! It's alive!!!"
In the classic 1931 movie, this is how Dr Frankenstein reacts to discovering that he could create life in the laboratory.
Strictly speaking, Dr Frankenstein's feat was more a case of re-animation he achieved by stitching together assorted body parts. And in 1816 when Mary Shelley wrote the classic story, electricity was imagined to be the wondrous force that brings life to previously dead things.
While it wasn't such a bad idea, we've since learned that the mechanics, the chemistry or the "spirit" of life, whatever you call it, is far more complicated.
Although Stanley Miller and Harold Urey almost certainly didn't cry out "It's alive!" when they saw the results of their 1953 experiment, they could claim a significant milestone in science.
Surprisingly, their idea had something in common with Dr Frankenstein.
They sealed a glass apparatus containing what was thought to be an approximation of the Earth's early atmosphere. Into this, they sent electric sparks to simulate lightning.
Their goal, however, was not to create life but to test a theory that organic molecules could be made from a lifeless chemical soup.
Their first attempt failed but with modifications they found the liquid had changed to a red-yellow coloured solution, which then became a red-brown broth.
In doing so, they had created a few simple amino acids and other organic compounds, the building blocks of life.
That is what you might call a bottom-up approach: it was a small step that started with chemistry. With the right combination, time and energy, it might be enough to initiate the process we call life.
More recently, in 2016, researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute in California announced results of a more top-down approach.
To achieve this, they took existing Mycoplasma bacteria, and removed every gene they thought could be deleted while still allowing the bacteria to live.
Their so-called synthetic "minimal" cells contained just 473 key genes. These, they were able to grow and divide on agar to produce cell colonies.
It is possible that a lab somewhere will create a primitive form of life but, if they do, they'll immediately hit a really thorny question: what constitutes "life"?
A virus can't replicate without a host cell, so is it "alive" or is it it just a very complex molecule?
Now chemists have been able to create self-replicating molecules, but nobody claims they are alive.
Wikipedia offers a basic approach: "Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment."
However a physicist might disagree, saying that life is a thermodynamic process.
Perhaps then, that leaves us with Marvin the Paranoid Android, who mutters, "Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Listen to the Fuzzy Logic Science Show at 11am every Sunday on 2XX 98.3FM.
Send your questions to AskFuzzy@Zoho.com Twitter@FuzzyLogicSci
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
