What I'm going to try and do in the next 15 minutes or so is tell you about an idea of how we're going to make matter come alive. Now this may seem a bit ambitious, but when you look at yourself, you look at your hands, you realize that you're alive. So this is a start. Now this quest started four billion years ago on planet Earth. There's been four billion years of organic, biological life. And as an inorganic chemist, my friends and colleagues make this distinction between the organic, living world and the inorganic, dead world. And what I'm going to try and do is plant some ideas about how we can transform inorganic, dead matter into living matter, into inorganic biology.
我想在接下來的15分鍾左右的時間 和大家談談 我們怎樣賦予物質生命 這在目前似乎有點好高騖遠 但是如果你看你自己,看你的手 你會意識到自己是活着的 所以這是一個開始 這種探索始於40億年前的地球 在地球上已經有 四十億年的有機的生命體 我是無機化學家 我的朋友和同事們 在有機、有生命的世界 和無機、無生命的世界之間劃出區分 我想要告訴大家 我們怎樣可以把無機、無生命的物質 轉化為生命體和無機生物
Before we do that, I want to kind of put biology in its place. And I'm absolutely enthralled by biology. I love to do synthetic biology. I love things that are alive. I love manipulating the infrastructure of biology. But within that infrastructure, we have to remember that the driving force of biology is really coming from evolution. And evolution, although it was established well over 100 years ago by Charles Darwin and a vast number of other people, evolution still is a little bit intangible. And when I talk about Darwinian evolution, I mean one thing and one thing only, and that is survival of the fittest. And so forget about evolution in a kind of metaphysical way. Think about evolution in terms of offspring competing, and some winning.
在開始之前 我想先談談生物學 我對生物學非常着迷 我喜歡做合成生物學 我喜歡有生命的東西 也喜歡操控生物學的基礎結構 但是在那個結搆內 我們必須記得 生物學的驅動力 實際上是來自進化 進化理論 雖然早在100年前就由達爾文所創立了 大多數的人 還是覺得進化論有些難以理解 當我提到達爾文的進化論時 只是想說明一件事,唯一的一件事 就是適者生存 因此不要用 形而上學(純哲學)的方法去思考進化論 讓我們從後代子孫彼此競爭 有輸有贏的角度 來思考進化論吧
So bearing that in mind, as a chemist, I wanted to ask myself the question frustrated by biology: What is the minimal unit of matter that can undergo Darwinian evolution? And this seems quite a profound question. And as a chemist, we're not used to profound questions every day. So when I thought about it, then suddenly I realized that biology gave us the answer. And in fact, the smallest unit of matter that can evolve independently is, in fact, a single cell -- a bacteria.
請記得 我作為化學家,想問自己一些 讓生物學家痛苦的問題: 什麼是達爾文進化論中進化的 最小物質單位? 這看來是一個很有深度的問題 但是作為化學家 我們不習慣每天問有深度的問題 因此當我思考這個問題的時候 我忽然意識到 生物學已經給了我們答案 實際上,物質可以獨立進化 的最小的單位 是單細胞-- 一個細菌
So this raises three really important questions: What is life? Is biology special? Biologists seem to think so. Is matter evolvable? Now if we answer those questions in reverse order, the third question -- is matter evolvable? -- if we can answer that, then we're going to know how special biology is, and maybe, just maybe, we'll have some idea of what life really is.
因此這導出三個真正重要的問題: 什麼是生命? 生物學有什麼特別的嗎? 生物學家似乎認為它是特別的 物質可以進化嗎? 現在我們逆序回答這些問題 從第三個問題問起:物質可以進化嗎? 如果我們可以回答這個問題 我們就會知道生物學有多特殊 然後,可能,但僅是可能 我們會暸解生命究竟是什麼
So here's some inorganic life. This is a dead crystal, and I'm going to do something to it, and it's going to become alive. And you can see, it's kind of pollinating, germinating, growing. This is an inorganic tube. And all these crystals here under the microscope were dead a few minutes ago, and they look alive. Of course, they're not alive. It's a chemistry experiment where I've made a crystal garden. But when I saw this, I was really fascinated, because it seemed lifelike. And as I pause for a few seconds, have a look at the screen. You can see there's architecture growing, filling the void. And this is dead. So I was positive that, if somehow we can make things mimic life, let's go one step further. Let's see if we can actually make life.
這裡有一些無機生命 這是死水晶 我想要對它做些事 讓它活過來 然後你會看到 它會授粉,萌芽,成長 這是一個無機管 所有在這個顯微鏡下的水晶 都是在幾分鍾前死去的,它們看起來就像還是活的 當然,它們已經死了 這是我做的一個化學試驗,在其中我做了一個水晶園 當我看到這個,我被深深吸引 因為它看起來栩栩如生 我現在停幾秒鍾,我們來看看螢幕 妳可以看到建築物在生長,填補了空虛 而這是死的 所以我很肯定 我們可以做出模仿生命的物質 讓我們再進一步 看看我們是否可以製造生命
But there's a problem, because up until maybe a decade ago, we were told that life was impossible and that we were the most incredible miracle in the universe. In fact, we were the only people in the universe. Now, that's a bit boring. So as a chemist, I wanted to say, "Hang on. What is going on here? Is life that improbable?" And this is really the question. I think that perhaps the emergence of the first cells was as probable as the emergence of the stars. And in fact, let's take that one step further. Let's say that if the physics of fusion is encoded into the universe, maybe the physics of life is as well. And so the problem with chemists -- and this is a massive advantage as well -- is we like to focus on our elements. In biology, carbon takes center stage. And in a universe where carbon exists and organic biology, then we have all this wonderful diversity of life. In fact, we have such amazing lifeforms that we can manipulate. We're awfully careful in the lab to try and avoid various biohazards.
但是有一個問題 因為大約在十年前 我們只知道生命是不可能製造的 我們是宇宙中最不可思議的奇蹟 實際上,我們是宇宙中 唯一的人類 現在看來,這麼說有點無聊 作為化學家 我想說:「等等,怎麼回事? 難道生命的出現真的那麼不可思議嗎?」 這才是真正的問題 我想第一個細胞的出現 可能和第一個星球的出現一樣不可思議吧 實際上,如果我們再進一步看 比如說 如果宇宙是由 聚變物理(融合物理)構成的 可能生命物理學也是一樣 那麼化學家的問題也是一樣的 但是這也是我們巨大的優勢所在-- 也就是我們專注於元素 在生物學中,碳非常重要 一個有碳存在的宇宙中 就有有機生物學 我們就有了這樣豐富多采的生物多樣性 實際上,我們可以製造這樣奇妙的生命形式 在實驗室裏,我們非常小心地 嘗試和避免各種生物危害
Well what about matter? If we can make matter alive, would we have a matterhazard? So think, this is a serious question. If your pen could replicate, that would be a bit of a problem. So we have to think differently if we're going to make stuff come alive. And we also have to be aware of the issues. But before we can make life, let's think for a second what life really is characterized by. And forgive the complicated diagram. This is just a collection of pathways in the cell. And the cell is obviously for us a fascinating thing. Synthetic biologists are manipulating it. Chemists are trying to study the molecules to look at disease. And you have all these pathways going on at the same time. You have regulation; information is transcribed; catalysts are made; stuff is happening. But what does a cell do? Well it divides, it competes, it survives. And I think that is where we have to start in terms of thinking about building from our ideas in life.
那麼物質呢? 如果我們可以使物質變活,那麼我們會不會製造物質危害呢? 想想看,這是一個很嚴肅的問題 如果你的鋼筆可以複製的話 恐怕會是個問題吧 所以我們必須從不同角度思考 如果我們想要讓物質有生命 我們必須意識到這些問題 但是在我們可以製造生命之前 讓我們思考幾秒鍾 生命是以什麼為特徴呢? 請原諒這複雜的圖表 其實這就是細胞裡的一組通路組合 細胞對我們來說 顯然是引人入勝的 合成生物學可以操控細胞 化學家正嘗試着透過研究分子來治療疾病 現在你有所有的這些同時發生的通路 你有規則 訊息已經抄錄了 水晶已經做好,一切就緒 細胞會怎樣呢? 細胞會分裂、競爭 然後存活 我想這就是我們必須開始的地方 以建立我們 思想中的生命
But what else is life characterized by? Well, I like think of it as a flame in a bottle. And so what we have here is a description of single cells replicating, metabolizing, burning through chemistries. And so we have to understand that if we're going to make artificial life or understand the origin of life, we need to power it somehow. So before we can really start to make life, we have to really think about where it came from. And Darwin himself mused in a letter to a colleague that he thought that life probably emerged in some warm little pond somewhere -- maybe not in Scotland, maybe in Africa, maybe somewhere else. But the real honest answer is, we just don't know, because there is a problem with the origin. Imagine way back, four and a half billion years ago, there is a vast chemical soup of stuff. And from this stuff we came.
那麼,還有什麼是生命的特徴呢? 我喜歡把生命想成 是瓶子裏的一把火 我們這裡有 一個對於單細胞 複製、新陳代謝、 以及在化學過程中燃燒的描述 所以我們必須理解 如果我們想人工製造生命或者理解生命的來源 我們需要給予其一定力量 因此在真的開始製造生命之前 我們必須想一想它是從哪裡來的 達爾文在給一位同事的信中說到 他覺得生命可能是起源於 某地一個溫暖的小湖泊中-- 可能不在蘇格蘭,可能是在非洲 也可能在其它地方 但是真實的答案是:我們不知道 原因是生命起源有些問題 想像我們回到四十五億年前 有一大碗的化學湯 而我們就從這湯而來
So when you think about the improbable nature of what I'm going to tell you in the next few minutes, just remember, we came from stuff on planet Earth. And we went through a variety of worlds. The RNA people would talk about the RNA world. We somehow got to proteins and DNA. We then got to the last ancestor. Evolution kicked in -- and that's the cool bit. And here we are. But there's a roadblock that you can't get past. You can decode the genome, you can look back, you can link us all together by a mitochondrial DNA, but we can't get further than the last ancestor, the last visible cell that we could sequence or think back in history. So we don't know how we got here.
所以當你想到我將在接下來的幾分鐘內 告訴你關於不可思議的大自然時 切記 我們來自於地球上的某樣東西 我們都經歷了各種不同的世界 RNA(核糖核酸)專家們會談到RNA世界 而我們則會提到蛋白質和DNA(脫氧核糖核酸) 然後再回到最早的祖先 進化開始發生--這是最棒的部分 就是這個 但是有一個無法踰越的路障 你可以解碼基因組合,你可以回顧歷史 你可以靠一個線粒體DNA把我們聯繫在一起 但是我們不可能比上一輩祖先走得更遠 最後的可見的細胞 我們可以將之排列,或者從歷史的角度回顧 所以我們不知道我們是怎樣來到世界上的
So there are two options: intelligent design, direct and indirect -- so God, or my friend. Now talking about E.T. putting us there, or some other life, just pushes the problem further on. I'm not a politician, I'm a scientist. The other thing we need to think about is the emergence of chemical complexity. This seems most likely. So we have some kind of primordial soup. And this one happens to be a good source of all 20 amino acids. And somehow these amino acids are combined, and life begins. But life begins, what does that mean? What is life? What is this stuff of life?
這裡有兩個選擇: 智慧的設計,直接或非直接的-- 神 或是我的朋友 有人說是外星人(E.T.)或者其它的生命體把我們放到這裡的 這就把問題更加複雜化了 我不是政治家,我是科學家 另外一件值得思考的事 就是化學複雜性的出現 看來這是最有可能的 我們有一些原始湯 而這正好 是所有的20種氨基酸的一個良好來源 而且,不知怎麼地 這些氨基酸混在一起 生命便開始了 但是"生命開始"意味著什麼呢? 什麼是生命?這個是生命的什麼東西呢?
So in the 1950s, Miller-Urey did their fantastic chemical Frankenstein experiment, where they did the equivalent in the chemical world. They took the basic ingredients, put them in a single jar and ignited them and put a lot of voltage through. And they had a look at what was in the soup, and they found amino acids, but nothing came out, there was no cell. So the whole area's been stuck for a while, and it got reignited in the '80s when analytical technologies and computer technologies were coming on.
所以在1950年 米勒和尤列做了一個很棒的弗蘭肯斯坦化學試驗 他們的試驗是模仿化學世界 他們把基本的原料放到一個罐子裡 然後將其點燃 接著讓很多電壓通過 然後再看看湯裡有什麼東西 他們發現了氨基酸 但是什麼都沒有產生、沒有細胞 所以整個試驗就此暫停了一段時間 直到80年代才重新開始 因為當時分析技術和電腦科技開始興盛
In my own laboratory, the way we're trying to create inorganic life is by using many different reaction formats. So what we're trying to do is do reactions -- not in one flask, but in tens of flasks, and connect them together, as you can see with this flow system, all these pipes. We can do it microfluidically, we can do it lithographically, we can do it in a 3D printer, we can do it in droplets for colleagues. And the key thing is to have lots of complex chemistry just bubbling away. But that's probably going to end in failure, so we need to be a bit more focused.
在我自己的實驗室裡 我們創造無機生命的方式 是使用許多不同的反應格式 所以我們想要尋求的是反應-- 不是一個燒瓶,而是在幾十個燒瓶裡 把它們連結在一起 你可以看到這個流動系統,和所有的管子 我們可用微流體方法操作,可用光刻誘導的方式進行 也可在3D列表機上進行 我們可以讓同事在滴液中操作 關鍵在於有許多複雜的化學反應 開始發生 但這可能以失敗告終 因此我們必需更加努力些
And the answer, of course, lies with mice. This is how I remember what I need as a chemist. I say, "Well I want molecules." But I need a metabolism, I need some energy. I need some information, and I need a container. Because if I want evolution, I need containers to compete. So if you have a container, it's like getting in your car. "This is my car, and I'm going to drive around and show off my car." And I imagine you have a similar thing in cellular biology with the emergence of life. So these things together give us evolution, perhaps. And the way to test it in the laboratory is to make it minimal.
而答案,當然就在實驗鼠身上 這讓我想起我作為化學家所需要的東西 我說:「好,我要分子。」 可實際上我需要的是新陳代謝,需要一些能量 我需要一些訊息,還需要一個容器 因為我想要進化 我需要容器來幫助它們競爭 所以如果你有容器 就好像你進入你的車,說: 「這是我的車, 我要到處開,炫耀一下我的車。」 我想在生命形成的 細胞生物學上 也是一樣的情況 也許這些事情加在一起給我們進化 而在實驗室裏進行試驗 就是使其最小化
So what we're going to try and do is come up with an inorganic Lego kit of molecules. And so forgive the molecules on the screen, but these are a very simple kit. There's only maybe three or four different types of building blocks present. And we can aggregate them together and make literally thousands and thousands of really big nano-molecular molecules the same size of DNA and proteins, but there's no carbon in sight. Carbon is banned. And so with this Lego kit, we have the diversity required for complex information storage without DNA. But we need to make some containers. And just a few months ago in my lab, we were able to take these very same molecules and make cells with them. And you can see on the screen a cell being made. And we're now going to put some chemistry inside and do some chemistry in this cell. And all I wanted to show you is we can set up molecules in membranes, in real cells, and then it sets up a kind of molecular Darwinism, a molecular survival of the fittest.
因此,我們打算嘗試做的是 得出一種無機分子的樂高積木組件 抱歉,螢幕上的分子看起來很複雜 但這是一些非常簡單的積木 目前大概只有三、四種不同類型的積木 我們可以將它們組合在一起 製造出成千上萬種 巨大的奈米分子 大小相當於DNA及蛋白質 但其中不含碳 碳是被禁止的 所以使用這些樂高積木 即使沒有DNA 我們也可以擁有 儲存複雜訊息所需的多樣性 可是我們需要製造一些容器 幾個月前在我得實驗室裡 我們能夠用這些非常相似的分子製造細胞 你可以在螢幕上看見,一個細胞正被製造 我們現在打算在這個細胞裡加上一些化學物質,使其進行化學反應 我想讓你們知道 我們可以把分子建立在 細胞膜和真實細胞上 然後建立一種達爾文主義分子 一種適者生存的分子
And this movie here shows this competition between molecules. Molecules are competing for stuff. They're all made of the same stuff, but they want their shape to win. They want their shape to persist. And that is the key. If we can somehow encourage these molecules to talk to each other and make the right shapes and compete, they will start to form cells that will replicate and compete. If we manage to do that, forget the molecular detail.
這部影片 顯示出分子間的競爭 分子彼此競爭這些物質 它們都是由相同的物質所組成 希望自己的形狀取勝 它們也希望自己的形狀留存下來 這就是其中關鍵 如果我們可以鼓勵這些分子 彼此交流並且做成正確的形狀和競爭 它們就會開始形成細胞 這些細胞會複製和競爭 如果我們能成功做這些 就要忘記分子的細節
Let's zoom out to what that could mean. So we have this special theory of evolution that applies only to organic biology, to us. If we could get evolution into the material world, then I propose we should have a general theory of evolution. And that's really worth thinking about. Does evolution control the sophistication of matter in the universe? Is there some driving force through evolution that allows matter to compete? So that means we could then start to develop different platforms for exploring this evolution. So you imagine, if we're able to create a self-sustaining artificial life form, not only will this tell us about the origin of life -- that it's possible that the universe doesn't need carbon to be alive; it can use anything -- we can then take [it] one step further and develop new technologies, because we can then use software control for evolution to code in.
讓我們回頭來看這可能意味著什麼 我們擁有這個只適用於有機生物及人類的 特殊進化論 如果我們想要在物質世界中進化 我建議我們需要一個一般進化論 這是很值得深思熟慮的 進化是否得以控制 宇宙中的複雜物質呢? 是否在進化中有一些驅動力 促使物質相互競爭呢? 這說明我們可以開始 開發不同的平台 來探索這一演變 請想像一下 如果我們能創造一個自立的人造生命形式 我們就不僅能瞭解生命的起源-- 很可能在宇宙中,不需要碳元素也能形成生命 生命可以由任何元素形成 之後,我們可以更進一步,開發一些新技術 因為我們可以使用軟體控制 將演化過程的編碼嵌入
So imagine we make a little cell. We want to put it out in the environment, and we want it to be powered by the Sun. What we do is we evolve it in a box with a light on. And we don't use design anymore. We find what works. We should take our inspiration from biology. Biology doesn't care about the design unless it works. So this will reorganize the way we design things. But not only just that, we will start to think about how we can start to develop a symbiotic relationship with biology. Wouldn't it be great if you could take these artificial biological cells and fuse them with biological ones to correct problems that we couldn't really deal with? The real issue in cellular biology is we are never going to understand everything, because it's a multidimensional problem put there by evolution. Evolution cannot be cut apart. You need to somehow find the fitness function. And the profound realization for me is that, if this works, the concept of the selfish gene gets kicked up a level, and we really start talking about selfish matter.
因此,想像我們製造一個小細胞 我們希望將它放入環境中 希望它藉由太陽獲取能量 我們所做的是,將它置於一個光照的箱中 再也不需做任何設計。我們發現這樣很有效 我們應該從生物學中得到啟示 生物學不在乎設計 除非它能產生作用 因此,這將重新建構 我們設計生命的方式 不僅如此 還要開始思考 該如何開始發展生物學之間的共生關係 如果將這些人造生物細胞 和生物細胞融合 來處理我們無法解決的問題 那不是很棒嗎? 細胞生物學真正的問題 在於我們永遠無法理解一切 因為這是一個由進化產生的多層面問題 進化是無法分割的 你必需以某種方式找到適合的功能 對我來說,最深刻的啟發是 如果這個想法行得通 自私基因的概念會在某個階段介入 我們就可以真正開始討論關於自私物質的概念
And what does that mean in a universe where we are right now the highest form of stuff? You're sitting on chairs. They're inanimate, they're not alive. But you are made of stuff, and you are using stuff, and you enslave stuff. So using evolution in biology, and in inorganic biology, for me is quite appealing, quite exciting. And we're really becoming very close to understanding the key steps that makes dead stuff come alive. And again, when you're thinking about how improbable this is, remember, five billion years ago, we were not here, and there was no life. So what will that tell us
在這個目前人類身為最高等生命形式的宇宙中 這意味著什麼? 你們正坐在椅子上 它們並非生物,它們沒有生命 但你由物質形成,你使用物質 也掌控物質 因此,使用生物學 和無機生物 的進化概念 對我來說相當有吸引力,相當振奮人心 我們真的很快就將瞭解 賦予物質生命 的關鍵步驟 同樣的,當你考慮到這個可能性是多麼微乎其微時 別忘了,五十億年前 人類並不存在,生命亦不存在 那麼,對於生命的起源和意義
about the origin of life and the meaning of life? But perhaps, for me as a chemist, I want to keep away from general terms; I want to think about specifics. So what does it mean about defining life? We really struggle to do this. And I think, if we can make inorganic biology, and we can make matter become evolvable, that will in fact define life. I propose to you that matter that can evolve is alive, and this gives us the idea of making evolvable matter.
這又能告訴我們什麼呢? 也許,對身為化學家的我來說 我不想籠統地思考這個問題 我希望能思考得更具體一點 那麼,這對定義生命來說意味著什麼? 我們確實還在努力解決這個問題 但是,我想,如果我們可以製造出無機生物 可以使物質開始進化 這實際上就是定義生命了 我想告訴你們 可以進化的物質就是活的 這使我們有了製造可演化物質的想法
Thank you very much.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: Just a quick question on timeline. You believe you're going to be successful in this project? When?
Chris Anderson: 時間有限,問個簡短的問題 你相信這個計劃能成功嗎? 什麼時候能成功呢?
Lee Cronin: So many people think that life took millions of years to kick in. We're proposing to do it in just a few hours, once we've set up the right chemistry.
Lee Cronin: 許多人認為 生命得歷經數百萬年才能形成 而我們認為只要能建立 正確的化學結構 那麼,生命可在短短幾個小時內完成
CA: And when do you think that will happen?
CA: 你覺得什麽時候會實現呢?
LC: Hopefully within the next two years.
LC: 希望在未來兩年中完成
CA: That would be a big story. (Laughter) In your own mind, what do you believe the chances are that walking around on some other planet is non-carbon-based life, walking or oozing or something?
CA: 這將是件了不得的大事 (笑聲) 你認為 其他星球上可能 有非以碳為基礎的生命存在 或正在形成的機率有多少?
LC: I think it's 100 percent. Because the thing is, we are so chauvinistic to biology, if you take away carbon, there's other things that can happen. So the other thing that if we were able to create life that's not based on carbon, maybe we can tell NASA what really to look for. Don't go and look for carbon, go and look for evolvable stuff.
LC: 我認為有100%的機率 因為事實上我們對生物抱著相當沙文主義的想法 如果將碳除去,依然會有其他生命形成 因此,另一方面 如果我們能創造出非以碳為基礎的生命 也許我們可以告訴NASA真正該尋找的是什麼 別尋找碳元素,去尋找可演化的物質吧!
CA: Lee Cronin, good luck. (LC: Thank you very much.)
CA: Lee Cronin,祝你好運。(LC:非常感謝)
(Applause)
(掌聲)