The Current16:05‘Mirror life’ research poses risk to all life on Earth, scientists warn
A group of scientists are waving a red flag about research into “mirror life” which they say could decimate life on Earth.
In an article published this month in the journal Science, 38 researchers analyzed the risk posed by mirror life — living cells with opposite molecular structures to those of regular life on Earth. Their cells’ molecular makeup would be identical aside from being backwards — like a mirror-image, hence why researchers call it mirror life.
Simply put, the backwards structure would mean that a living organism made up of mirrored cells couldn’t be detected by our immune systems and wouldn’t have any predators in an ecosystem, giving them the potential to damage any and all living things with no way of stopping their spread.
“It would grow persistently, and we would have no way of eating it [or] fighting it,” Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist and co-author of the paper, told The Current’s Matt Galloway. “So the consequences for the environment could be catastrophic.”
Given the possibly disastrous consequences, the scientists warn in their paper that no researchers should attempt to create mirror life.
“Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms … should not be created,” the paper reads in part.
But while researchers are worried about the possible consequences, there’s a few reasons not to panic just yet.
Mirror life doesn’t exist yet, can’t form naturally
The orientation of molecules can be thought of like being left-handed or right-handed.
Mirror molecules are 3D mirror images of regular molecules — like how your left hand is a mirror-image of your right hand. DNA and RNA are made up of “right-handed” building blocks called nucleotides, while proteins are made up of “left-handed” amino acids, scientists explain in the journal article.
Every molecule in every form of life on Earth, from a fig tree to your neighbour’s Golden Retriever, follows that rule.
Because nucleotides are always right-handed and amino acids are always “left-handed” in nature, mirror life could never form naturally; it could only be synthesized in a lab.
Scientists have been working to create simple organisms made up of other-handed molecules, like a right-handed amino acid. So far they’ve been able to create large mirrored protein molecules, but not mirror cells. That would take “significant breakthroughs” in synthetic cell research, according to the report. The report’s authors estimate that step’s a decade away, at least.
Aside from the possible implications, Adamala says the idea of mirror life is still incredibly fascinating.
“If we were able to make mirror life, we would be able to literally build or grow a second tree of life,” said Adamala. “It would be one of the biggest scientific discoveries you can ever think of — creating another life form.”
The warning is a good news story, says one expert
Scientists like Adamala hope that mirror life research might someday help revolutionize treatments for a range of diseases.
A lot of biological processes work like a lock and key, meaning the mirror image molecules wouldn’t fit with the building blocks of the natural world. Because of that, mirror life wouldn’t be detectable by the human immune system.
The idea was that mirror cells might someday be useful in therapies for a range of ailments as the cure wouldn’t trigger an adverse immune response, according to Adamala.
“These are exactly the reasons why now we understand we shouldn’t be making it, because it would not only be silent to the immune system when we want it. It would always be silent [to the] immune system,” Adamala said.
The scientists who put out this call will continue to research mirror life in an attempt to better understand it, but will abandon any attempts to bring mirror life into the real world.
The paper also calls for “a broader discussion among the global research community, policy-makers, research funders, industry, civil society, and the public” to chart a safe path forward.
Henry Greely, a Stanford law and ethics professor and chair of the Center for Biomedical Ethics, says the scientists’ call to halt this work is the responsible decision.
“This is a story where [scientists] start to create something, but then we do start thinking about the long tail and we decide, you know, we really shouldn’t do this,” Greely told Galloway.
Greely says that increasingly, scientists are trying to foresee negative consequences that might come as a result of their research and close the barn doors before the horses have left.
“Are we perfectly able to predict the future? Certainly not,” Greely said. “But we’re paying more attention and I think that’s a great thing.”
Researchers are experimenting with CRISPR, a powerful tool that can alter the DNA of humans. The implications have scientists excited, but nervous.
He brought up the development of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s as an example. At the time, scientists were trying to move genetic material from one living organism to another. But they worried that changing an organism’s DNA could spiral out of control without any way to stop their spread.
A few hundred scientists gathered at what’s known as the Asilomar summit in 1975 and agreed to a set of guidelines for studying recombinant DNA. As scientific advancements were made, recombinant DNA has been deemed safe again — but the important part, Greely says, is that people paused to consider first, before they made an irreversible mistake.
Moratoriums haven’t always worked perfectly, Greely noted. Most scientists and governments agreed by the mid 2010s that CRISPR technology — used to edit human DNA in sperm, eggs or single-celled embryos — shouldn’t be done for ethical reasons.
But a rogue scientist announced in 2018 that he’d edited the embryos of two newborn human babies. The scientist was jailed for three years as a result.
Given it would take a decade of well-funded, collaborative work to create mirror life, Adamala and Greely both say a rogue actor isn’t much of a concern at this point.
Adamala hopes that her group’s article might spur other researchers across different fields to consider the consequences of their research before making it a reality.
“Perhaps we’ll be hearing more about different projects that are being stopped internally from the ground up by people that are actually doing it,” she said.
This post was originally published on here
