Scientists divided over the future of 'mirror life' research
The global scientific community is at odds over whether to halt research into "mirror life" synthetic organisms made entirely from molecules that are the mirror opposites of those found in conventional biology. At a recent conference in Manchester, leading researchers debated the future of this field, which some warn could pose existential threats to life on Earth.
Growing calls for a moratorium on mirror life research
In December 2024, 38 scientists, including two Nobel laureates and 16 members of national academies, issued a groundbreaking warning in Science magazine. They argued that mirror bacteria could present "extraordinary dangers" to human health and the environment. Their analysis suggested that such organisms might evade immune defenses in humans, animals, and plants because natural recognition systems are evolved to detect specific molecular forms.
"The global repercussions could be catastrophic," cautioned Jack Szostak, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist from the University of Chicago. Following this warning, nearly all researchers in this field voluntarily paused their projects. Among them is Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist at the University of Minnesota, who abandoned her research after biosafety consultations highlighted the potential risks.
Manchester conference seeks governance framework
The recent conference on synthetic life engineering in Manchester brought together scientists, policymakers, and ethicists to discuss setting limits on this controversial research. The two-day event aimed to establish guidelines to prevent the creation of mirror organisms while preserving beneficial research into mirror molecules for drug development.
According to Nature, there is broad consensus that creating mirror life forms is "a bad idea," as noted by John Glass, a synthetic biologist at the J. Craig Venter Institute. However, disagreements persist regarding where to draw regulatory boundaries, especially given the medical potential of mirror molecules already approved by the FDA, such as etelcalcetide, used in therapies.
Divisions within the scientific community
Not all researchers support strict restrictions. Ting Zhu, a molecular biologist at Westlake University in China, argued in Nature that concerns about mirror life are "exaggerated." Zhu emphasized the importance of separating research into beneficial mirror molecules from speculative efforts to create entire organisms.
Similarly, Sven Klussmann, a biochemist at Aptarion Biotech working on therapeutic mirror RNA, urged caution against premature bans. "We shouldn’t panic yet, nor should we restrict research too early," Klussmann told Nature. Other scientists note that natural defenses already exist, pointing out that the human body has evolved to detect mirror-image sugars.
As the debate continues, the scientific community is set to revisit the issue at a workshop hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences later this month. The focus will remain on balancing the prevention of catastrophic risks with the pursuit of beneficial research.
-
15:50
-
15:40
-
15:20
-
15:19
-
14:48
-
14:40
-
14:20
-
13:50
-
13:48
-
13:00
-
12:50
-
12:45
-
12:30
-
12:20
-
12:00
-
12:00
-
11:50
-
11:30
-
11:20
-
11:00
-
10:30
-
10:20
-
10:00
-
09:50
-
09:35
-
09:30
-
09:23
-
09:20
-
09:16
-
09:00
-
08:50
-
08:30
-
08:20
-
08:00
-
07:50
-
07:40
-
07:20
-
07:00
-
18:50
-
18:30
-
18:20
-
18:00
-
17:50
-
17:30
-
17:20
-
17:00
-
16:50
-
16:30
-
16:20
