Viruses

[jayhawk]

I have done extensive research on viruses. The more I look at them and understand them, the harder it is to believe that they are not considered life.

 

First of all, viruses use the DNA of other living organisms to survive. In order to replicate themselves, they need a living host, which means that they require some form of information to reproduce. They evolve and replicate, which are some of the major requirements for any form of life. Even though they are not made of cells, they are still able to replicate and evolve. Viruses are able to perform specific actions, such as destroying cells and taking over living hosts. These simple actions are an enormous indicator of their potential. These are living, dangerous beings.

 

To verify what I write about, the basic laws of biology state that in order to be a living organism, an organism must be made of cells, they must reproduce, they must be able to evolve, and they must require some form of matter in order to sustain themselves; viruses meet many of the main requirements of life: they need living cells to sustain themselves, they reproduce, and they are able to evolve. The only requirement that a virus does not meet is their cellular structure; they do not have a cellular structure.

 

I would like to know other fellow scientist's opinions on this subject, and sincerely hope that viruses will one day be considered "alive" by biological standards.

[CharonY]

There are no basic laws of biology. They are guidelines based on lifeforms that we found on Earth. The actually issue is also less that of structure, but that of metaboism. Viruses have no active ones by themselves.

For that reason they are mostly considered to be mobile genetic elements that are propagated via their hosts, akin to transposons plasmids etc., which also encode functions for propagation but have even less structure.

 

That being said, it is not an issue of great contention, most if not all biologists are aware that these distinction are a matter of convenience and are applied depending on the research question (rather than as a law of sorts).

[Delta1212]

The more you know about life, the less useful the term "life" becomes for defining things. It's an arbitrary distinction. Everyone knows it's an arbitrary distinction. It doesn't really matter because life isn't really an objectively existing "thing." It's a category we made up that can cover or not cover whatever we want (depending on how we decide to define it) without being "wrong."

[Marshalscienceguy]

It can die and be killed and it acts on its own. Nothing is controlling it so how can you say its anything besides a living thing? It replicates and survives. A virus is kind of like a parasite. If you can kill a virus how can it not be a living thing? In fact in biology and this is actually also how my doctor explained when I asked as well they said "vaccines are made from a dead or dying Viruses". http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-science/how-are-vaccines-made.html It also say "Kill" and "Killing" in this article.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[zapatos]

It can die and be killed and it acts on its own. Nothing is controlling it so how can you say its anything besides a living thing? It replicates and survives. A virus is kind of like a parasite. If you can kill a virus how can it not be a living thing? In fact in biology and this is actually also how my doctor explained when I asked as well they said "vaccines are made from a dead or dying Viruses". http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-science/how-are-vaccines-made.html It also say "Kill" and "Killing" in this article.

Remember that whether something is alive or dead, a plant or animal, a planet or planetoid, these are simply categories invented by humans to organize our thoughts. Not everything we find in nature falls neatly into one of the categories we have created.

 

'Killing a virus' does not necessarily imply the virus was 'alive'. I can also kill an idea or kill someone's career.

 

Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. Virions can remain in this dormant state for extended periods of time, waiting patiently to come into contact with the appropriate host. When the virion comes into contact with the appropriate host, it becomes active and is then referred to as a virus. It now displays properties typified by living organisms, such as reacting to its environment and directing its efforts toward self-replication.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

[CharonY]

It can die and be killed and it acts on its own. Nothing is controlling it so how can you say its anything besides a living thing? It replicates and survives. A virus is kind of like a parasite. If you can kill a virus how can it not be a living thing? In fact in biology and this is actually also how my doctor explained when I asked as well they said "vaccines are made from a dead or dying Viruses". http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-science/how-are-vaccines-made.html It also say "Kill" and "Killing" in this article.

 

Also note that microbiologist would formally refer to viruses as inactivated rather than killed, the same way as it is first referred to in the linked website. They just clarified it for layperson what they mean with that.

To reiterate, categories are just a matter of convenience and context. Thinking that it has a deeper meaning just because we name it a certain way is a fallacy. When we talk about how virus structures have evolved it makes perfect sense to apply models of other living organisms as the base mechanisms we are looking at have overlaps. It makes absolute no sense to do so when we look into catabolic processes, for example.

 

I should add that this worship of definitions and their relevance is likely a remnant of high-school type learning in which students are drilled to give the expected and precise answer to narrowly defined questions. One should keep in mind that especially in complex sciences a lot of time in college will be spent to unlearn this behavior. Well, later on at least.

Edited January 16, 2014 by CharonY