IN-SPITE OF HAVING SO HUGE AMOUNT DATA ON LIFE AND ITS EXISTENCE WE ARE STILL NOT ABLE TO DEFINE LIFE, VIRUS IS THE SAME CASE. THE DAY WHEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO CULTURE VIRUSES ON NUTRIENT MEDIUM WITHOUT ANY SUBTRACT, AT THAT DAY I THINK WE CAN DEFINE VIRUS OR LIFE OR NOT LIFE.
Currently, the International Committee on Taxonomy of
Viruses (ICTV) defines viruses as “elementary biosystems
that possess some of the properties of living systems such
as having a genome and being able to adapt to a changing
environment”
Also, I want to share this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545437
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44670689_Viruses_virophages_and_their_living_nature
Article Viruses, virophages, and their living nature
I think that the problem is not if viruses are live or not live, but in wanting to classify it all, as humans we are. However within this classification should be considered living organism, since they have their own genome, regulatory mechanism (some of them very complex), etc, . The problem they have is lack of a own system for complete their replication cycle.
Once I read an article, in which authors mention that as viruses lack metabolic capacities they are not really considered as life. The problem is not if viruses are alive or not... but our definition of life, maybe we should modify it and have a wider vision. In fact the definition of life has been changing over time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology