Are Viruses Living?

9 June 2004

Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment.

  • Yure Welcome

    This is so not true

  • The creator

    This could have made sense if they just said yes or no if viruses are a living thing. Now I’m off to correct more people ^_^

  • Jana

    I have a couuple of questions:
    1. “predefined by the nature of the molecules .” Isn’t that also true of an enzyme? (function follows structure)?
    2. I haven’t read here why it’s important to know whether or not a virus is living. I have some ideas, but I’m interested in what others have to say.

  • peterherz

    Archae and viruses make me wonder if they’re where life came from after abiogenic processes got the DNA snowball started.

  • Shadi

    Unless you define what life is,debating about it will be pointless. The definition of life then needs attributes that will characterize it as such,the problem is who or what decides what these attributes are. The scientific community is honestly making do with their current definition and it is far from being completely accurate. Are viruses alive? What is “life”, is a philosophical question not a biological one,biology deals with the tools, sure. If you deduce life to simply reproduction and metabolic actions then why do these characteristics count as life when they are just simply mechanical systems working and functioning like how viruses are working and functioning like a mechanical system? If these then are just material entities functioning upon cause and effect (which they are) then why aren’t you calling complex geological systems alive? Because they aren’t organic,or made up of amino acids and thus proteins? Both are matter are they not? No one would call the earth “alive”, yet the earth is filled with complex interactions and function that produce an effects exactly like the cell,only difference is the functions are different and the chemical make up is not the same,both are material entities working upon cause and effect. Life then should be defined then on a will basis,that is,that with a will is that with life,hence why thinkers and philosophers have always associate life with will.

  • ThinkAboutIt

    sounds more like a seed, lays dormant until the correct elements of stimulae are added, then – reproduction.

  • ThinkAboutIt

    Seems that the claims labelled on sanitizers is incorrect, since they can’t kill any virus. Killing 99% of microbes is more likely to kill 99% of bacteria, the types a human’s immune system kills on its own, even a weakened immune system. The label doesn’t ever what percentage are viruses. Since they can’t be killed, we are left with mobs of people believing non-science and buying cases of the stuff. Dah! Are people just sheeple or what?

  • ThinkAboutIt

    The point is how to deactivate, prevent a virus from being activated – doesn’t matter alive or not. Capability is the issue. Does sanitizer “deactivate” “cripple” “block” “halt” a virus from being activated?

  • ubermench

    if the living thing has a genetic plan to find a host(cell),isn’t that not unlike a parasite microfilleri.many types of parasites need a host to reproduce.Since viruses are able to reproduce,that is to say make more like themselves once in a “host” cell,are they not in many ways merely another form of microscopic parasites.If so they are like a seed,egg of parasites that needs a host,or a spore.All require a specific environmental circumstance to reproduce. If the ability to reproduce is the defining requirement for life I’ld argue that viruses are life ,or at least a seed,spore,egg of sorts, Genetically designed to seek out and parasitically bond to the viruses new host cell.Basically viruses are very like parasites of many sorts(eg. dog heartworm,flea ‘s carry the eggs for the dogs to get tapeworm) many parasites need quite an involving process to reach the intended host.

  • Anon

    I believe most of that 99% is fungal microbes, easier to kill.

  • Sa San

    Thank you… for your advice a bout viruses
    I can do my homework , now

  • qaasq

    Humans can’t do anything without reaching out and to things around us. We can’t reproduce without the help of others, we need food from the world around us. We depend on reaching out… we’re essentially hosting on the earth. Viruses reproduce wth help, like us. Viruses evolve like us and blah blah blah…

  • qaasq

    People can’t do anything without a host! A virus is ding what its created to- survive. Just like us, we host off earth and trees, animals even other. Without these things we’d just be a mass of DNA and cells.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fonkwe.edwin Fonkwe Fongang Edwin

    Are you saying that those scientists who say the HIV can become drug-resistant are wrong?

  • Chompers

    What the hell are you talking about? Have u read any scientific paper? No evidence for viral evolution? No evidence for evolution period? “The problem is nobody has ever effectively isolated the complete virus from fresh plasma and proved beyond doubt that it is capable of causing an ‘infection’” Wow, I haven’t heard this much nonsense since the Republican primary debates. You sound like a philosophy major without a clue concerning biology. Wait, is this a digitized argument from the 1800′s? If so, I have some questions for you.

  • muadnem smith

    they are as alive as anything else

  • muadnem smith

    cryptobiosis

  • Benjamin Kores

    Then explain how an old man must rely on a doctor or hospital to make him well! Viruses are definitely LIVING!

  • http://twitter.com/artefacto84 Hugo Velarde

    That’s right Mr. Profesor, The virus it’s an amazing thing’s

  • Protogonus

    Passive and active are inextricably linked in concept and in practice. Therefore, the idea that viruses are not “doing” anything is absurd. Likewise, life and death are inevitably to be considered together, which is why dead viruses and living systems should be considered as one meta-system. In practice, viruses are “doing” all kinds of things at the level of animal and plant populations. It is the virologist who is restricting this subject when he insists that the atomistic virus is the subject. It is not. It is viruses (plural) that form the subject matter of virology, and this is obviously true even when not properly acknowledged, as here.

  • Protogonus

    This is an interesting question. If viruses are totally passive, as the virologist teaches, then they are female.

  • Jamieso

    I’m 11 and I’m trying to learn thanks I though viruses are living organisms

  • Auntbet

    Wait but a mule ( a mix between a horse and a donkey) can’t reproduce so by your rules a mule is not living.

  • Jimbo

    How spooky

  • sakman

    wrong because viruses have metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. so how

  • sakman

    NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • Bajil

    then what about the concept of vaccine?

  • Aaron Blu

    To understand what is living and what is dead we have to change our definition of each term. We are getting hung up on the dichotomy of alive: not alive that we can’t even comprehend something that is in-between. If you notice there is no gender term for intersexuality in regards to gender or sexuality. (We have male/female and man/woman, but does hermaphrodite suffice?) The same thing is happening. There is no term for something that is both seemingly alive but also incapable of reproducing itself outside a host cell. (Also my biology teacher at Seattle Central says, “Viruses are not living”).