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.
Update: See a more recent post for my thoughts on this question.
i dunno
If viruses lack ANY form of energy as you say, then how can they react chemically? Since all chemistry and chemical reactions at base level involve energy in the form of certain charges and charge distributions.
In your reply to me you state that:
The term ‘infection’ does not imply life, nor does it imply taking an active role in the process. When viruses infect a cell, the virions bind to cell receptors, the nucleic acid enters the cell, and new virion production initiates. Infection is a series of chemical
reactions.
How can viruses cause infection if they lack ANY form of energy at all as you have stated in your reply to Danielle on the one hand, and yet at the same time have the ability/energy to initiate a series of chemical reactions on the other ????? Or does the process of ‘viral infection’ miraculously occur all by itself without any form of energy at all?????????
I also think that part of the problem is that while we have a definition of “life”, we can’t actually point to any component parts and indicate what that means. For example, the nucleus isn’t “alive” nor the ribosomes, nor the mitochondrion, nor any of the constituent parts of the cell. In fact, genes can’t even produce a cell, so we are stuck with a definition of life that isn’t actually applicable to any individual part.
Therefore we recognize life as an emergent property of a fully functioning cell with the ability to reproduce. This could then be argued becomes a new form of life when the genetic material is replaced with a virus (which at that point becomes alive). After all, we would hardly argue that genetic modification renders the cell lifeless, so if it is still alive if it has been artificially modified, then it must be alive when it is modified by the virus.
It would seem that an argument can then be made that the virus is “alive” when it is in a cell and dormant otherwise.
The argument regarding chemistry doesn’t mean anything, since there is no part of the cell metabolism that couldn’t be similarly described. If a chemical argument is to be used, then one would have to be capable of indicating which chemistry or combination of reactions is responsible for transforming a cell into a “living” thing.
Viruses do not encode energy-generating machinery, and hence they
cannot produce energy-rich molecules such as ATP. However the chemical
bonds in virus particles release energy as they are broken (such as
during virus entry) and that energy is used in viral replication.
personally I believe that viruses are dead and only become alive when in a host cell.
LOL love tony and BOB 🙂
that’s what she said. 🙂
Thank you for your reply to my question. So viruses in general are somewhat contradictory entities i.e. they DO lack energy on the one hand, but they DON’T really lack energy on the other, since they can release energy when the chemical bonds of the ‘virus particles’ are broken i.e. during virus entry presumably into a ‘susceptible cell’. And it all starts by a fortuitous ‘encounter’ with a cell to initiate the ‘infection’ and ends with the production and release of new viruses after the machinery of the ‘cell’ is somehow constrained to perform the function of virus reproduction.
The teleology implicit in this position is evident. The origin or ‘start’ of the process is the chance ‘encounter’ of the virus with the ‘susceptible cell’. A series of chemical reactions then take place – but they are not just completely ‘passive’ steps predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle as stated. They are also constitutive of the movement through each stage/step of the process and cause it to go in a certain direction if it is to ‘go’ at all, and the end product of the process is the alleged progeny of virus particles to be released from the interior of the ‘host cell’ or cells in question. You have stated elsewhere that the genetic material of viruses ‘direct’ the production of the building blocks of new virus particles in the host cell. You have also stated that viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything, so how is it possible for them to ‘direct’ anything if they can’t do anything i.e. cause the chemicals in the series reactions to go in a certain direction and produce new virions?
This explanation is untenable because it cannot secure the conditions that preclude/exclude any extraneous causes of infection. That means any other intervening causes of ‘infection’ e.g. chemical /biochemical toxins, certain forms of EM radiation, oxidative stress, or whatever. These may have a deleterious action on the organism’s cells and have nothing to do with virus and are extraneous to the teleological process of viral infection/reproduction and yet cannot be precluded/excluded from producing the same symptoms of the disease allegedly caused by virus.
Why must these other causes be excluded? We must reiterate that if the extraneous causes are not excluded from the picture, there can be no claim that virus is THE cause of anything let alone a series of chemical reactions called infection! 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’ in another human being in the way that standard textbooks on virology try to make out. Have you? And what mechanism ensures that all other causes of infection have been excluded from the picture???????
Sure enough scientists do turn up bits and pieces of genetic material and make claims as if they came from a complete pathogen, but none have been able to prove the claim conclusively with all the hard scientific evidence. My requests for such proof have always fallen on deaf ears.
There is another reason why alleged pathogenic viruses do not cause infection or disease. If viruses can have no independent effectivity their own and cannot ‘do’ anything as you state, whatever effectivity they may appear to possess is always reducible to something else namely, the functions they are supposed to realize or express in the teleological process, because that’s the way the whole thing has been theoretically conceived. It is perhaps worth noting here that viruses in general don’t exist in nature as objects independent of the theory or theories in which they are specified. How can they? You can’t step outside of theory into the ‘real’ to see if they are really there can you? Since they are objects of scientific discourse they are theoretically constructed objects and can only be specified and identified by means of concepts and the most rigorous methods and observation techniques available which themselves have been theoretically conceived and constructed. You can’t build a microscope without first knowing what to do, and you can’t use it without knowing how to operate it and what you might be looking at!
The alleged pathogenic viruses then, as bits and pieces of nucleic acid with a few other chemical bits and bobs thrown in for good measure exist because they are conceived that way and because of the functions they have been assigned to perform in such a process described above. The ‘cellular machinery’ is incorporated as a necessity – the means that enable the virus (which is supposed to become part of that cellular machinery) to fulfill its predetermined functional end – the alleged reproduction of ’progeny’ – more bits and pieces of dead nucleic acid that have never been conclusively proven to cause any disease. The precise versions of the teleology described above may vary depending on the imagination of the virologist.
Would appreciate your comments, but please bear in mind that I’m on about alleged ‘pathogenic viruses’ here not the harmless variety!
Thank you for your reply to my question. So viruses in general are somewhat contradictory entities i.e. they DO lack energy on the one hand, but they DON’T really lack energy on the other, since they can release energy when the chemical bonds of the ‘virus particles’ are broken i.e. during virus entry presumably into a ‘susceptible cell’. And it all starts by a fortuitous ‘encounter’ with a cell to initiate the ‘infection’ and ends with the production and release of new viruses after the machinery of the ‘cell’ is somehow constrained to perform the function of virus reproduction.
The teleology implicit in this position is evident. The origin or ‘start’ of the process is the chance ‘encounter’ of the virus with the ‘susceptible cell’. A series of chemical reactions then take place – but they are not just completely ‘passive’ steps predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle as stated. They are also constitutive of the movement through each stage/step of the process and cause it to go in a certain direction if it is to ‘go’ at all, and the end product of the process is the alleged progeny of virus particles to be released from the interior of the ‘host cell’ or cells in question. You have stated elsewhere that the genetic material of viruses ‘direct’ the production of the building blocks of new virus particles in the host cell. You have also stated that viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything, so how is it possible for them to ‘direct’ anything if they can’t do anything i.e. cause the chemicals in the series reactions to go in a certain direction and produce new virions?
This explanation is untenable because it cannot secure the conditions that preclude/exclude any extraneous causes of infection. That means any other intervening causes of ‘infection’ e.g. chemical /biochemical toxins, certain forms of EM radiation, oxidative stress, or whatever. These may have a deleterious action on the organism’s cells and have nothing to do with virus and are extraneous to the teleological process of viral infection/reproduction and yet cannot be precluded/excluded from producing the same symptoms of the disease allegedly caused by virus.
Why must these other causes be excluded? We must reiterate that if the extraneous causes are not excluded from the picture, there can be no claim that virus is THE cause of anything let alone a series of chemical reactions called infection! 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’ in another human being in the way that standard textbooks on virology try to make out. Have you? And what mechanism ensures that all other causes of infection have been excluded from the picture???????
Sure enough scientists do turn up bits and pieces of genetic material and make claims as if they came from a complete pathogen, but none have been able to prove the claim conclusively with all the hard scientific evidence. My requests for such proof have always fallen on deaf ears.
There is another reason why alleged pathogenic viruses do not cause infection or disease. If viruses can have no independent effectivity their own and cannot ‘do’ anything as you state, whatever effectivity they may appear to possess is always reducible to something else namely, the functions they are supposed to realize or express in the teleological process, because that’s the way the whole thing has been theoretically conceived. It is perhaps worth noting here that viruses in general don’t exist in nature as objects independent of the theory or theories in which they are specified. How can they? You can’t step outside of theory into the ‘real’ to see if they are really there can you? Since they are objects of scientific discourse they are theoretically constructed objects and can only be specified and identified by means of concepts and the most rigorous methods and observation techniques available which themselves have been theoretically conceived and constructed. You can’t build a microscope without first knowing what to do, and you can’t use it without knowing how to operate it and what you might be looking at!
The alleged pathogenic viruses then, as bits and pieces of nucleic acid with a few other chemical bits and bobs thrown in for good measure exist because they are conceived that way and because of the functions they have been assigned to perform in such a process described above. The ‘cellular machinery’ is incorporated as a necessity – the means that enable the virus (which is supposed to become part of that cellular machinery) to fulfill its predetermined functional end – the alleged reproduction of ’progeny’ – more bits and pieces of dead nucleic acid that have never been conclusively proven to cause any disease. The precise versions of the teleology described above may vary depending on the imagination of the virologist.
Would appreciate your comments, but please bear in mind that I’m on about alleged ‘pathogenic viruses’ here not the harmless variety!
There’s an easy way out of all this but it will never be accepted by those who’s version of science rests solely on a physicalist- materialist basis.
The way out is to accept that there is no dead matter physical or otherwise and that every last subatomic particle, atom and molecule is ALIVE and has an albeit limited form of CONSCIOUSNESS but that is anethema to the physicalist-materialist mentality and thus to mainsteam science. That is why we are led to believe it all happens mechanically in a Newtonian context via a process of blind chemical reaction on the one hand, with direction from the same dead zombie like chemicals in the shape of virus on the other. The virus being mechanically transformed into ‘stage director’ if it miraculously escapes the numerous defences and manages to enter its alleged target cell completely unscathed! That which was dead then somehow becomes ‘alive’ because the kind cell breathes into the virus the breath of life for the sole pupose of virus reproduction! Or does the zombie virus use its newly gained muscle to clobber the cell into submission to do all the work on its behalf – take your pick.
What bothers me is that the majority of so-called scientists believe this crap and will defend it to the death like old Priestly defended the phlogistic theory of gases until Antoine Lavoisier came along and discovered oxygen turning chemistry off its head squarely onto its feet!
Very true, not much scientific evidence at all – lots of speculation. No MECHANISM is specified as far as I’m aware to explain how one species changes into a new one.
Darwin envisaged one species slowly changing into a new one, which then changed into another one, until finally not just new species belonging to the same genus were produced, but new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, and ultimately kingdoms of organisms evolved.
However, the fossil record with its abrupt transitions demolishes Darwin’s idea of ‘phyletic gradualism’ if such a notion were true species should be undergoing constant modifications and we should expect to discover fossils of at least some of the vast number of transitional forms that Darwin admitted his theory required – but we don’t find any!.
Here’s a simple question for anybody who is interested to answer. Do you know of anyone who has successfully physically isolated a complete pthogenic virus free from contaminants using PCR and/or other indirect methods and proved conclusively that the virus in question is the sole cause of a specific disease in living human beings? If the answer is yes. Please give full details. If the answer is no please specify why not. This is not a joke. Some take it seriously.
Two isolations come to mind immediately. SARS coronavirus was
initially identified by PCR in patients with SARS in 2003
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690091). The entire genome was
subsequently amplified and assembled to form an infectious DNA clone.
PCR was also used to identify West Nile virus as the agent of human
encephalitis when in first entered the US in 1999
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04576-6).
i don’t think sooooooooooo
Thanks Professor, but neither of the references you provided can be found – perhaps you could post the details when you have the time. Meanwhile, I have a question. Why aren’t direct methods used to isolate viruses which should be abundant if sampled at the appropriate time during infection if they are really present in certain diseases? Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it PCR is an indirect method that does not in fact ‘isolate’ anything and was never intended to do so, according to its inventor Dr K. Mullis. If you cannot isolate virus directly from all other contaminants to use as a standard first, how do you know that what is being assembled/ amplified from the fragments of genetic code is a even a clone of the alleged virus in question?
viruses clearly have some sort of characteristics similar to plants, because plants are passive too, and at the mercy of their environment
But without a female (i’m a male) i can not reproduce either, so doesn’t that mean that a virus reproduces sexually in it’s own way?
The definition of sexual reproduction is that the genetic material of
two organisms combine to make a new organism. Viruses do not need to
do that to reproduce; they simply make more of their own. They can
exchange genetic information by recombination or reassortment, but
it’s not considered sexual reproduction. But you can consider it a
form of ‘viral sex’ since it is exchange of genetic material.
Viral replication is allegedly a process which takes place under definite and specifiable conditions. Therefore, if virus particles release energy say, during virus entry, what precisely are the conditions which determine that the released energy will be used in viral replication and not something else?
so prions can almost be cosidered amino acid versions of viruses because they act the same as a virus and do nothing until they become apart of a living host right.
You can’t say that viruses are dead when the meaning of dead is the complete loss of function of cells. There is a difference between dead and non-living.
i love this article sooooooooo true
This helped me prove my parents that viruses are not living during dinner tonight. 🙂
They aren’t dead because for them to be dead they would at one time have had to be alive. This is not the case.
Plants are not passive! Something that is passive does not grow or develop and plants clearly grow and develop.
Pathogenic viruses have not yet been rigorously proven to exist scientifically yet alone to be either ‘dead’ or ‘alive’ when they allegedly some how manage enter a ‘susceptible’ cell to cause infection. By using the current indirect methods deployed by virology to isolate them they never can be conclusively proven to even exist let alone cause disease. Quote me a scientific paper that is easily accessible that purports to have isolated the smallpox virus (either variola major or variola minor) for example, using a direct method of isolation betcha can’t do it.
i agree with what you are saying 🙂
It’s one thing to think that viruses are alive -it’s another to be able to prove it. Would be more than happy, overjoyed in fact to see you do just that AgrayÂ
How so?
Arguments of  Viruses as a nonliving thing-Viruses require cells to multiply                *Parasitic life forms also require other cells to multiply. In particular there are types of intracellular Mycoplasma that are fully dependant on their host cell. In conclusion, relying on other cells to multiply in not an eliminating factor for exclusion as a life form.-Viruses are completely at mercy of their environment.                *First off, what cell isn’t? Viruses evolve faster than any organism. And evolution is a form of battling your environment so that one is not at the mercy of the environment. Evolution is a response to an environment.  A rock for example cannot respond to environment in any way so it can be said it is at the complete mercy of its environment. Cells evolve and there for respond to environmental changes meaning they are not at the complete mercy of the environment. Since evolution is the biggest factor in determining reliance on environmental factors, one would have to conclude the most capable thing of not being at the mercy of the environment would have to be viruses.-The multiplication of viruses is the result of a series of passive chemicals reactions that are predefined by the nature of the molecules in the virus particle.            *This is one of the stranger arguments I’ve seen… Describe passive and predefined nature of molecules. Viruses actually contain atp as is requires energy to attach and release, and I think everyone can agree atp is not ‘passive’ in your definition. Every single thing on this planet and universe is the result of collisions between particles as a result of the predefined nature of particles. Every single cell on this planet is the result of collisions between molecules as a result of the predefined nature of molecules. You may want to revise this part of your argument as it seems to be a incomplete thought as everything in nature can be said to be predefined as the constants of the universe are just that, constants. The very process that led to the first cells (life forms) would have had to be ‘passive’ in your definition. In conclusion this argument would have to exclude all things in the universe as everything today is the consequence of a series of reactions as defined by the laws of the universe, or in this case chemical reactions. Before I state my opinion and reasoning I would like to see your reasoning (any you have left out), as it would be a waste of my time if it turns out your treating this religiously instead of scientific deduction.Edit: I just read through this more and Tony is clearly using this as an indirect argument for religion.The fallacies of this article is ridiculous, but what is more ridiculous is how many people can just read a paragraph from a random person and make such large conclusions. Whether the conclusion was erroneous or not, isn’t the point. The point is the reasoning of this article is completely false. This type of mentality is extremely dangerous and will continue to propagate ignorance. Hopefully I can contact the author and have him update this with valid arguments.
Useful!
Thanks for answering my homework.
Tony, you know everything about viruses! 😉
You really do.
Tony is correct but unfocused.  “Matter†per se cannot be alive because with quantum field theory matter does not exist.  What we have are quantized (utterly size-less) fields in self-relation within protons (and neutrons), the protons logically implying and necessitating the electron fields with which they are associated at ordinary (life) temperatures.  Tony is correct that secular biology have actually no idea of what this really involves right under its nose.
The “life†(and it is actually Eternal Life) is in the protons, where arises not only each and every organismic idea but every instance of it (each individual), whose existence is held as a “virtual negative†within the matter of the protons.  The protons communicate sequentially through nuclei with electron fields.  “Non-living†atoms (inorganic matter) become integrated within living systems through a primitive sensing mechanism involving the Casimir effect, as well as the Zeeman and Stark effects. Â
Thus, the completely immaterial and highly energetic Idea at the foundation is “embodied†but the “body†(electron fields in energetic interaction and relation) are not themselves material, for electrons have no size (though they have mass from their energy alone) and are by no means material in any realistic sense of that term.  In short, there is no matter, strictly speaking, but there is Life and Eternal Life in constant communication and interrelation. Â
All Life, then, receives its motion, form, and activity from the Eternal Life that resides at the foundation of the World. Â This is the way it has always been but could not have been even suspected until ca. 1973, with the discovery of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and the triadic color-charges in self-relation that constitute a foundational motion that receives its activity from nothing in the finite at all–hence it must be of the Infinite and is INFINITE.
More?  Contact me (Ronald Schleyer) at “schleyer@earthlink.netâ€.
this was relay helpful and i think viruses are gay and they have sex with cells to cover up there gayness
 well, they are sure scary! they are not living, so they are invincable![80]
can viruses kill a living orginisum?
no they aren`t!
someone explain to me the definition of life and why it has been narrowed to only 8 characteristics? viruses have been debated for years whether or not they are considered living or non-living according to these characteristics have they not? but research and studies continue to show that what was once a scientific law is now disproved by something unexplainable in human terms. Such as Einstein’s E=mc^2. Why is it that this can be explained in an ideal setting but, when other factors outside of this “ideal” setting are thrown into the mix such as black holes etc, the equation doesn’t stand? Is it possible that we ourselves are belittling the very idea of what life really is to only 8 simple characteristics in order to explain the whole of it?
why viruses are called neither alive nor dead?
well duh!!!
Viruses neither contain ATP and have no effective means of generating it either, so Professor Racaniello is correct on that score. After reading so many scientific papers on the subject of virology and how alleged pathogenic viruses in particular supposedly cause disease I have discovered that most of it turns out to rest on pure speculation. I have had many a run in with microbiologists who think they know it all and have tried to bamboozle me with their ‘official’ version of the pathogenic virus story to no avail. I do not claim to have all the answers, but from what I have learned so far no complete ‘purified’ pathogenic viruses have ever been effectively isolated to date, let alone photographed and bichemically characterized and I do not care who claims that they have. Nobody will provide any direct evidence. When I request such evidence all I get is ridicule or papers referring to viral ‘isolates’ which are not isolated viruses at all but mixtures containing crap along with alleged virus particles. By the way, I would like to know what led you to the conclusion that an indirect argument for religion was somewhere at work
Interesting. But we are also made of the same chemical elements and we obey the same chemical interactions and physical laws. So are we passive too and completely at the mercy of our environment? Sure we are much more complex, but doesn’t that just mean more complex reactions but still under the same basic rules.
If alleged pathogenic viruses are completely passive and completely at the mercy of their environment it means they can be acted upon by an external agency without responding or initiating an action in return.
Despite that, if it is then argued that they really can be the  cause of certain diseases even if they can’t ‘do’ anything it can only be because something else does it for them. If that is the case then something is seriously amiss in virology.
You are correct mitashaki we are much more complex, and we can be both passive and impassive if we choose, and no we are not reducible to a mere bunch of complex chemical reactions, there’s much more to it than that.
Virus has life because it support the second law thermodynamics . When it undergoes to equilibrium it is no more exist i.e. dead. We can say a system undergoes to equilibrium then it is dead, non-living matter does so. So, definitely we can say virus is living as prion too, so virus is neither dead nor in between the living and
non-living.
Let me say another example, bacterial endospore having lots of machinery
for germination but it is also metabolically inactive, when it get
suitable environment ……. and it germinate to vegatative form.
As virus, when it outside the host, it becomes inactive but not dead,
act like endospore of bacteria when it get appropriate host it undergoes
to active state, as like germination of endospore.
Virus is not “inanimate complex organic
matter†because “inanimate complex organic
matter†is in the equilibrium state, it can’t give life. If so, then it will be great breakthrough in the world. We can create complex life and living being became immortal.
this is very helpful
i went to another website but it kinda convinced me that a virus is a living thing based on the info they were giving me
Not the answer I was expecting but all the same, this information is useful
Could you please cite your sources (e.g. Collage textbook, Proffeser, Name of Collage, ect.) so I could use your informational article as info for my reports in Biology. Thanks in advance.
If according to some thermodynamacists life is only a way to breakdown concentrations of energy and turn it into diffuse waste heat then surely viruses cannot be ‘alive’ because they have no metabolic or any other means of degrading energy. That means that either SOMETHING ELSE that is alive has to do it all for them or nothing is done at all.
people i’m 11 and i know viruses aren’t living. the only thing that shows they posiibly might be is that they reproduce
Well yout wrong innit?
not much info to write a page essay about
thanks for answering my homework
Please to see the documents or encyclopedia of britanica.
I hope this document has philosophy of life which will satisfy you to say virus, prion are alive.