Are viruses alive?

I know of no life form that can be crystalised as can a virus. I've read a discription of a virus as "borrowed life" which is almost it.

A virus is not alive. It cannot reproduce. It tricks its hosts body into reproducing it. It does not use food for energy. Although they do have dna (Genes) and can evolve.

Since a virus has the capacity to "trick" its host into reproducing--maybe its definition of "living" is on a different plane than our weak comprehension of "life"--I would much rather have a bacterial infection that can be easily "killed" with antibiotics than a virus that is never going to leave my body such as the chickenpox virus which caused me terrible pain when it "evolved" to cause shingles.

Its not like it tricks your cells with its intelect:) Alone, a virus is just a chain of molecules. It cannot do anything we attribute to a living organism. When it contacts a host it creates a chemical response, your living body repliactes it.
If you set it alone is it still alive?

I believe Viruses are little more than 'living equations' which go about following pre-set commands. The matter of evolution can be solved by squaring the 'unknown' ( be it x,y or z)
They just go about applying their 'equation' to everything and as a result of this more viruses are produced

I think they are kind of alive, because they can reproduce, but only when they have a host cell. I mostly think they are not alive, but it depends on how you look at it.

Camille - it would appear that most of what I have written on this site so far has fallen on deaf ears since nobody has really come to grips with the key issue of coming up with the answers requested as far as the alleged human pathogenic viruses are concerned. We seem to be going round and round in a revolving door debating a false question.

For example, before we can predicate an alleged 'virus' with the attributes of life or death it must first of all have to be proven to exist scientifically. To date this has not been done by any person worthy of being called a scientist. For all the talk and pontification regarding this matter nobody has had the bottle to come clean and admit that there is no conclusive scientific proof or concrete scientific evidence at hand that can substantiate the claim that any of the ALLEGED human pathogenic viruses exist. If this statement is untrue then the easiest way to refute it would be to supply the evidence to the contrary.

If nobody can provide such evidence then the question as to whetherany of the alleged pathogenic viruses are alive or dead is redundant and the focus remains on the study of a false problem, namely, the bits of nuclear material that are packaged and known to be ejected from dieased and damaged cells as a RESULT of a disease process that is caused by many different factors other than the alleged nuclear particles that scientists refer to as pathogenic viruses.

Viruses are both, dead AND alive. Outside a living cell they are nothing but a large complex of organic chemicals. Inside the cell they assume some properties of life. I believe it's impossible to truly create life from inert matter, without using another life form to assist in the process. Or at least we are a very long way from it.

Since it is now fairly easy to create certain viruses from scratch, as done by Eckard Wimmer of Stony Brook University, I think it's not really life that's being created, but rather at best "re-created" from known information. This life can be "molded" within certain parameters to be put to good use, for instance in the making of new vaccines, as the groups around Eckard Wimmer and Steffen Mueller subsequently showed (some explanation found here: http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~smueller/index.html )

The closest thing to creating some type of new life form is the group around Craig Venter. They use a completely synthetic bacterial genome, and try to transplant it into an empty bacterium, which had its genome completely taken out. However, as I said this process depends on an empty surrogate bacterium, which contains all the "stuff of life" in form of thousands of different proteins, EXCEPT the information (i.e genome) to replicate itself. So, even if they succeed in doing that, it may new life form, and after "booting" it from the synthetic genome, it will assume the properties encoded by the new genome, but it first needed that "empty" bacterial shell, and THAT perhaps can never be made from scratch, because it is way too complex.

Bob - like the vast majority of microbiologists you are treating the physical existence of viruses as a fait accompli when they have not yet been effectively isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized scientifically, and despite all the usual objections to the contrary. Show me the beef!

Here, I am referring to the alleged human disease causing viruses. To date I have been unable to find any hard scientific evidence that these pathogenic viruses actually exist in isolation in the natural physical material world.

If viruses in general [assuming they do exist] are BOTH dead AND alive which you appaer to be implying then their general form of existence is a CONTRADICTORY one. If that is the case then how are they able to function effectively as viruses at all whether inside or outside a cell??? Do you see the problem here?

Regards, Tony

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying nobody has ever seen a virus? Are you saying there is no evidence they EXIST? You are seriously deluded. This is not what this discussion is about. Of course it is a fact that viruses EXIST! The question is are they ALIVE? The penny in your pocket EXISTS, right? I'm sure you would agree it is not alive. Your dog, if you have one, exists, and you would probably agree it is alive. The problem we're discussing here, is where do viruses fit in on this continuum. Viruses CAN be and HAVE BEEN seen, touched, photographed, isolated, broken up into there constituent, and yes for some of them even put back together from their constituent.

To me viruses are alive, and now I wonder about prions.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/sri-sfs122909.php
Public release date: 31-Dec-2009
Contact: Keith McKeown
Scripps Research Institute
Scripps Florida scientists show 'lifeless' prions capable of evolutionary change and adaptation

FUCK SCIENTISTS....DROP SOME LSD

Emily - interesting paper on prions. However, prions like viruses may well be alive but I have yet to see a materialistic and mechanistic microbiology come to terms with that proposition. I cannot see orthodox microbiologists accepting anything that cannot be reduced to biochemical and biophysical phenomena. They tend to identify the effects of vital phenomena as causes if you catch my drift.

To date NOBODY has ever provided any concrete scientific evidence that conclusively proves that the alleged human disease causing viruses exist let alone EVOLVE a la Darwinian style. So I would not get too excited about this report on prion research that claims to have a 'scientific' basis.

If you can provide any proof concerning the isolation and existence of human pathogenic viruses Dr Stefan Lanka (virologist and molecular biologist) would be more than pleased to examine it and you can claim his 10,000 euros reward if it conforms to the rigorous scientific criteria for virus isolation etc. Also bear in mind that nobody in the materialistic microbiology fraternity has ever claimed to have observed a live pathogenic virus as far as I am aware . Royal Raymond Rife may well have been the only exception but his work is largely ignored today.

Best wishes

An entity is 'living' if it can independantly carry out the energy/matter transformations necessary for maintaining it's structural existence and reproductive processes. This is true for all organisms, including symbiotes and parasites.

Viruses are therefore not living, being unable to do anything without access to their specific host's living cellular machinary, and only becoming active as a component of the host cell.

They should be seen as an evolved 'artifact' of living cells that have, unfortunately, the ability to cause harm.

Andros -- despite the apparent overwhelming watertight 'scientific' evidence that most microbiologists usually uphold as being the gospel truth for the existence of viruses in general and pathogenic viruses in particular its really full of holes.

I really can't believe that rational human beings can be taken in by it. There is no conclusive proof whatsoever that viruses 'pathogenic' or otherwise have ever evolved as 'artifacts' or anything else, or that viruses CAUSE harm or disease in a living host despite what the textbook propaganda says.

Do not forget that viruses are merely assigned certain functions in and by microbiology, it does not follow that they DO actually perform those functions or that they are constrained to perform them in the modalities alleged independently of the particular discourse in which they are specified e.g. in the 'real world' conceived as existing independently of discourse. Hope you understand my the meaning of my argument since it raises ontological and epistemological questions concerning the existence and knowledge of viruses that I can't go into here.

I like the term obligate intracellular parasite

Cyndi - to be a parasite is to be defined as an organism which in turn is defined as a living system in biology e.g. ticks. fleas tapeworms etc are parasites, but viruses are inert chemicals and are not organisms at all in any meaningful biological sense of the word. If this is true then it follows that they are not and cannot be parasites whether 'obligate', 'intracellular' or otherwise. They are only made to appear that way by the surreptitious use of philosophical arguments that usually pass undetected in microbiological science.

Human pathogenic viruses despite all arguments to the contrary have never been effectively isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized to date.

Where is the conclusive proof that such viruses really exist? I have seen none and can't find any, and NOBODY has come forth with any because there is none. Please prove me WRONG and show me the proof - no indirect methods will do - no secondary references - no textbook references of computer enhanced models - no 'virus-like particles' - only the original primary sources, with the names of the scientists who carried out the work and readable copies concerning the methodology and techniques as to how they did it.

Do you know of any other object that contains DNA or RNA that is not living? The description obligate parasite seems to "fit" simply from the way a virus reproduces its own genetic material(hence "alive") using mechanisms within other cells--(hence "intracellular"). Maybe we don't understand all living things that don't fit into our definitions of "alive."

Cmyers - only objects that have been produced 'synthetically' in the labs, as far as I am aware, and of course dead bodies.

There is no proof that viruses reproduce their own genetic material that would be another miracle for a bunch of dead chemicals - it is only made to APPEAR that way. If that were really possible then they would be capable of ACTING in some way and yes they could 'utilize' mechanisms within other cells.

The way in which viruses are conceived at the moment in microbiology is problematic - they cannot 'utilize' the cellular systems to reproduce despite all arguments to the contrary - that's just a myth. In fact they cannot 'utilize' anything - they are dead in the water so to speak , even if we give them a postulated existence.

You are correct in what you say in your last sentence, but to go down that road would imply that really there is no dead matter whether it is inorganic or organic and that everything is really alive at least to a limited degree and in various forms. Since current microbiology is still bogged down in its quagmire of mechanistic and materialistic way of thinking such a notion would be regarded as heretical.

Best wishes for Christmas & the New Year

Virus's have the potential to be alive only when there enviorment provides what is necessary to activate them.

Like Lazarus resurrected eh!

Think about that sort of whitewash you are being led to believe because that's all it is, an unproven, unfounded belief. It is certainly not what I understand as being 'scientific' in any way shape or form.

When we are dead I bet you cannot specify the physical environmental conditions necessary to activate us all again, unless of course you have an unconditional belief in the potential of fictitious zombies - the so-called 'living dead'

Virus's have the potential to be alive only when there enviorment provides what is necessary to activate them.

I think viruses are alive because they seem to have a fondness for bacteria that exceeds a simple energy, entropy, biomechanical randomness. I think you and your readers would enjoy the essay on the question of whether a jellyfish is an animal or a colony by the highly regarded biologist essayist whose name eludes me now. Was it Steven J. Gould ? thanks for your site and your willingness to respond to blog comments questions.

That Wimmer quote is great!

Back when high school biology was mostly zoology + botany, I was taught that to qualify as living, an object had to possess all of seven properties: feeding, movement, respiration, excretion, growth, sensitivity and reproduction. That pretty much rules out anything non-cellular as living.

I see viruses as complex macromolecular machines. I suppose to some people they appear as complex and "purposeful" as an organism, but so would a ribosome, if you could watch it in action.

are computer viruses living ?

That would depend on your definition of life! According to some,
computer viruses would be included as living. Which means that we have
to be careful about how we define life. In my view neither viruses
with nucleic acids, nor computer viruses, are living.

So my "No" answer was basically correct? Either way, thank you for the education your blog and podcast has given me. I've developed an interest in virology since 2009 H1N1 surfaced, and tremendously appreciate your work.

As far as I'm concerned, viruses are not alive - but many disagree
with me and their arguments are cogent. It's one of those questions
with no single answer and which can be debated forever. That's evident
from the poll results.

Racaniello VR., 1991
Viruses: not the simplest form of life after all.

That reminds me of testifying in court cases on vaccines...the lawyers
always dig up what you have written years ago that contradicts your
current position!

I have a philosophy of science background and got tremendously interested in this issue in my high school life in the 80's . The more I studied the more awed I got about the complexity of viri lifecycle and their "intelligence". Wheather viruses are members of our club we call living matter or life is certainly "only" a question of definition and criteria. And essentialist notions like soul and spirit long lost our interest. Could that happen to the notion of life? That we simply regard it as retarded? I don't think so, and I believe it to be useful to retain a pragmatically applied distinction between life-forms and non-life-forms, but their boundaries may well be fluent. My main argument for viri being life-forms or being alive stems from their sheer complexity, and I find systemic/ecologic criteria that the two by Etienne here quite appealing. But remembering the bad history of stiff criteria and definitional boundaries, I opt for a more radical ecological convincing argument coming from A) their being part of an quite tangible and hyperactive membership in the Darwinian club of evolutionary items. And B) the fact that the more people study properties of virus the more will they find intriguing and complex about them. Their ecological qualities and personalities may well be very much different from our type of intelligence. But so are swarm type of intelligence and intra-species communication between bacteria, flies, ants etc.
May be ultimately our choice is to be bio-tolerant (opening up to the simplest and strangest lifeforms) or bio-chauvinist (closing the gates to viri, may be bacteria and certainly negating chimpanzees moral and person-like status).

at what level of complexity does an orgaism develop a soul? If a species/variant has entirely predictable qualities when studied in isolation does this constitute life? or like u say does life spring from interacting entities. And what about

C)??????????????????????????????????????????????//

Well, in philosophy today, the concept of a soul is somehow discredited as a philosophical meaningful term. That does not mean that a person supposed to have a soul does not have "soul-ish" properties when it comes to to his speaking, acting or "being". But modern neuroscience would look at this phenomenon to come in gradual, like a heap or pile becomes a heap with more and more sandgrains. Do 15 sandgrains make up a heap? 200? 20000? I think soul is a similar non-thing, it is just a category. When someone has complex feelings and experiences, some people call it soul. Fair enough, but I think it to be a matter of conventions.
Same about life and virus. If a virus inside an "isolated space" behaves entirely predictable, that doesn't mean that it is a mechanical machine (contrasted to life). But where are such closed systems ("studied in isoloation")? There are none in our natural world. Life is in the long run dependent on interaction, that is certainly one of the secrets of evolution. But when I sit in my house for one year and meet/speak to nobody at all, does that mean that I am not living (life)? But I might for example preparing a book, composing an opera, coming out on day 366. *And then, who says that we humans aren't entirely predictable to an observing "god", maybe laughing of us "sould-machines". Predictable is after all relative to some domain and resolution (think of quantum mechanics!). When viruses "sleep" or linger between cells, we might say they are kind of waiting. Sometimes it is smart not to act but only to wait. When we sleep or look at prey from a hiding, waiting for the right moment should be smart not dumb!? The energy-efficient and patient way of a virus to linger around in search for a lazy way to express itself (by using others) is in my opinion not too unlike ourselves sleeping, alouding ourselves to regenerate for another day of action. And if Michelangelo got his many pupils to do the minute painting work on his big paintings, does that mean that Michelangelo (or Bill Gates for that sake) is not really producing? Michelangelo and Gates use their smarts (intelligences) to exploit others in to produce in their own name. Now, if that isn't related to being smart, when what is smart? Viruses have a genetical makeup that leads to interactions with ample consequences. That is somehow related to the definition of intelligence, and therefore I think viruses are alive. Because all intelligent things are living beings. In my opinion. If you on the other hand disagree, I would propose to say that we humans are not life either. We are just chemical machines, like simple viruses, just a lot bigger.
(criteria C) ? : may be ecological intelligence, that amounts to somehow environmental fitness and survival chances, but it could be many other criterias as well. As long as they include viruses in some way, I will agree :)

..i would be very curious to see another survey on the same topic asking something like : do you think it's important to know if viruses are alive or not ?

Thank you prof. Racaniello for all of the work you are putting in the blog and in twiv !!
ciao !!

I wish to quote Professor Eckard Wimmer;

"When asked whether I believe that viruses are dead or alive, I answer 'Yes'"

When Tony is asked whether he believes that viruses are existant or non-existant he also answers ''yes''.

Current microbiology/virology thinks it understands viruses and has it all stitched up and tries to bamboozle everyone with alleged viral genome sequence myths but it is hardly scratching the surface. It is sadly in ERROR for thinking that a bit of physical RNA or DNA + protein coat IS a particular human pathogenic virus (dead or alive!).

If that is true then H1N1 (for example) really can fly - that's why its been called the 'flying pig virus'! Swine flu followed Bird flu - perhaps we shall soon be presented with the specific genome sequences of the virulent strains of Laughing Jackass flu or Teddy Bear flu next - all it takes is a bit of imagination on the part of the scientist and bits of cellular debris to play around with!

If what I am saying is merely a load of rubbish, then I am still waiting for someone - anyone to prove my arguments are wrong after reading ALL of my blog on this website to date.

Best to Teeny for supplying the learned Professor's quote.

Fabulous! I should have included that as a possible answer to the
survey question.

I have a simple definition of life. I consider things as a life when the are reach certain level of complexity - when they are made of cells.
As anybody know, viruses are just complex chemical that can manipulate the cell, but they are smaller and simpler from a any given cell.

PS that was very pleasant to hear you reading my simple question. Thank you.

For me virus are living, if at the edge of what is living. But like said in twiv, it all come down to the definition of life you use.

So, here is the one I use:

1. A system that is capable of replication with mutation (capable of evolution).
2. A system that is capable of locally reducing entropy by increasing it elsewhere.

I think this definition is sufficient to have a clean separation living and not.

I'm not sure that simply saying "this is the definition I use" is the best way of understanding something. While I agree that the definition of "life" has some room for debate, I think that using the the more widely agreed upon definition helps when discussing science. I will give you credit for at least posting your definition. Most scientists will agree though that viruses do not meet the usual definition of "living".