Scientists in the United States claim to have built a synthetic cell that can feed and reproduce

To begin with, I must say that Kate Adamala is well known in the field of synthetic biology and, with her many international initiatives, is a highly driven individual. The work they’re making public through this somewhat unorthodox channel—not through a journal, but through a preprint platform without peer review—is an achievement that, if confirmed to be accurate, is significant; it marks a turning point in the field.

We’ve already seen several such efforts. Craig Venter has already proposed several strategies for constructing artificial cells. The fundamental difference is that this approach, rather than proceeding top-down—starting with known cells like mycoplasma, which are very small, and reducing them—does the opposite: it’s a bottom-up construction, using elements taken from other cells, such as enzymes, ribosomes, and so on. It’s a complementary strategy.

The results they present strike me as quite spectacular because, with a relatively small number of components, they’ve managed to get the cells to divide. It doesn’t have much sustainability because the system isn’t capable of sustaining itself for very long, but still, it’s an important first step.

I think it’s important to highlight that they aren’t designing a cell from scratch, but rather building it from the minimal components necessary for it to exhibit the properties they describe—with all due caution, since the work, as I said, is being disseminated through non-traditional channels—but I believe it’s important to point this out.

I think it’s spectacular work within the field of synthetic biology.

This is a truly spectacular breakthrough. It is not exactly an artificial cell, but rather a cell-like system with a very small genome and basic metabolic capabilities. However, the “cell” requires an external supply of many components, including ribosomes, and does not yet reproduce consistently. It will be very interesting to see if future versions of this development are more independent and can pass on their genome to their offspring more effectively.

I find the work technically sound and a significant technological advance, but it is by no means the creation of life in the laboratory—a claim that is clearly exaggerated. At no point is life created de novo. What is demonstrated is the ability to manually assemble, using preexisting biochemical components and cellular parts, a cell-like system that replicates some of its functions. In that sense, the study marks a milestone; but a milestone in biological engineering should not be confused with a milestone in the origin or creation of life.

I am not going to comment on findings that have not undergone peer review. Publishing in the press before publishing in scientific journals is marketing, not science.

My opinion does not focus on the scientific validity of the finding, but on the communication process, which I consider deeply problematic. This team has chosen to bypass the mechanism that the scientific community has relied on since the 17th century to validate knowledge: publication in specialist journals. And whilst peer review is certainly not perfect, it is currently the only system that has proven effective at filtering out errors, biases and exaggerations before a finding becomes news.

Publishing a 190-page document on their own website and inviting the press (including high-profile outlets such as The New York Times and CNN) before any independent expert has assessed the work is not transparency; it is a well-executed marketing strategy. The serious issue is that this dynamic normalises the practice of presenting scientific results directly to the public without any filter, as if they were tweets or press releases. It is worryingly similar to the alternative realities and fake news that Trumpism has helped to legitimise: the replacement of method with headlines, and of consensus with immediacy.

Science journalists should act as the filter that protects the public from this noise. But, as this case shows, many have prioritised clicks over context. News aggregators and various AIs are certainly not going to act as that filter, so it falls to us scientists and science communicators. That is why my sole view is this: without peer review, no scientific news is worth its salt. I sincerely believe that participating in the debate on the merits of SpudCell would, paradoxically, be to grant legitimacy to the very procedure used here to circumvent it.