4 



THE ORIGIN OF LIVING MATTER 533 



only by living organisms. The first step away from this vitalistic 

 concept of the origin of organic matter was the synthesis of urea 

 by Wohler in 1828. The experiment was recognized, but for 

 another quarter of a century it was held that while the superior 

 intelligence of man made it possible for him to synthesize organic 

 matter, such synthesis was possible in nature only because of 

 the vital force which living things possess. Shortly after the 

 middle of the last century, Berthelot wrote, "The objective of 

 our science is to banish 'Life' from the theories of organic chem- 

 istry." Thus was inaugurated the revolt against vitalism. 

 Brought on by the successes in organic synthesis, it went so far 

 as to proclaim the possibility of the artificial synthesis of all 

 compounds. Many of the younger biologists fell into line with 

 the mechanists among chemists and boasted of the production 

 of living matter in the near future. J. Loeb expressed the 

 opinion that "something like living matter" would be com- 

 pounded in the laboratory within a very few years. Perhaps 

 the expression "something like" left a loophole out of which to 

 escape in case the substance produced did not fulfill all the 

 requirements of living matter. Even more confident have been 

 some recent utterances to the effect that having "gone a long 

 way toward understanding the composition of an amoeba [the 

 statement could be challenged], it will not be fifty years before 

 we can build a single-cell organism like the amoeba." Such 

 predictions express a hopefulness that experience does not 

 support. Life is, to say the least, a new departure and a very 

 extraordinary one. On the other hand, when its simpler happen- 

 ings lend themselves to scientific analysis, they prove to be as 

 subservient to physical and chemical laws as are nonliving 

 systems. 



When challenged to accept one of two concepts neither of 

 which satisfies fully, we seek a third interpretation. 



The experimental scientist is often loath to turn to the phil- 

 osopher for a suggestion on the solution of his problems, but 

 this would appear to be the best way out of the present situation. 

 One can, of course, accept the vitalistic concept unequivocally 

 and agree with those who state that the modern physics has done 

 away with mechanism; or one can recognize mechanism and agree 

 with the mechanists of the last century who thought that their 

 modern physics had done away with vitalism. Let us rather not 



