SESSION VII. DISCUSSION 653 



in 1936. While studying the flora in Kamchatka he found a rich microflora in hot springs 

 at a temperature of 70° C. 



It is, however, hard to beheve that the first organisms could have had such a collection 

 of enzjmies as to enable them to assimilate simple mineral compounds. 



K. MoTHES : Chemists and physicists have a different approach to the problem of the 

 origin of life from that of biologists. In regarding life the biologist first sees its tremendous 

 multiformity, the complexity of the organization of plants and animals, of organisms large 

 and small. This being so, it is remarkable, and by no means self-evident, that, from a 

 chemical point of view, the organization of all these organisms is essentially similar. 



It follows that, in its development, life has proceeded along paths which are, from a 

 chemical point of view, very close to one another. I consider that this is a very important 

 point which biologists cannot ignore. Certainly the chemists, who have understood life 

 better, will tell us that life is by no means so perfect as it is said to be, that life, in its 

 contemporary form is not, so to speak, optimal. It only appears so near to perfection be- 

 cause everything which has developed during the past thousands of millions of years and 

 has not been so well adapted to the conditions it met, has ceased to exist and does not 

 come to our observation. 



E. Chargaff: At first I did not intend to speak in this discussion but I already feel 

 obliged to take part in it. I think that, having heard the truly passionate appeal of the 

 biologists, the biochemist should raise his humble voice. If we look at what is now called 

 comparative biochemistry we mvist conclude that it is essentially a catalogue of our 

 ignorance. If the biochemist arrives at the amazing discovery that many enzymic systems 

 and many components of cells are present and active in organisms separated widely from 

 one another, is not the reason for this the fact that the biochemist only finds what he is 

 looking for ? For example, if we suspect or even believe that some nucleoproteins are in 

 some way associated with the carrying or the transfer of hereditary characteristics, it is 

 really surprising that the tables of nucleic acids in our books cover less than 100 organisms 

 which have been studied. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the billions 

 and trillions of, as yet, unknown compounds have a similar composition. 



G. Schramm: Much has been said at this Symposium about the synthetic processes 

 which are necessary for the formation of natural substances and highly developed organ- 

 isms, but it seems to me that the processes of breakdown and degradation are also impor- 

 tant for the development of living materials. It is now well known that selection is possible 

 only when the individuals which have been formed disappear, to give place to ones which 

 are better adapted. 



I suggest that we ought to give deeper consideration to the question of how the systems, 

 which were formed as a result of synthesis, were broken down to make way for further 

 development. 



K. Felix: Dr. Mothes has already pointed out the similarity between the chemical 

 composition of different organisms. This fact is often emphasized nowadays. We study 

 processes in very simple organisms and find confirmation of them in more highly organized 

 organisms. The difterence between the different organisms consists in the quantitative 

 composition of substances and their spatial arrangements and the temporal sequences of 

 the reactions. This side of the question is, however, stil unknown to us. 



The following example will serve to illustrate the importance of the quantitative re- 

 lationships. People are distinguished from one another by their blood groups. These 

 blood groups, so far as we can judge from our investigations, differ only insignificantly 

 from one another in their composition; the difference consists only in the quantitative 

 relationship between the components. 



A. M. G0LDOVSKIÏ: The fact that contemporary organisms, independently of their 

 degree of complexity, are essentially built up of substances belonging to the same chemical 

 groups (proteins, carbohydrates, Hpids, isoprene compounds and a few cyclic compounds) 

 may be explained by assuming that substances of any particular group can take part in 

 the common plan of chemical construction by fulfilling several functions in the compli- 

 cated organism in question. Thus, different physical and chemical properties of sub- 

 stances of the particular group are used during the course of evolution. The substances 

 are used in all sorts of ways to participate in the structure of the tissues and organs and to 

 carry out functions of various kinds. Thus, for example, in the case of fats, various of 



