ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1548, 18 September 1912, Page 4

ORIGIN OF LIFE.

A MELBOURNE PIiOFESSOIt'S VIEWS. I

•In the course of an interview with a representative of the "Argus." regarding Professor .Sohne/er's address on the origin of life. Professor Orm'e. Masson, of Mel- • bourne University, said: —"The Cabled news will create enormous interest throughout the world of science. Professor Schaofer, in his address, appears fo have come right, out and declared himself a believer in (lie .spontaneous evolution of life J'fom non-living matter. He not- only declares his. belief that fhi.3 spontaneous evolution has happened, but is 'happening.'. That is important. By this addrefs Professor Sehaefer has reopened a controversy on aii aspect of the origin ,of life which working scientists throughout the world considered to have been closed .some 30 or so years ago.. .

"The striking feature' about flip cabled news is that. Profess/or Fchscfeiy as head for the time bein? of the British Association, has ventured to stafa his belief tint it may be possible sooner or Inter for the working scientist to synthesise life from so-called inanimate matter in the laboratory. This is entirely "heterodox,- in view of the tenets, of working scientific orthodoxy' during the last 30 to 40 years. ■'.'..'

"Scientists have held that .at the back of nil chemical possibilities, there was still some vital force which eluded the laboratory, and without which (ho scionfist in his experiments failed. "Thirty years a<*o. Dr. Bsstian, Fellow of. the, Ildy-nl Society, and at .that time professor, of medicine at the University College, London (an nncle of mine, by the way), runic fprrard as the advocate Of spoiitaiicous:evolution of life from nonliving matter. Dr. Bnstian, who has devoted the whole of his scientific. life to; fliis study, in.aito profound and elaborate experiments in his lafyorafory at that fime., .'irid thfi results of these experiments created very, great interest. His experimental resiilte and theories, however, were controverted by, Tynd.il and Pasteur, and .w'e.i'e' adjudged to' ];o faulty. They were u'p'sst. and since that time there"! has bseii no revival of the controversy amonjst the world's working scien"lt doe? not ilecesfatfily ■ follow that Professor SchaciV lias marie his pronouncement ns flic result of personal laboratory experiment. With the .bare cable before' iiie, if. app'aa'rs rather that he i"!>y he refprrius to the views of Emir Fischer, of Germany, on the action of proteids.-and the possibility of ■ netting nearer to a .knowledge of the real nature of the protoplasm.- '' . "The full details-,,0? this presidential address will be awaited, with eacor. inter-, est by th<! v.-hole scientific world. In a subsequent letter-to the "Argus, ■ Professor'Mrisson. in renly fo certain com-, ments on the abovrf statement, wrote:— "T expressed no opinions of 'my own on the vexetl question of a. vital force. Fortunately. I. was not asked to do so, for I find it "difficult to say yc.i or nay to the existence of ■ something which has. not' beoii clearly denned lVo'r brought within the reach of proof. In the next place, I did not state that all men of science have avowed a'belief in a vital force, for it is of course notorious.that some/have expressed that belief, -and others have inclined, io i:he view that life'is merely a special manifestation of physical and chemical processes'. Hut,- while this H so, it is undeniable that, for f!m Inst 40 years or so, it has been scientifically unorthodox to believe" in the.'spontaneous generation of living from inanimate matter, either as a present tla'v natural process or !\fi a , possible?• •accomplishment of-the. la--boratory.' In other words, th'e prevailing opinion'., tacit or has been that there is an nnbfidßaWe chasm ■in 'the path of evolution, Sc'pavnting tho' living from the iion-living. This, to mv mind, is. equivalent io assertinjt that life involves a somethinS which is not. physical or c.hemicnl. Professor Sc.hacfer apnears to' liald tho contrary ooinioji, and ils fitafement by an accomplished and eminontly sane physiolouist occup.vi«» Uio po-. sitioii of president of the British Asso-.' ciotion' in ay be'foken ns evidence of rN oeiion.' No doubt it will shock some, give pleasure to others, and afford excuse fov. controversy. But the really interesting niiestion is not what Hi-is or.ljiat iwn thinks, but why he thinks The , cable has' (riven us; ■ Professor Sclmefer's opinion. His address, when we'lia've it - , will probably ,?ive us his rea'sorts."