Stanley L. Miller dies

The organic chemist performed the first experiments that illuminated how life began


[Published 24th May 2007 02:28 PM GMT]


Stanley Miller, a chemist who showed that, given the right conditions, simple organic compounds can form life, died this week at the age of 77 following a series of strokes.



Miller performed the experiment that made him famous at the age of 23. "At the end of one week, he had results. Here he is, 23 years old, and he's hit on a big one. In one week," his brother Donald Miller, a retired physical chemist from Livermore, Calif., told The Scientist.

As a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, Miller attended a seminar by the late Nobel laureate Harold Urey, who suggested that scientists could create life by combining organic compounds that were present on the primitive Earth. Miller was interested in trying this experiment, and he approached Urey after the talk. Urey discouraged him from pursuing the work, reasoning that "graduate students should do experiments that had a reasonable chance of working, rather than taking a leap into the unknown," according an article by Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano posted on Miller's Web site.

But Miller persisted, and Urey gave in. Together they sketched a design for the now-famous Miller-Urey spark charge apparatus that imitated the earth's atmosphere. Glass tubes connected two globe-shaped flasks, one containing water to mimic the ocean, and the other containing electrodes to mimic the atmosphere. (Miller took the design to a professional glassblower.)

It took three months to prepare conditions for the experiment. When the apparatus was ready, Miller filled a flask with water and evacuated the air, replacing it with methane, hydrogen, and ammonia. He turned on the electrodes to simulate lightning, and gently heated the water, reasoning that high energy input such as the spark and heating would encourage chemical reactions.

Two days later, the mixture turned yellowish brown, and Miller anxiously stopped the experiments. The mixture contained five different amino acids.

Stanley Miller, then 23, presented the findings in the spring of 1953 to a room full of skeptical scientists during a seminar. He published the findings in Science on May 15, 1953.

"This was a landmark experiment, and it took a lot of courage and determination to do it even though your thesis advisor [Urey] advised you not to do it," said Donald Miller.

Miller was later the first assistant professor of chemistry recruited to work at the University of California, San Diego, where he continued to study the origins of life. He also worked on the natural occurrence of clathrate hydrates, the mechanism of the action of general anesthetics, and the thermodynamics of bioorganic compounds.

He held his graduate students to high standards. "He once told me, if you can't come up with five new ideas about the origin of life per day, you're not doing your job," said Jason Dworkin, an astrobiologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center who was a graduate student of Miller's in the 1990s.

Though Miller received many honors during his life, he never won a Nobel Prize. "Most of his colleagues thought he should have gotten the Nobel Prize," said Donald Miller. "I know he was nominated more than once. We think he should have had it, but we're biased."

"He was one of those people who was a real inspiration. I think all of us who knew him in a personal way know we've lost a friend and colleague," Jeffrey Bada, former graduate student of Miller's and professor of marine chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., told The Scientist.

Kelly Rae Chi
mail@the-scientist.com

Image: Stanley Miller in 1999, credit: James A. Sugar

Links within this article:

Stanley Miller
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller.htm

J. Lucentini, "Darkness before the dawn -- of biology," The Scientist, December 1, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/14289/

Harold Urey
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1934/urey-bio.html

JL Bada, A. Lazcano, "Stanley Miller's 70th birthday."
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/birthday_70.htm

S. Miller, "A production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth conditions," Science, May 15, 1953.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/13056598

K. E. Nelson, et al., "Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule. Proc.Nat. Acad. Sci., April 11, 2000.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/10760258

S. Veggeberg, "Origins-of-life research rescued from scientific fringe," The Scientist, October 26, 1992.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/11562

R. Lewis, "New center expands origin of life studies," The Scientist, August 31, 1998.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18183

S. Sandford, et al., "Organics captured from comet 81P/Wild 2 by the Stardust spacecraft," Science, December 15, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/17170291

S. Jaffe, "Astrobiology isn't a dirty word anymore," The Scientist, January, 19, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/14375/

Jeffrey Bada
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/bada.htm

 

Rate this article

Rating: 4.14/5 (7 votes )





"Can form life"? No way!
by Herman Rutner

[Comment posted 2007-05-30 19:29:41]

Dear Dr Chi:
As a industrial chemist for more than 50 years, I concur with the
accolades, short of the Nobel Prize, heaped on the late Dr. Miller. He
like many others including Woehler, who first converted an inorganic
chemical into an organic one, were true pioneers in mimicking primordial
conditions leading to conversion of simple to more complex molecules by
processes still ongoing in the Universe.

However, with due respect to the erudition and scholarship of Dr Miller,
to claim that formation of simple amino acids and other organic
species constitutes a process that "can form life" is, in my humble opinion, a totally unwarranted extrapolation.
Such speculative pseudo-theories, lacking any supporting evidence, are
merely feeble attempts at resurrecting the ancient theories of
"spontaneous generation" or evolutionary "mud to maggots"
transformations, albeit in a mega-millenial time frame, which, as I
recall, had been firmly debunked by Louis Pasteur. What Dr. Miller made
from simple inorganics was not living chemicals, but several chemicals
found in living entities. A vastly different proposition!

Creation of complex matter from atoms or simple molecules clearly
preceded creation of life or living species. But this process stops
short of an essential critical step for creating a living
organism or creation of life, meaning a highly ordered complex
interrelated functional system. Such complexity cannot by any strech of
the imagination be created by random statistical molecular or
evolutionary processes occurring parallel but independently of each
other due to constraints imposed by "irreducible complexity", denoting the
minimal state of living functionality. Hence to create a specific
functional living organism, these statistical processess must have
occurred simultaneously and are thus subject to parallel compound
probabilities that are so infinitesimal as to preclude occurrence in any
time frame, i.e. they are impossible to have occurred, period.

The critical link to creation of life from chemicals is creation of
"information", through an intellectual not inanimate random activity as
exemplified in the computer codes created and written by software
programmers and in the complex genetic codes that program all aspects of
individual cells in simple to complex cellular aggregates.

A super-intelligent primordial Designer, call him/her Mother Nature, an
extraterrestrial Force, or God, etc., is needed to originate or create
and then write the complex software. Assembling the equally complex
hardware into a functionial viable or living format requires an equally
intelligent designer.

And random statistical or evolutionary processes clearly are totallly
inadequate since, as our software programmers say, GIGO. Hence, it
appears intuitively obvious (a favorite expression of one of my diff
equations professors) that creation of life is impossible without
intelligent information codes originating from a super-intelligent designer.

Herman Rutner, M.S. organic chemistry, retired.












Quixotic quest?
by Ron Gaster

[Comment posted 2007-05-25 04:48:54]

David Bump an avid, creationist, said regarding the death of Stanley L. Miller ᅡモwhen neither he nor anyone else has ever actually gotten raw, inorganic chemicals to form life?ᅡヤ and ᅡモit doesn't honour a man to credit him with something that, judging by what experiments have actually done so far, isn't possible. Wouldn't it be enough to say that, after some 54 years of trying, he had done more than anybody else in this Quixotic quest?ᅡヤ
So Stanley Miller was wasting his time on that experiment? He should have gone for the secret of eternal life, first, and then he could have monitored the experiment for a couple of million years rather than the paltry 54 years.






A bit of fond hyperbole?
by David Bump

[Comment posted 2007-05-25 01:31:55]

One should always be kind and generous to people when describing them when they've just died, but how can it be said that he "showed that, given the right conditions, simple organic compounds can form life," when neither he nor anyone else has ever actually gotten raw, inorganic chemicals to form life?

I can excuse leaving out the aspects of the experiment's design that arguably introduced intelligent bias, leaving out the un-lifelike aspects of the amino acid sludge that was formed, and neglecting to mention that nobody has ever even gotten all the required amino acids to form and exist together in a laboratory experiment without borrowing from living things. This is not a time to dwell on such shortcomings, but to point out the successes.

Fair enough -- but it doesn't honor a man to credit him with something that, judging by what experiments have actually done so far, isn't possible. Wouldn't it be enough to say that, after some 54 years of trying, he had done more than anybody else in this Quixotic quest?