I was notified of this review in PLoS-Biology by Richard Robinson. It gives a nice outline of the current thought in the field and delineates the genes first vs. metabolism first views (although in my not-to-much-of-an-expert opinion, I don't think that the "metabolism first" theory is likely ... but what do I know.)
Ref: Richard Robinson. Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks. PLoS Biology (2005) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396
- Log in to post comments
I would phrase it as a "replicator-first vs. chemistry-first" distinction, since both "gene" and "metabolism" have multiple connotations that tend to get the basic focus ahead of where it should be. If you ask the question "What is Life?" and answer that Life implies existence of a self-replicating molecule with capability of mutation, then you can always salvage the genes-first position. So, it's a sort of semantic distinction.
But as the Robinson article points out -- and I wouldn't say he's exclusively arguing the metabolism-first position -- you almost certainly must have some reasonably structured organic molecules to build a replicator. Catalysis on a reactive redox surface such as metal sulfides is a very appealing way to make a lot of delicious precursors. Unlikely to be RNA at the get-go. If you're a genes-first advocate, you can say "that's just chemistry, not Life."
As a biochemist, I like the conjunction of these two lines of thinking that now seems to be emerging. Enough to be done to keep a lot of people with good ideas busy for some time.
Incidently, Cairns-Smith proposed a model several years ago that tried to join the chemistry and replication threads together on strictly inorganic structures, but that one hasn't been given much attention of late, especially since Wachterhauser's more detailed model has gained attention.