Making a Cell from Scratch?

A recently published paper on the internet[1] (not a peer-reviewed article) which summarizes the work of scientists at the University of Minnesota has resulted in several science news outlets (e.g., Nature and the Smithsonian) posting articles touting that these scientists have, “built a synthetic cell from scratch”. Such click-bait titles should trigger some skepticism, and cause one to ask serious questions like: what do you mean by “from scratch”, what constitutes a “synthetic cell”, and why are these news outlets wanting me to pay attention to this?

The notion of making something from scratch is quite vague and may imply greater competence than is warranted. If I claim that I baked a cake from scratch it simply means that I took the time to measure out the flour, sugar, eggs, milk, baking powder and such myself rather than using a packaged cake mix. It does not mean that I grew, harvested and milled the wheat to get the flour. It does not mean that I raised a chicken and a cow from which I could acquire eggs and milk. My baking a cake from scratch requires a dependence on numerous outside sources to achieve my product. The same is true for these University of Minnesota researchers.

The synthetic cell in question was constructed from lots of borrowed parts which came from pre-existing cells. The genome was a stripped-down set of DNA acquired from Escherichia coli bacteria and some viruses. They also started with bacterial sourced replisomes and ribosomes. A replisome is a highly complex set of nanomachines built from numerous proteins which work together to uncoil, separate and copy the DNA. Ribosomes are also complex machines constructed of ribosomal RNA and proteins which contain multiple binding sites needed for the translation of genetic information in the form of mRNA into functional proteins. The membranes of these synthetic cells were fitted with borrowed binding proteins which would allow the synthetic cell to bind to liposomes (a package made of a lipid layer) which were used to deliver essential materials and an energy supply which would allow the borrowed machinery to function. This is an impressive accomplishment, to be sure, but it must be understood they were not starting from raw materials like amino acids, sugars and fatty acids.

The word “cell” used to describe this work is used in a very broad sense of the term. A casual observer may presume that what has been produced is something that is living, but nothing could be further from that truth. Rather, it only indicates a collection of parts enclosed in a membrane. This synthetic cell under investigation is lacking several important features which would define something as living. It is incapable of doing any kind of cellular respiration. To function, the researchers must constantly supply these units with ATP – the molecule cells use to provide energy to its nanomachinery. Researchers must also supply these synthetic cells with various proteins and nucleic acids needed to accomplish the metabolic functions within it.

While the synthetic cells manage to divide, this results from the constriction of a burgeoning membrane that becomes unstable – something like large soap bubbles that collapse into smaller bubbles. The growth of the membrane results primarily from the constant addition of membrane materials that it acquires when it fuses with the liposomes used to deliver energy and nutrients. In living cells, cell division happens by an active process of constricting proteins built into the cell membrane – a feature missing from these synthetic cells.

The researchers highlight the fact that this synthetic cell goes through a cell cycle, but this is limited to up to five cell divisions before these synthetic cells cease to function. This end of function stems from at least two notable deficiencies. The synthetic cells lack genetic information which would enable them to produce ribosomes. Every cell division results in a reduction in the number of ribosomes per cell, and the ribosomes also degrade and lose function over time. These synthetic cells also lack any type of cytoskeleton – the network of protein fibers inside cells essential for transport of materials within the cell. One of the consequences is the build up of waste materials which result from the metabolic processes it is performing. A cytoskeleton is necessary for the collection and removal of waste materials. This unit’s ability to maintain indefinite function strictly removes it from any description of being a living thing.

So, why should this development garner anyone’s attention? On a practical level, this research may prove useful in biotechnology industries which could utilize this type of stripped-down unit to produce various drugs and other useful chemicals. The science news reporters, however, seem to have an additional interest which centers on origin of life concerns. The Nature article[2] quotes one of the researchers who said, “It proves that the most fundamental functions of life, like growth and replication, do not need a mysterious magical spark”. The Smithsonian article[3] quotes a philosopher of biology, unrelated to this research, who said, “It will, perhaps, provide a compelling argument against those who think there is some immaterial substance in addition to the chemicals that breathes life into material stuff”. They shift away from scientific reporting to infer a metaphysical claim of materialism which, I think, is unwarranted.

It is unsurprising that if you constantly supply machinery (even cellular nanomachinery) with essential raw materials and energy it will continue to function. These synthetic cells function because they exist in heavily controlled environments which are carefully designed with a great deal of insight and intention. These synthetic cells can continue functioning only if they are constantly supplied with specialized enzymes, nutrients and energy from the researchers themselves. I do not know about mysterious magical sparks, but clearly the existence and function of these synthetic cells is explained by the activity of intelligent agents. What certainly is left unaccounted for is the origin of all the complex machinery which these researchers borrowed to make all this happen in the first place. If there is any reasonable inference to be made, it would be that the existence and functioning of true living cells is best explained by an intelligent agent, an intelligent agent that pre-existed cells themselves.

---

[1] Nathaniel J. Gaut, etal., A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable of Growth and Replication, posted at bioRxiv on July 02, 2026, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1, accessed 7/9/26.

[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the-first-time-scientists-say-theyve-built-a-synthetic-cell-from-scratch

[3] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-say-theyve-made-cells-that-feed-grow-and-reproduce-bringing-them-one-step-closer-to-building-life-from-scratch-180989070/