> I am no expert in cellular biology.
>
Then why do you believe you know better than biologists whether life has been
synthesized in the lab?
>
> Let us assume that Fox made a
> fundamental breakthrough in the question of creating life in the lab. A
> seminal work like that would give rise to a whole slew of works following
> Fox's lead that would give rise to further breakthroughs.
>
That is exactly what is being done. Go to www.siu.edu/~protocell/ and you
will find links to articles by scientists investigating protocells and
doscovering new breakthroughs. One is that protocells are also protoneurons.
>
> The scientific
> establishment is dying to accomplish such feats and publicize it. I
believe
> that creating life in the lab would surpass in importance the two
scientific
> revolutions of this century--relativity and quantum mechanics.
>
Only if you believe that life is someone unusual or special. In fact, what
Fox's work tells us is that life is simply a matter of chemistry and
organization. That means that creating life in the lab is no more spectular
than synthesizing a protein.
>
> In addition,
> if Fox could not get the Nobel Prize posthumously, then surely someone else
> would be deserving of such a prize? Who is that person?
>
no one who is still alive. Besides, Fox has so dominated the field that so
far there is no other person who has done as much work or has made as many
breakthoughs. And now that more people are getting involved, it may no
longer be possible for anyone to dominate the field again.
Kevin L. O'Brien