The Story of the Living Machine

would give rise to this physical basis of life. But now that the simplest substance manifesting the phenomena of life is found to be a machine, we can no longer find in chemical forces efficient causes for its formation. Chemical forces and chemical affinity can explain chemical compounds of any degree of complexity, but they cannot explain the formation of machines. Machines are the result of forces of an entirely different nature. Man can manufacture machines by taking chemical compounds and putting them together into such relations that their interaction will give certain results. Bits of iron and steel, for instance, are put together to form a locomotive, but the action of the locomotive depends, not upon the chemical forces which made the steel, but upon the relation of the bits of steel to each other in the machine. So far as we have had any experience, machines have been built under the guidance of intelligence which adapts the parts to each other. When therefore we find that the simplest life substance is a machine, we are forced to ask what forces exist in nature which can in a similar way build machines by the adjustment of parts to each other. But this topic belongs to the second part of our subject, and must be for the present postponed. Reaction against the Cell Doctrine.—As the knowledge of cells which we have outlined was slowly acquired, the conception of the cell passed through various modifications. At first the cell wall was looked upon as the fundamental part, but this idea soon gave place to the belief that it was the protoplasm that was alive. Under the influence of this thought the cell doctrine developed into something like the following: The cell is simply a bit of protoplasm and is the unit of living matter. The bodies of all larger animals and plants are made up of great numbers of these units acting together, and the activities of the entire organism are simply the sum of the activities of its cells. The organism is thus simply the sum of the cells which compose it, and its activities the sum of the activities of the individual cells. As more facts were disclosed the idea changed slightly. The importance of the nucleus became more and more forcibly impressed upon microscopists, and this body came after a little into such prominence as to hide from view the more familiar protoplasm. The marvellous activities of the nucleus soon caused it to be regarded as the important part of the cell, while all the rest was secondary. The cell was now thought of as a bit of nuclear matter surrounded by secondary parts. The marvellous activities of the nucleus, and above all, the fact that the nucleus alone is handed down from one generation to the next in reproduction, all attested to its great importance and to the secondary importance of the rest of the cell. This was the most extreme position of the cell doctrine. The cell was the unit of living action, and the higher animal or plant simply a colony of such units. An animal was simply an association together for mutual advantage of independent units, just as a city is an association of independent individuals. The organization of the animals was simply the result of the combination of many independent units. There was no activity of the organism as a whole, but only of its independent parts. Cell life was superior to organized life. Just as, in a city, the city government is a name given to the combined action of the individuals, so are the actions of organisms simply the combined action of their individual cells. Against such an extreme position there has been in recent years a decided reaction, and to-day it is becoming more and more evident that such a position cannot be maintained. In the first place, it is becoming evident that the cell substance is not to be entirely obliterated by the importance of the nucleus. That the nucleus is a most important vital centre is clear enough, but it is equally clear that nucleus and cell substance must be together to constitute the life substance. The complicated structure of the cell substance, the decided activity shown by its fibres in the process of cell division, clearly enough indicate that it is a part of the cell which can not be neglected in the study of the life substance. Again the discovery of the centrosome as a distinct morphological element has still further added to the complexity of the life substance, and proved that neither nucleus nor cell substance can be regarded as the cell or as constituting life. It is true that we may not yet know the source of this centrosome. We do not know whether it is handed down from generation to generation like the nucleus, or whether it can be made anew out of the cell substance in the life of an ordinary cell. But this is not material to its recognition as an organ of importance in the cell activity. Thus the cell proves itself not to; be a bit of nuclear matter surrounded by secondary parts, but a community of several perhaps equally important interrelated members. Another series of observations weakened the cell doctrine in an entirely different direction. It had been assumed that the body of the multicellular animal or plant was made of independent units. Microscopists of a few years ago began to suggest that the cells are in reality not separated from each other, but are all connected by protoplasmic fibres. In quite a number of different kinds of tissue it has been determined that fine threads of protoplasmic material lead from one cell to another in such a way that the cells are in vital connection. The claim has been made that there is thus a protoplasmic connection between all the cells of the body of the animal, and that thus the animal or plant, instead of consisting of a large number of separate independent cells, consists of one great mass of living matter which is aggregated into little centres, each commonly holding a nucleus. Such a conclusion is not yet demonstrated, nor is its significance very clear should it prove to be a fact; but it is plain that such suggestions quite decidedly modify the conception of the body as a community of independent cells. There is yet another line of thought which is weakening this early conception of the cell doctrine. There is a growing conviction that the view of the organism, simply as the sum of the activities of the individual cells, is not a correct understanding of it. According to this extreme position, a living thing can have no organization until it appears as the result of cell multiplication. To take a concrete case, the egg of a starfish can not possess any organization corresponding to the starfish. The egg is a single cell, and the starfish a community of cells. The egg can, therefore, no more contain the organization of a starfish than a hunter in the backwoods can contain within himself the organization of a great metropolis. The descendants of individuals like the hunter may unite to form a city, and the descendants of the egg cell may, by combining, give rise to the starfish. But neither can the man contain within himself the organization of the city, nor the egg that of the starfish. It is, perhaps, true that such an extreme position of the cell doctrine has not been held by any one, but thoughts very closely approximating to this view have been held by the leading advocates of the cell doctrine, and have beyond question been the inspiration of the development of that doctrine. But certainly no such conception of the significance of cell structure would longer be held. In spite of the fact that the egg is a single cell, it is impossible to avoid the belief that in some way it contains the starfish. We need not, of course, think of it as containing the structure of a starfish, but we are forced to conclude that in some way its structure is such that it contains the starfish potentially. The relation of its parts and the forces therein are such that, when placed under proper conditions, it develops into a starfish. Another egg placed under identical conditions will develop into a sea urchin, and another into an oyster. If these three eggs have the power of developing into three different animals under identical conditions, it is evident that they must have corresponding differences in spite of the fact that each is a single cell. Each must in some way contain its corresponding adult. In other words, the organization must be within the cells, and hence not simply produced by the associations of cells. Over this subject there has been a deal of puzzling and not a little experimentation. The presence of some sort of organization in the egg is clear—but what is meant by this statement is not quite so clear. Is this adult organization in the whole egg or only in its nucleus, and especially in the chromosomes which, as we have seen, contain the hereditary traits? When the egg begins to divide does each of the first two cells still contain potentially the organization of the whole adult, or only one half of it? Is the development of the egg simply the unfolding of some structure already present; or is the structure constantly developing into more and more complicated conditions owing to the bringing of its parts into new relations? To answer these questions experimenters have been engaged in dividing developing eggs into pieces to determine what powers are still possessed by the fragments. The results of such experiments are as yet rather conflicting, but it is evident enough from them that we can no longer look upon the egg cell as a simple undifferentiated cell. In some way it already contains the characters of the adult, and when we remember that the characters of the adult which are to be developed from the egg are already determined, even to many minute details—such, for instance, as the inheritance of a congenital mark—it becomes evident that the egg is a body of extraordinary complexity. And yet the egg is nothing more than a single cell agreeing with other cells in all its general characters. It is clear, then, that we must look upon organization as something superior to cells and something existing within them, or at least within the egg cell, and controlling its development. We are forced to believe, further, that there may be as important differences between two cells as there are between two adult animals or plants. In some way there must be concealed within the two cells which constitute the egg of the starfish and the man differences which correspond to the differences between the starfish and the man. Organization, in other words, is superior to cell structure, and the cell itself is an organization of smaller units. As the result of these various considerations there has been, in recent years, something of a reaction against the cell doctrine as formerly held. While the study of cells is still regarded as the key to the interpretation of life phenomena, biologists are seeing more and more clearly that they must look deeper than simple cell structure for their explanation of the life processes. While the study of cells has thrown an immense amount of light upon life, we seem hardly nearer the centre of the problem than we were before the beginning of the series of discoveries inaugurated by the formulation of the doctrine of protoplasm. Fundamental Vital Activities as Located in Cells.—We are now in position to ask whether our knowledge of cells has aided us in finding an explanation of the fundamental vital actions to which, as we have seen, life processes are to be reduced.