“Mirror Life” Research: A Hypothetical with Unprecedented Risks to Life on Earth

Have you ever wondered what causes us to be right handed or left handed? Why are we structured that way and are humans the only species that have a dominant hand? You’re probably already familiar with the concept of handedness – a glove made for your left hand looks just like the one for your right hand, but won’t fit – this is a mirror image. Many of life’s important molecules, including proteins and DNA, are chiral like us humans, meaning they can exist in either a left-handed or right handed form. But on Earth, nature only uses one version or the other in living organisms: DNA being right handed and protein being left handed. Dr. Drew Endy, a synthetic biology researcher at Stanford University, has dived into this hypothetical idea of mirror life and why a group of researchers felt compelled to call for a halt to mirro life experiments.

Let’s start with something simple. What is mirror life? In essence, mirror life explains the ability of life’s molecules to change their or oppose the handedness that is seen in nature. Basically “reflect”, or mirror, its image to change shape. The idea of mirror life and the possibilities it might bring to real life have been a major topic of conversation amongst scientists all over the world. However, no specific advancement has been made in order to see that mirror life can have some benefits. There are more drawbacks about its dangers that still keep scientists scared of the unknown.

But let’s start with why this hypothesis might be beneficial. Some believe it may have some revolutionary changes in how we approach medicines or the possibility of mirroring our DNA and body molecules for them to be immune to viruses. However, these are just predictions that haven’t been put to the test. Furthermore, mirror molecules could be turned into therapies for chronic and hard-to-treat diseases, while mirror microbes could make bioproduction facilities, which use bugs to churn out chemicals, more resistant to contamination.

Throughout the experiment, technology emerged as a crucial driving force, shaping both the process and the results. Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy is an analytical technique used to analyze chirality (mirror life) in molecules. It was discovered by Jean-Baptiste Biot, Augustin Fresnel, and Aime Cotton in the first half of the 19th century. Circular Dichroism is a technique that measures the difference in absorption of left and right-handed light made by chiral (mirror) molecules. This is a tool that has enabled scientists to discover the possibility of chirality in molecules and further track the structural similarities. Then there’s Chiral Chromatography which is another scientific technique used to evaluate the chirality of molecules. This technique was developed and worked on by Professor Barry Karger in 1974 when the ideas of mirror life were still being discovered. It is used to separate these mirror molecules to view their physical and chemical properties separately. Some experts use this technique to separate and enhance/understand the different properties and functions of mirror molecules. This has enabled the scientific community to get an insight into the structural and functional characteristics of right-handed and left-handed molecules.

If all of these technologies are available and benefits do exist, why is this ‘mirror life’ concept still a hypothesis? First is the health risk. Because mirror bacteria is basically a new form of bacteria where their building blocks are symmetrically flipped, it will not be detected by our immune system. This means that they don’t fit in the receptors that have evolved to bind to them and signal a threat the mirror bacteria will be almost invisible to the immune system. This will cause our current antibiotics to not work, requiring entirely new treatments. Second is ecological disruption. Not only are these invisible to our immune system, it is also undetectable by their predators, such as phages and protists, that control the bacteria from overgrowing. Just like a left-handed person can't shake hands with a right handed person, the predators too would also probably not be able to shake the mirrored hands of these new bacteria and subsequently kill them. This means that mirror bacteria would be allowed to slowly multiply in the environment and disrupt both plant and animal life. Not only that, mirror organisms could establish ecological niches, disrupting natural ecosystems. Ecological niche is a term for the position of a species within an ecosystem, meaning the role an organism plays in community. Scientists warn that mirror-life organisms could outcompete natural organisms if they manage to exploit novel ecological niches. Since these organisms are impervious to natural enzymes and immune responses, traditional containment or mitigation strategies would be futile. 

You may wonder, isn’t this just like genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? What’s the difference? Well, the difference is definite. Unlike genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which still operate within the framework of natural biochemistry, mirror life represents a paradigm shift. Szostak and his co-authors emphasize that introducing entirely synthetic biology into natural ecosystems could disrupt evolutionary balances in ways scientists cannot predict. 

The development of mirror life raises profound ethical questions. Should humanity be creating synthetic life forms with capabilities and risks we barely understand? The ethical dimensions of mirror life demand rigorous examination alongside its technical and environmental risks. Mirror life exemplifies both the power and peril of synthetic biology. While its potential benefits could reshape medicine, industry, and space exploration, its risks to natural ecosystems and human well being cannot be ignored. Looking at the timeline for evolution of genetics, mirror life might be the last on the list at the moment. But for our upcoming generation, this is the start of another timeline. This causes us to think about whether this experiment and pursuit of knowledge in this area is actually worth using our finite resources and risking a paradigm shift in the world we live in today.