hello in russia, decades of science and technology, the ntv television company and the state corporation rosatom present a program for the next 10 years. i'm vladimir antokhin. i'm ekaterina shugaeva, in 10 years chemists will synthesize life. something scary, right? well, i don’t know, i invited optimists who believe that in 10 years chemists will actually synthesize life - this is alexander mazhuga chemist good evening and sergei kiselev, biologist researcher. hello, good evening. traditionally, my guests are skeptics. this is a taraskhor hunt philosopher, good evening good evening and maria

zvereva is a chemist and molecular biologist. good evening at the end of the program our guests and optimists make a forecast. what is the probability in 10 years that chemists will synthesize life, and our expert professor kapustin discusses chemistry and life. my favorite journal is the chemistry of life, i’ve been reading it for decades since i was in school, and discussions have arisen in this journal more than once. is the emergence of life even possible? was there any life before the appearance of life and in general, what is life? life is a combination of five great factors, these are chemical transformations , cellular processes, genes and evolution, and most importantly, an orderly flow of information, something else may be needed, but lack. at least one of these factors makes life impossible; at the next level , enzymes appear that participate in

all chemical reactions and cellular metabolism. enzymes are the creators and guardians of life over thousands of years of evolution. they developed proteins with a variety of functions. in one simple cell there are millions of protein molecules and a sign of life is millions of chemical reactions never occur chaotically. and when these millions of chemical reactions work simultaneously, the main sign of life is order, order in chaotic chemical processes , disorder, no life is possible, and i always tell you, the main thing is order, so that everything is in place, without this, life is impossible. it’s just a chaotic order and you don’t understand any of this, but i still have a personal question for you. eh, they will come from afar, in general, you know the main question of philosophy.

something about the relationship between mind and spirit. on in fact, everything is simpler when what came first, the chicken or the egg, i have to answer you. this is apparently a question that no one has yet answered, philosophy has not answered. in general, you will take it philosophically. the science on this issue is still weak. fine. we 'll ask smart people now. this is the time alexandrovich when people actually thought about it. well, i don’t care about these eggs and they smoke. and when did people start thinking, when did life appear? well, for example, i just found out what the main question really is. tv series are by and large a responsible answer. always answer your question. people have always been worried about what life is like, people have always been worried about where it comes from, they have always fought among

themselves. ah, first primitive, then more developed versions, and creationism , which claims that life was created, and vitalism, which claims that life has always been, and we find. uh, such very pronounced, dedicated reflections on the origin and, to a lesser extent, on the essence of life in almost all the mythologies of the world. but where they look and everywhere the theme of creation is there in life or a person who is in focus i always found myself in, so to speak, old thoughts about the essence of living things. yes, and all these, well, are the central myths of the majority. e of such large, more or less developed mythologies and similar myths are also found in mythologies that have not reached the level of complexity, but have a developed background, as well. these two questions about chicken have always been fought among themselves. it has its own charm. in an answer

that says there is no need to ask. where has it always been? let's clarify? what exactly do we mean by this word? and there is a beauty in not accepting this lovely, and to say that how is such an important thing. we ignore, then, the question of its occurrence, moreover, life has always been understood dynamically. yes, this procedural moment is that life is something happening. i could always guess in her and and in this regard, by the way, it is very interesting what professor kapustin said. oh, well, there is a way of discussing the problem of living things that develops, well, by and large, from the 19th century , by and large, proteins, cell enzymes, and so on. yes, that is, this is the biological, biological and chemical view. a in fact, archaic views on life, they bind her. mostly with dy. we are with visible changes, yes, and in this sense, uh, well, actually complex organisms, like

you and me. yes? and this is what breathes. and breathing, in a sense, is the essence of life, and accordingly aristotle and the ancient tradition, and they distinguished living from inanimate objects precisely by their ability to independently produce movement. yes , breathing and growth are such visible ones, and forms of movement that do not have external causes, the reason seems to lie in the very object. he somehow does it himself. yes, well, accordingly, let’s put it this way. and by the way, it’s beautiful, otherwise kapustin has reduced everything to squirrels, and here is the breath of the growth of maria or flax. what theories were there in general, and how did ideas change? yes, a person about life, well, yes today, while we have come to consider all the theories that exist and well, if we go to the encyclopedia there will be six seven theories of the origin of life and for

me the starting point, uh, leeuwenhoek began with the discovery of the microscope with the definition of the unit alive. yes, a living unit is a living cell. and eh. hmm, naturally, the closest of many theories is the theory of the behinic biochemical origin of life. the one that we teach you at school is oparin’s theory, according to the emergence of substances further, and complication in these appearances. yes, there are only a few animals there, but they are closest to me. eh, probably due to the same thing i did in life. this is one of the last theories that arose in the eighties, and in its final form it was formulated by gilbert. hmm alone from the founders of nucleic acid sequencing, which sounded like

the origin of life is based on the rna world, and rna is ribonucleic acids, respectively, but not dna, there is a slight modification that makes it easier to form three-dimensional structures. and as a result, this molecule could perform several functions, on the one hand transmitting information. yes, we already heard from professor kapustin on the other hand, namely, these molecules could have been, uh, the first catalysts, because also it was said that the main thing is the ordering of chemical reactions, the speed of which is catalyzed in our country, and by certain substances now. yes, this is the main function performed by proteins, but initially, during the process of the emergence of life, this could have been the case. uh, rna - first everything was ordered by dna and then

it appeared from these rnas, accordingly, we have biopolymers and from biopolymers. we are not talking about dna and not about proteins, but about aop rna yes, and the system has already become more complicated, that life has flown to us from somewhere, we have it i can stand such supporters. i really like it. the universe expands and explodes, and then again at the end and comes back again. if she came from somewhere. she also had to figure it out from somewhere. these are their problems, let’s talk well, but after advertising , advertising is probably tv. what is the power in money after all? the weapon of power, strength is always in the truth

. and the truth is always strong. where else is there an exhibition of reserved special forces? the program science and we is on air , a program about how science will change our lives in the next 10 years, in 10 years, chemists

synthesize a new life, probably, and i hope that the old one will not disappear anywhere; our expert professor kapustin is optimistic about the future ; supramolecular chemistry extends beyond molecular chemistry, which is interested not in what happens in molecules, but in what happens between molecules, achievements this chemistry is already grandiose. it is clear how proteins combine to form hemoglobin, how white bodies recognize and destroy foreign bodies. how the genetic code is transmitted supramolecules are able to transfer dna fragments into the nucleus, for example treatment of genetic diseases. this is such a modern trojan horse. molecular programming has become possible for supramolecular compounds. a chemist creates the basic building blocks of a molecule, which then bind to each other, and very

recently adaptive chemistry has emerged, when the system itself makes a selection among objects and is able to combine these objects depending on the requirements of the center. but these processes have already been given, but still before the emergence of life. we are still far away, we know too little. well, in general, it's too much for now we don’t know much, i understood sergei lvovich and what science considers life today, there are countless definitions of what life is and, probably, even your season cycle and programs will not be enough. so that man, yes, we are ready, yes, that’s why, probably. costs. well, we know from school and more partially or most know that this is the way of existence of protein bodies. yes , something so simple, it seems, well, maybe, uh, acceptable, but for me personally. um, i’m ready

to present to you, uh, my two definitions of what life is, and one, um, is enough the complex and scientific real, and the second simpler at the everyday level, so, if we talk about the complex scientific, then hmm life is an energy self-reproducing system with a large number of errors that reduce entropy. yeah, we got to thinking, and every phrase is breathing and movement - this is the energy of the reproductive system itself - this is the transfer of genetic information with a large number of errors - this is that any transfer of information occurs with errors. glory. to god it gives variety to our lives. and just like that, evolution and, of course, we are trying to fix ourselves. and, that is,

reduce entropy. that is absolutely true. here everyone is mine, but on the other hand. now, if you need it simpler to that level, then i will say that life is aggression. because from the very beginning, as soon as the first cell was divided into two. she captured the neighboring territory. she began to eat, divided into two more and moved on. and today you know that the whole planet is full of life, that uh, what we call the king of uh, animals, uh, man, he is generally are everywhere and uh, well, under it, it’s like everything disappears. and this is, uh, aggressiveness , aggressiveness. this is precisely the property of life, including, uh, cosmological uh, theory that arrived and this is this, because , naturally, life without aggression, that is , the conquest of space and certain

food resources cannot exist well alexander georgievich and what is science today talks about how life appeared, did it arrive or what? no, of course not, but let’s for i’m a chemist, colleagues, biologists, chemists, philosophers, what life is for me will be clear, my position. for me, life is a collection of chemical elements. here, i look when she is human. these are 22 chemical elements. 95% is carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen and everything around is mushrooms, viruses, bacteria, plants from fungi. almost nothing is different. of course there is. we even have calcium, chromium and molybdenum. it doesn’t even matter from these atoms, molecules are formed from the simplest molecules of amino acids and what we have, as we say , is maria melnikova, the theory of rna rna and dna here's how to get them, of course, how chemists can synthesize life, they thought about this about 50 years

ago, that they took the simplest chemical compounds, methane, water. the first experiment in a flask carried out charges initially arising, as it was on earth? yes, then five amino acids were isolated, and they were obtained from precisely those components that, well , billions of years ago could have existed on our planet, and then when the level of technology increased, 22 amino acids, we got received amino acids, then, if possible collect amino acids from such simple compounds. this means you can assemble a more complex structure of proteins, which are enzymes and so on, another line. the nucleotides that we built from them, rna and dna, were also taken, for example, formaldehyde and hydrocyanic acid. they were present there and carried out manipulations from these. well, very simple compounds were able to obtain all the nucleotides needed today, from which the next question is built. but we also need to connect them in a chain and there are such theories, how they connected the chain, how they appeared functions and so on. for me , as a chemist, life is something that consists of amino acids,

which were once once obtained from the simplest chemical compounds , whether chemists will be able to synthesize rna or dna. we can already do small ones, but probably the level of technology we have today is such that we are not yet ready to synthesize it. we’ll talk about the future in full later. i think yes, but look, there really is. well, some piecemeal experiments on your rna there , as you say, according to your theory, which you i like it, rather a question arose for alexander georgievich in connection with his position. but as a person, he is also a chemist, and they are still a chemist by training, which sounds like this, and in ordinary reactions. yes, we get a mixture of uh hmm a stereoisomers. yes, and when we talk about living systems. yes, our main building block in proteins is l amino acids. yes, accordingly, and also

creatites. that is, even in this case, the question arises. how did this transition happen? neck, bottleneck, of course, everything happens through a certain selection between exists seriously today in science. this is trying to do something with it , somehow synthesize it. everything, of course, they do it like that, of course, they do it and in our country they do it and do it on a commercial basis now. and companies that exist oliganucleotide. this is already yes, nucleotides combined into longer molecules, respectively, that is, longer than one. yes, there are already up to 100 and beyond, so that, accordingly, chemical synthesis, there are the same peptides and so on, but in order to understand life after all, as we already

found out this is a complex system. well, if we talk from the point of view of synthetic dna, uh, such systems already exist. yes, there are cells where the dna is completely replaced with synthetic synthesized ones and this cell lives. she is considered to be the first such life. well, the first such artificial cell was created back in 2010. this was an article in said later. yes, this direction developed in such a way that the minimum required genome was determined. yes, that is, this is artificial. the cell contains a smaller set of genes than the same leukoplasm, and so on. lvovich said, does she know how to divide, and she aggressively, she knows how to divide, and if at the beginning she divided, let’s say, somewhat unevenly, that is, bacterial cells of different sizes were obtained, then later, accordingly, with the addition of an additional number of genes. it was done a year ago that mistakes

and errors occurred. they allow crime to occur; it has become more or less, it is adapting. well, now in this cab. she is accordingly cash real living. they just pushed her artificial dna artificially. well, with the help of technology, they naturally removed the tudynka, which was natural, and replaced it with completely artificial, well synthesized ones. what if it was just the dna inside that was replaced? yes, there are a lot of things, of course it is necessary, so it remains here. here, can such a cell be considered truly fully synthesized? yes, that is, it turned out that only dna was synthesized, but not the entire cell; after all, you haven’t done it yet, the meaning is that it still contains dna because from this one two came out yes

four eight, that is, they lived their own lives, that is, we roughly speaking, in philosophical philosophical language, or did not really breathe in the soul , the genetic soul, which was then inherited well through generations sergei lvovich well, you already know that, by the way, we have. eh, mutual friend pavel. he loves animals very much and recently. and i bought it for myself about my great-granddaughter. that is , dolly the sheep that was cloned. so you can simply explain in a popular way how cloning of life differs from synthesizing life. or is it the same thing? let's try to draw it so that it is you can even do more, although i have already touched a little on this good thing. figure it out, we'll come to you, that no, while everyone is still ironing everything. eh, you can just tell me. what is cloning? do we have a cell that

contains genetic information? yes, this is the smoke inside, this one is like this. let's draw dna a. and we have another cell that contains another dna. what are we doing? we remove this dna from this cell to the outside. yes, the cell remains dna. but let’s take it just this one. kdmk and take it into the cell, which we only dna and then influence it with chemical stimuli, some kind of chemistry, let 's write and this cell begins to divide into two and stop. dna that came from this cell and this is called cloning. it’s as if we take from life and transfer life. well, a little

different, well, just like that, a little different, probably, well, maybe not much, something like that. uh, we actually have the creation of life. we have a device. which is called a dna synthesizer where chemical substances from certain bottles are served and dna molecules are synthesized today. uh, these are whole workshops of synthesizers that synthesize not very long dna molecules, but then, using certain methods, they are combined even into very large extended molecules. and after this , again, we have a cell that contained some kind of dna, we again remove the dna from there and introduce this synthesized chemical into it. dna can again be influenced by some chemical forces and the cell begins to form bottles, where

does it come from? and these are the chemists synthesized, and these are the chemists here. yes, it synthesizes chemical compounds, individual letters of the genetic code, and you g and c, going to a certain given by the subsequent person, to be honest, this is all, it seems, you know this on a letter, where now we will stick a stamp on everything, and the envelopes - this is important until there is an envelope. you keep putting up stamps. here, here we are, stuck in a cage. the dna taken was already alive. yes, but i agree with you, but at this stage of the development of science it is not profitable to create. but why can’t we get a new cell? well, well, we are using oil now, which it produces cheaper energy. this is just a box to make to

put your brand in there. and that this is not a problem that we save energy, streamline the system, life reduces entropy. why make it harder on ourselves when we need to get it done first? this is how to effectively spend your energy - this is exactly the approach to life. i just can’t understand whether this counts, when we already take something living, anyone can pet the sheep, but we have advertising advertising on ntv, it’s infecting, it’s tearing your voice and you can’t count the beats per minute on your nerves. yes there will be creeps and goosebumps for fever. yes , we are all tears of war, football, football halls at the stadium, fan card at gosuslugi.rusa.

3 months of practice doing whatever you want, you will kick me out, they won’t kick me out on the first day, believe me son. in general, you will work together with the general’s son, viktor pavlovich clearly , my partner will work for me. this is not discussed. now let's see who's in charge here, please go home girls. i want to work with you. our task is to find the criminal, so any means are good. andrey bagirov knife to the ground and themselves to the ground, please, marusya klimova can’t do anything illegal. sergei let it go. i can’t imagine how anyone could manage to do so much crap in one evening. the latest project of my favorite artist, partners behind me trigger. from

monday 22:15 on ntv the program science and we is a program about how science will change our lives in the next 10 years. in 10 years, chemists will synthesize life. alexander georgievich really does. protein. we already know how to synthesize dna. and then what next we can’t fully imagine, of course, how the simplest unit is arranged. the cell is a small chemical factory that is key. this is the gene, we have already said that we can synthesize human dna, approximately 3 ml. yes, these are the letters, but all of them are not needed , of which you only need about 30,000, which corresponds to real life, 3 billion. there are ki in this factory. and you stuff 30,000 in there and say it turned out fine, because if we remember the main duty of molecular biology is transcription of translation from genes to proteins, then we biologists, if they

don’t correct us out of three billion, need only only 30,000. i don’t agree in life today, which means, yes, for some reason they are needed. well, as long as they understand. of course they are scratch. we just don't fully understand it yet. why are these mechanizing ones needed? maybe, but when the pains were talking about experiments with moremelina with bacteria, they cut genko very much there, abbreviated there. yes, there is no such thing as single-celled organisms. we now imagine ourselves for many years. very correct. as you say with a lot of error. maybe these 3 billion mistakes. that's where they are needed may be. no, but they will accumulate over time, but you can wait for this time evolutionarily. or you don’t have to wait, but you can consciously increase the size of the genome so that the probability of errors increases, more targets , more errors, and then we can artificially speed up the process of stuffing. this is 6 billion.

it turns out to be some kind of super. we don’t know how to super, until we know how to synthesize 3 billion, while they can’t even make 3 billion. they can’t even make a mammoth. we can synthesize 100. we can glue them together and they will grow. no, it’s cloned , it’s a clone. but here it can’t yet. yes, dna there that will grow. oh, and mycoplasma has grown, so to speak, on the basis of a minimal genome. what was marina talking about ? i grew up normal or i’m just somehow bad. all bad. yes, but grief should have grown longer, so hot then. what practical application will synthesis have in life in general? why is all this? well, look, if we can, why ask? is this the sequence of letters atgc? that's what we need and we know that there are

30,000 genes there, a mouse has about as many human genes there are genes, there are useful ones, we generally synthesize the products we need, but not chemically a long time ago, for example, the same uh , insulin that was made, uh, in 1970 there , some year, but non-chemical synthesis was used, but enzymatic synthesis. but it was still a synthesis, and we get medicines. now you can go a different way than i understood: chemically, this chemical synthesis can occur, for example, and in the size of a wristwatch and the necessary gene will be directly supplied to the person, because he has it defective and thus a cure or at least relief of the disease may occur. why not? can i introduce such radical doubt into this stream of optimism? yes, of course, i’m exaggerating, but all this

reminds me a little of the old joke about how stirlitz gave the dog gasoline to drink. she walked some distance and fell. i was looking for gas and ran out. we always assume that there is something we don’t understand. it's not significant. it is the third genomes. needed is unclear. for what? yes, these same accumulated errors have a lot of options explanations. yes, where did they come from and what role they could play there, in principle, but by and large we don’t understand, we’re talking repetitions. yes, or maybe repeats are needed in case you lose yes, but this is 2/3, most of the genome carries an unclear functional load. now it has turned out that there are still, so to speak, well, various options, actually, not of one’s own genetic memory in terms of volume. possibly superior. yes, there is proteolomics, and it speaks about it. well, actually, the mechanisms cling to the gene cling to the dna methylation and so on, yes, that is, this is something that does not relate to the formal structure, yes, of molecules, but this is incorrect methylation

- it is a direct modification of the nucleic acid. this is an additional entry above what is there. well, this is a superstructure that arises during the life of the cell. yes, having short quotes. it does not arise during life. it has options, as well as adaptation to the environment, of course, memory examination across generations. well, it turned out to be one or two generations. well, worms were avoided in sel's work for four generations, or ran away. they would find a-a in a person. well , it’s probably less so far, but for so many generations this has not been explored. we just don't know yet. how long it lasts in any case is a memory mechanism that is associated with the already ongoing vital activity of the cell. and if we are now, however, synthesizing something and

standing guard, maybe we shouldn’t let this genie out of the synthesized bottle. well, uh, probably the conversation forgot utopias, of course, yes, that is, it is clear that we can be afraid of what we do not fully understand. or , on the contrary, you can bet on it and speak. well, how can i say, we have achieved a lot, we will probably achieve control over factors that we do not yet know how to control. i would like, well, here are two things in connection with the dog and the shchetinets, but to remember, well, they commemorated linguk, and who is really considered the founder of cell biology, but at the same time they usually forget that leeuwenguk had no idea what he was looking at and to this day historians are figuring out what it was leeuwenhoek wrote at one time, a very beautiful letter to the royal society of london in which he wrote, that here he observed that everything around was full of some small animated creatures, he called them animal or in latin. so they are fussing about what this is incomprehensible, but he would like to share this delight, then

robert hooke, to whom he, how to say, gave information, did not give microscopes. yes , i didn’t see anything and reported that she doesn’t only live in holland. yes, these are the little ones, then, that means historians are still reading, in fact. these leeuwenhoek records are trying to compare this with modern ones representations. biologists, what is he? actually, i actually observed it. yes. oh well. this is such a semi-joking one, there is an old, old example from the beginning and nature of a modern building, please 1912, if i'm not mistaken, the year of the early tenth years. yes, that means, and if they are yakovlev or, in general, some very large one. a researcher of the issues of life of this time writes that, in principle, we have no fundamental prohibitions on synthesizing a living mother a hundred years ago, and long before and, in fact, the development of all those ideas and instruments with which we are now trying to perform this, that is, 100 years ago. it seemed to him that the tools and buildings he had, in

principle, were already enough to synthesize life. since then, biology has turned upside down several times and all the tools have changed. we still haven’t synthesized life, but we are still full of optimism. he also wrote then that we can really design life, because all the hereditary information, then i didn’t know what it was. it’s chemistry and uh, we live in the world we are finishing chemistry. he is immediately in the world of meaning. today we already know chemistry well, well , the genome there has been sequenced. nucleotides proteins fats there and so on, and the meaning actually came together. i mean, but with the meaning we are becoming more and more lost. it really was. uh, the jakleop is very interesting, and the researcher, after he uh from the sea urchin and working with the sea urchin

, dropped salt on it onto the sea urchin larva for one cell. she began to divide and formed a whole individual. eh, the correspondent took it from him, so it means some new york interview. it was a big discovery. and then it turns out that you drop a drop and a whole organism appears. after that, hmm, girls in america stopped going into the sea on certain days, so that the salt water would not affect it, so that life would not arise. okay, then i have a question for our guests : the optimist from the skeptic, but here we are looking. and we believe that some of them are even acquainted with the secret scientists, physicists and chemists. yes, that's it. or maybe they have already synthesized life, but we don’t know about it. maybe, but until it is presented, we cannot discuss synthesized or not. that's

it. this will all remain a secret. this will be the secret synthetic life. until it breaks out of the laboratory, until it breaks out of the laboratory, until it is proven that this is indeed not nature's created life. but as for us, the difference is that it was created by nature or by chemists, in fact , today it is extremely difficult to do this; it is almost impossible to distinguish between what is produced artificially in a test tube and what we have by nature. we can create these technologies that will not completely migrate under nature, but in order to synthesize life, in fact , everything already exists. the level of technology just needs to be improved a little. we know how to synthesize genes, we know how to create a cell wall, because it’s also nothing complicated about making good droplets like this, you can make them artificially, we know how to synthesize proteins, enzymes that perform the function, we just need

that level of technology. well, probably time and a little improvement in technology, which are the goals after all, why is there a goal? but why? so a question for a philosopher, the chemists were doing something chemically and most likely, secret chemists were also doing chemicals. and the point is who will chemize forever? philosophers are responsible for chemists. yes, eternal, i would say that philosophers strive to take responsibility when they cannot find who exactly in this case, but hmm well, i would still, well, have to return a little to the question that we, well, don’t really understand, what we are called in words in life. yes, but there are disciplinary definitions within the workers, they weighty, respectable, they direct activities professionally. here but by and large, still. let's be intuitively honest. we associate this mystery with the concept of life, when it itself, and it is clear, is a model object for us. here, in everyday life, a person and

creatures somehow similar to him appear. here is a sheep, for example, because it somehow itself yes, and that means in the synthesis of such a thing. it’s hard to believe even through technology, of course, and it seems to me that, in general, everyone agrees with this, yes, that is, while we are talking about, well, somehow, but it was created and, most importantly, it was able to get out of the hole. yes, somehow we missed it. this is the moment that it lives invitro, of course, but when we try to release it invivo, we are all afraid that it will come to life there and take over everything. it usually dies just like that, accordingly. yes, that's good. yes, i’m talking about aggressiveness, which lays the foundation for what is being created and , by and large, while we are actually replacing the problem of the synthesis of living things. yes, the discussion is a problem, but the synthesis of components is components. there is no system. we see it. excuse me using the example of the fate of the auto industry. yes, that is, it seems like we can make the parts, even

buy tyumen. we can do it, but it doesn’t work here. yes, for some time the machine turns out yes, yes, yes. yes, well, here is a much more complex thing, and in this sense, well, we can’t cope very well with a car , as a whole, although, of course, all these technologies give a lot and, apparently, will give even more and of course, the possibility of intervention. definitely growing with us , will it ever develop into an opportunity? creation is not obvious, because these are qualitatively different procedures, and you definitely shouldn’t expect that it will outgrow by itself. let's take a break for a moment advertising on ntv. great, unique and strong. she is always there. your country, your home, your

family, the traditions of your people, together on the unknown russia tv channel about russia in a new way coming soon to all operators in the country. on air is a program about science and a program about how science will change our lives in the next 10 years. i have a question for everyone. what is the probability in your opinion? chemists, after all, they synthesize life alexandra georgievich, come on, i give 8% believe in the chemists , i believe in the chemists, you definitely already see the future core. there is very little benefit to humanity. they told us a lot

about the goal. what's the goal? after all, this is true, besides the fact that we talk in life about in parallel , we know that we have new medicines, for example, the correct cells for transplantation, and new enzymes. eh, some kind of food technology. there is a whole set here, but first of all, of course, pharmaceuticals for diagnosing our health. k fuel we will be able to synthesize, for example, the fourth generation of antibiotics, the fifth fifth fifth. yes, of course we really can’t do this. and if we synthesize something artificial, then of course we can, thank you very much. probably, as expected, i’ll say that with a very small let’s give 1% out of sincere love for science and note that uh hmm i really love science. and i really believe in, as i already said, the possibility of intervention. yes, they will definitely accumulate, intensify

, and so on. well, on the other hand, this is a very equivalent thing. yes, that is, here you speak khimichichim. yes, but we have already chemically treated, that is, we have chemically reduced , in fact, we have the natural immunity of the human species, at least the urban part of it. well, in general, they’ve already ruined it. yes, and now we read about antibiotics, and the fifth generation, it is clear that at one time antibiotics made a revolution, but these same antibiotics, so to speak, are the situation when now there are no fifth generation antibiotics. in general, the revolution can unfold exactly the opposite, and 180°. so, be very careful with this intervention is necessary, we move with good intentions all the time, but along the barrel. and we don’t notice, that’s why 1%. yes thank you. well, chemists about chemists, i don’t know, i synthesized a couple of lives like this in my time, well, not chemically, not in a chemical way, but

there was a similar chemical reaction, in general. yes, of course there was also a chemical reaction. and of course, there are better ways. and so to speak, doing the same thing, i would say so, but, that is, we have been engaged in the synthesis of life for a long time, including with the participation of chemistry, of course, and, of course, i would answer 100% that we have been synthesizing our lives for a long time and chemistry plays a very important role here, we are synthesizing or medicine. we have synthesized many drugs using protein catalytic enzymes. all this and this process, as it were , is going on, but a concrete chemical synthesis. here. what will give the opposite is genetics and, uh, synthetic biology. well, i think that in the next 10 years there will be 100%

new types of medicines, new types of energy sources that well bio of some kind biofuel. it will be absolutely 100%. as for the everyday understanding of life, that is, like a person is life. everything else is not life. well, uh, of course it’s difficult to approach a person sufficiently. for example, such a chemical system appeared. uh, which is called genome editing, and now there is a big debate. whether it can be used can take some time, that is, of course, first of all there will be non-technological barriers. and, most likely, some political or social acceptance non-acceptance of society. i say 100% 100%. thank you very much, and i will have two

polar forecasts. this means one it is impossible to chemically alone ask such a question, because there is already a synthetic - there is a bacterial cell with completely synthetically obtained dna, yes, that is, then we are already talking one hundred percent, accordingly, it already exists. this is the first pole, the second pole. here i will support sergei lvovich yes, if we are talking about a 100% man, no, but 10 years is not enough to figure out how functioning. here is the entire genome, all the information encoded in it, make everything completely synthetic and, accordingly, so that it further lives its life in the form of a multicellular organism in society also in society. and about this communication, which, accordingly, we keep, yes

, cells are at peace with each other, we didn’t say at all that in general, let’s make some kind of forecast in half, then 50% is not, why does it synthesize okay zero with zero probability. thanks to the possibility that chemists will synthesize such life for now 45%, but this is actually a lot ; after all, chemists can synthesize something. you know, science is so amazing. maybe chemists and biologists can synthesize everything and do everything. and i really want someone else, for example, to synthesize the soul, because sometimes it seems to me that ah, we completely forget about some kind of soulfulness. we can do anything to no avail, but soulfulness is probably created only in the family and here. i remember sergei lvovich, who says that we are so good at synthesizing our children ourselves

, i have an anecdote about this. i remembered how time, when it means that chemists are traveling in a train compartment at a symposium and a conversation comes up, it means, but how, uh, life arose, this is how it is synthesized, which means that there are either rna dna these proteins. and so on and it hangs from above. we say, excuse me , please, huh? and the fact that the old grandfather’s method was canceled is not canceled. yes, it was a science and we program about how science will change, including our lives, in the next 10 years. let science move forward and synthesize life and everything else. well, let's mmm raise children in the family and instill in them spiritual qualities, see you in a week. bye.

well, you know better how much you sleep? -we can. necessary what's the matter? what do you mean we're still staying here? let's cool down