Between life and death there is a “third state,” writes popularmechanics. A new study argues that, at least for some cells, death is not the end, but the beginning of something completely unexpected.
The biological cycle of our existence seems relatively simple: we are born, we live and we die. But when you examine existence at the cellular level, things get a little more interesting.
Each of our bodies is a collective organism, made up of living human cells and microbes working together to create what our minds call “life.” However, a growing body of new research shows that, at least for some cells, death is not the end.
A growing stream of research into a new class of artificially intelligent multicellular organisms known as “xenobots” is attracting the attention of scientists because of their apparent autonomy.
In September 2024, Peter Noble, PhD, a microbiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, along with Alex Pozhitkov, PhD, a bioinformatics researcher at the City of Hope Cancer Center, detailed their research on the website The Conversation. Xenobots are cells that perform new functions beyond their original biological functions, such as using hair-like cilia for locomotion rather than transporting mucus. The authors argue that xenobots form a kind of “third state” of life, in which cells can reorganize after the death of the organism, forming something new. These forms likely would not have evolved in nature, but xenobots show that cells have an amazing ability to adapt to changes in their environment. Experiments with human cells, or “anthropobots,” also demonstrate similar behavior. “Taken together, these results … challenge the idea that cells and organisms can only evolve along predetermined paths,” the authors write in The Conversation. Evolutionary biologist and physician William Miller says xenobots are just another example of how we’re not giving enough credit to the innate cognitive—or even conscious—capabilities of the cells that make up our bodies. “The body as a whole no longer responds the way it used to, but groups of cells are active, making decisions and solving problems,” Miller says. “So this fundamentally changes our understanding of living structure… The fundamental unit of biological activity is the conscious cell.”
For Miller, the concept of the intelligent cell is a fundamental change in biology that challenges some neo-Darwinian ideas such as “survival of the fittest.” Since cells must work in concert to succeed, a more accurate phrase for microbes might be, “I serve myself best by serving others,” Miller says. “Putting the intelligent cell at the center of biology” opens up an entirely new biological world in which genes are not controls but tools. In which we understand why trillions of organisms choose to stick together to solve problems, make decisions, mutual support, partnerships, synergies, interdependence, cooperation—it’s not survival of the fittest,” Miller says.
However, not everyone agrees with this approach. “It has been known for about 75 years or more that cells can develop abnormally when taken out of context and cultured in vitro. This is nothing new,” reminds Lincoln Taiz, a plant biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Ph.D. — “When an insectivorous herbivore secretes hormones into plant leaves, causing the leaves to form galls (abnormal growths) that serve as homes for the insect, is this a ‘third state’ of life?”
Taiz has also researched what he calls the “myths” surrounding plant consciousness and co-authored a 2019 review entitled “Plants Are Neither Conscious nor Need It.”
And according to Wendy Ann Peer, Ph.D., a biologist at the University of Maryland, the idea of cellular consciousness simply lacks the scientific rigor needed to qualify as a theory. When cells are taken out of context and no longer exchange information or signals with neighboring cells, gene expression can differ from normal, Peer said. It is well known that many specialized cells retain the ability to differentiate into other cells.
