Joan Oró discovered her passion for space and the origin of life in her native Lleida. He helped his father, who was a baker, and, between baking and baking, the young Oró had an hour to observe the sky. Those early mornings of observation and introspection, the pedagogical skills of a couple of high school teachers and the reading of philosophical and scientific books led him towards research.
–Since those Lleida dawns, science has revealed many things, but perhaps it has also run into its limits …
-It is true that science has limits. We are not only unable to answer everything, but even to ask the right questions. Santiago Ramón y Cajal already said: “As long as the brain is a mystery, the universe will continue to be a mystery.” If I had another life, I would dedicate myself to the knowledge of the brain.
–Lets start by the beginning. Do you subscribe to the Big Bang theory?
-The idea of a primordial explosion is very difficult for me to understand. An infinite mass, an infinite temperature and an explosion, but how was the beginning of it all? Among the various theories that contrast the forecast of the Big Bang, I’ll take one that I already intuited in 1962. I was then giving a lecture at the New York Academy of Sciences. During the presentation I said that I would talk about chemical experiments that very possibly have to do with the origin of life, because they give rise to the formation of fundamental organic molecules, but I also communicated that I would not enter into the question of the first second of life . During lunch a colleague named Linde came up to me and told me that he had already solved what I didn’t want to talk about. He explained it to me in four words: “The formation of the universe is a quantum-mechanical fluctuation of the vacuum.” Spontaneously I replied: “If it is a simple fluctuation, there must be an infinite number of universes.” He answered yes.
–This is currently a fashionable theory within the Big Bang hypothesis …
– Indeed, and it is the point of view that scientists like Stephen Hawking or Alan Gut, good friend of mine adopt. Gut maintains that the standard Big Bang theory is not enough, because it only handles times on the order of one millionth of a second and this is not enough. He works with 10-43 seconds: something incomprehensible. Starting from this figure, he establishes the theory of the Great Unification. It’s interesting, but I think it’s half science.
–Half science?
-The scientific method is based on the possibility of asking and confirming something that others can measure and repeat. Repetition is key in science. But how do you do an experiment on the formation of the universe? It is true that there are tests with helium at a temperature of one millionth of a degree kelvin, close to absolute zero, that attempt to reproduce the moment of the formation of the universe. However, it is difficult to do a complete science on these subjects.
–We already know more about the origin of life. Did it appear on Earth or did it come from somewhere?
-This is the great unknown. I do not entirely agree with the possibility that life comes from the cosmos, but I do not totally reject that comets have played a crucial role in the evolution of our planet.
–How, then, do you explain the origin of life?
-The fundamental criterion that has governed my biochemical studies on the origin of life is Darwin’s principle according to which complex beings come from the simplest. In this way, the most complex molecules must also come from the simplest. Following Darwinian theory, the most suitable molecules survive, and the others disappear. Thus, step by step, the complexity of living beings has increased.
–Are we close to knowing the origin of life through chemical processes?
-Relatively close. We can have all the substances, all the pieces, but we don’t know what the initial spark was: how does the cell get started? This is the question.
–Is life an exceptional phenomenon?
-Certainly. As far as we know, all life forms have common characteristics in terms of their structure and chemical composition. There is a fundamental anatomical unit that is the cell, with capacity for self-reproduction and self-maintenance, and with limits with respect to the outside. The attributes common to all living organisms are reproduction, mutation and the transmission of this mutation, which can be negative and lethal, but which in many cases is positive. In this way, living beings are organized systems that reproduce and undergo mutations, which are transmitted to subsequent generations to give rise, through Darwin’s natural selection process, to other living beings increasingly better adapted to their environment. Generally, the complexity of the living being increases throughout the evolutionary process, as well as its capacity for diffusion and survival. These are the basic conditions of a phenomenon as exceptional as life.
–So, you don’t think the existence of life forms beyond Earth is possible?
-Yes, it is a logical possibility, although it has not been proven. I draw on my chemical background. In the same way that there is a biological evolution with its laws, there is also an evolution of the formation of chemical elements. The universe begins with hydrogen and helium. Then three helium particles combine to form another carbon. Carbon compounds are not destroyed at a hundred million degrees. Then the carbon, nitrogen and other elements come together and the amino acids end up emerging. In other words, the evolution of chemical elements is dictated by specific laws. On the other hand, the most abundant elements in the universe are carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, it can be said that almost all the molecules in the universe – 75% – could create life, since they are organic molecules. Thus, if the right conditions are met, on a planet where there is liquid water and the right temperature, there is a great probability that interstellar molecules, contributed by comets or in whatever form, give rise to the appearance of elemental forms. of life.
–How do you rate the announcement made last summer of the discovery of a small meteorite that reinforced the hypothesis of life on Mars?
? There have always been many desires to find life on Mars. But the reality is that none of the experiments I participated in at NASA found evidence. The meteorite issue has been exaggerated: the same NASA team, led by David McKay, stated during the presentation of the finding that they were inconclusive results. I do not believe in the existence of life on Mars, we do not have any definitive evidence, but I will not deny that the conditions, 4,000 million years ago, when the planet was formed, were comparable to those that existed on Earth: presence of liquid water , organic material and a suitable temperature.
Lluís Reales
This interview was published in August 1997, in number 195 of VERY Interesting
