Erwin Schrodinger held an infamous lecture in Trinity as the Director at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 75 years ago. In his lecture, entitled “What Is Life?”, Schrodinger pushed the limits of scientific knowledge, addressing some of the burning questions of that time, such as the basis of heredity and the theory of consciousness.
These lectures were monumental to the field of molecular biology and shaped the next 75 years in the expansive field of molecular biology. In Schrodinger’s book – which he published following the lectures – of the same title, he predicted that “chromosomes contain in some kind of code-script the entire pattern of the individual’s future development and of its functioning in the mature state”. This prediction, along with his description of the basis of heredity to be some sort of aperiodic crystal, inspired later discoveries in the field of molecular biology, including James Watson and Francis Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA.
With regards to those landmark lectures, the Schrodinger at 75 is being hosted in order to, as Schrodinger did in 1943, predict the next 75 years of discovery and expansion of thought in biology. Some of the brightest minds in the scientific community gathered today to discuss such paramount topics as the limits of consciousness, gene editing (using Crispr-Cas9 advanced technologies), and the origin of life.
Members of all fields of the scientific community were present, with speakers focusing on a range of subjects, from the future of science communication to the future of immunology to the future of consciousness. Speakers included Nobel laureate Bernard Feringa, who is a synthetic organic chemist; Prof Michael Rosbash, geneticist and chronobiologist, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; Susumu Tonegawa, who is credited with the discovery of the genetic mechanism of the adaptive immune system; and philosopher Daniel Dennett, who has contributed greatly to the field of cognitive science.
Philip Campbell, for instance, the editor-in-chief of Springer Nature, discussed the future of academic science communication and speculated on the importance of a scientific paper’s utility to society. Campbell argued that “funders will increasingly want to track longer-term impacts” of studies on societal constituents, such as commerce, industry, and otherwise general utility to a non-academic community. Campbell also discussed the impact of technological advances, such as the emergence of artificial intelligence, on the development of future science communication, predicting a sort of way that would allow “the ability to swim through data and literature of a scientific paper”.
Another speaker, Prof Emma Teeling, delved into her speculations about the future of zoology, noting the importance of researching nature and animals other than humans in order to better understand human physiology and phylogeny. Teeling explained some of her own work, which includes studying bats and their metabolic processes. Teeling and her group of researchers found that bats are able to increase the maintenance of their DNA as they age—they are, thus, superior to humans in terms of their strategy to fight ageing processes.
Teeling proposed that with the growing extent of genome editing, it could be possible in the near future to use gene-editing applications such as CRISPR in order to modify the regulation of our DNA, allowing ourselves to, like bats, repair our DNA as we go. Heightened DNA regulation and repair would increase average lifespan of humans, decreasing the probability that DNA-related diseases such as cancer to occur. In a conclusion of her speech, Teeling confidently stated that, “we must understand animal behavior with new recording technologies, to find which branch [of the tree of life] we should look for novel solutions to human problems”. Teeling’s bat lab is one example of zoological application to human health improvements, and surely the future of zoology promises more solutions to the issues that ensure humanity’s wild spike in population growth.
The keynote lecture of the second day of the conference focused on the future of consciousness, and closely traced the evolution of today’s school of thought regarding consciousness, since Schrodinger’s “What is Life?” lecture. The speaker was Christof Koch, a neuroscientist known for his work on the neural bases of consciousness. Koch defined consciousness as essentially any partial experience, memory, or awareness. Koch discussed new technologies, such as tools that allow the measurement of presence or absence of consciousness, as well as current topics of discussion regarding consciousness, such as the search for neuronal correlates of consciousness, the two central theories of consciousness of today (the global neuronal workspace theory and the integrated information theory of consciousness), and the abduction of consciousness in other animals.
The words of each speaker differed from one another not simply in content but also in their optimism of the coming 75 years in biology. A few speakers brought to attention various roadblocks that had been encountered along the way in their research, acknowledging that it is necessary to point out obstacles in order to center focus on a few meaningful burning questions for the scientific community.
Michael Gazzaniga, who spoke today of the future of cognitive neuroscience, for example, pointed out the explanatory gap between neurons and consciousness, provoking the question: “What makes something animate?” Gazzaniga, the President of the Cognitive Neuroscience Institute, posed the question and pointed out that the present may be a new era in which that burning question of consciousness.
Throughout the conference, many speakers wisely acknowledged the importance of inspiring the younger generation of scientists. Many speakers demonstrated optimism regarding the future of biology, and encouraged any young members of the audience to continue asking questions and pushing at the boundaries of knowledge. Prof Bernard Feringa, speaking of the future of chemistry, boldly stated that “in 50 years from now surgeons will be injected into blood veins as nanorobots”. He went on to elaborate upon this seemingly outlandish extrapolation, explaining that “the best way to predict the future is to invent it. This is our job as scientists.”
