From: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Review Paper
>In a message dated 5/18/99 11:28:24 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> I have one advice and that is to make the definition of what is alive
>> and complete.
>Noted; thank you for your input. However, a definition of life can never
>complete, since there will always be people who will dispute any definition
>no matter how detailed. The key is to develop a definition that both
>the evidence and offers testable predictions about what may or may not be
>covered by it.
>> I think the notion of something being alive is not as trivial
>> as it may sound.
>Trivial no, but it may be far simpler than most people suppose.
>> One must also note that articles written on the synthesis
>> of life that do not mention the work of Fox may be viewed as critical to
>> claims make by Fox and Co.
>You might assume it, but in fact you cannot claim that a failure to mention
>any particular claim or concept is criticism of that claim or concept. It
>could be as simple as the authors didn't know about it, or it could be that
>they felt the claim or concept had no bearing on their discussion, or any
>a series of possibilities. Had they really wanted to be critical they
>in fact say something to that affect. To ignore a claim or concept you
>agree with is unprofessional.
>Kevin L. O'Brien