Creating synthetic life in a lab? SpudCell falls short of the goal, but raises even more useful questions

Nature is beautiful, powerful and essential. But nature is not always gentle. The same biological world that gives rise to forests, coral reefs and human life also produces infections, cancer, genetic disease, crop blights and toxins. Natural processes can heal, sustain and inspire, but they can also destroy.

That dichotomy is part of what drives the field of synthetic biology: where scientists apply engineering principles to learn from and carefully adapt nature's biological systems to address human problems. By understanding biological systems, scientists can carefully redirect them when natural processes cause harm.

This principle has shaped my work as a biomedical engineer for over two decades. My lab studies how to program cells in order to better understand their behavior and ultimately use them as medicine. The goal is not to discard or replace nature, but to learn from biological principles and use that knowledge to responsibly help society.

Researchers announced on July 2, 2026, that they had created the first synthetic cell built from purified, nonliving components.

The lab's cell-like system, dubbed SpudCell, raises key questions: What does it take to build a cell from scratch? If scientists assemble something that feeds, grows, copies genetic material and divides, have they created life?

How to create cells from scratch

Natural cells are astonishingly complicated. Researchers want to use synthetic cells to learn more about how life works, and they are doing this by rebuilding some of life's basic features in a simpler, more understandable form.

Earlier designs of minimal cells, used to test which components are necessary for lifelike behavior, began with existing living cells and reduced the size of their genomes. A minimal cell is useful because it is simple, but that simplicity comes at a cost. It may reveal which parts are needed for lifelike behavior, but it usually lacks the autonomy, resilience, metabolism and evolutionary capacity of natural cells.

Instead, synthetic cells are built through a bottom-up engineering approach. Scientists start with a simplified compartment – a kind of biological "box" – and ask what must be added for it to behave more like a living cell. A membrane separates the inside from the outside. Genetic material stores instructions. Molecular machinery reads those instructions to make molecules. Energy sources power reactions. Other components can allow growth, division and adaptation.

A useful way to think about synthetic cells is to compare them with technologies society already depends on. The radio wasn't invented all at once. Engineers learned how to combine an antenna, tuner, amplifier, power source and speaker to convert invisible electromagnetic waves into sound. A car is not just a metal shell; it becomes transportation only when a frame is connected to wheels, brakes, steering, an engine, and transmission and control systems. A computer began with switches and strings of ones and zeros that could be assembled into circuits capable of storing and processing information.

Similarly, SpudCell was assembled from the bottom up with purified, nonliving parts. Researchers used lipid molecules to create a cell-like membrane, DNA molecules to store genetic instructions, purified enzymes to copy and read those instructions, and other molecular machinery to help build proteins and other molecules from small chemical building blocks, such as amino acids and nucleotides.

SpudCell is exciting scientists because it appears to bring several features of life together in one system. The researchers describe it as capable of feeding, growth, genome replication, genetically encoded division and something close to evolution. These features resemble a biological cell cycle.

Close to life, but not quite

While SpudCell is an important milestone in the field, it stops short of being a fully synthetic living cell. A membrane-bound compartment containing DNA is not automatically a living cell, just as a pile of car parts is not a car.

SpudCell can carry out several life-like processes, but it is not independent. It still relies on carefully controlled laboratory conditions and on researchers to supply its molecular machinery. It doesn't reliably pass on its genetic material or spontaneously evolve the way natural cells do.

To approach life, a synthetic cell must coordinate many processes at once. NASA describes life as a "self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution," meaning it must independently use energy, copy information, grow, divide, respond to its surroundings and persist over time. Natural cells do this with extraordinary reliability because they are the products of billions of years of evolution.

SpudCell still falls short of that standard. It depends on researchers to continuously supply it with the molecular machinery to function and to physically help it divide. It also cannot reproduce indefinitely outside a carefully controlled laboratory environment. In other words, SpudCell may have been built rather than born, but it is not yet autonomous life.

That limitation does not make the achievement unimportant. In fact, it is scientifically valuable precisely because it exposes what is still missing to create life. Which parts are essential? Which processes must be coordinated? How much complexity is necessary before chemistry begins to look like biology?

Why create synthetic cells?

Those questions have practical importance. Answering them can help scientists and engineers design safer biological systems for a wide range of industries.

Synthetic cells allow scientists to more cleanly test how the surrounding membrane separates the inside of a cell from its environment, how genetic instructions are read, how energy is used, and how growth and division are coordinated. These cell-like systems could eventually become simplified test beds for studying biological circuits, disease mechanisms and the origins of life.

They could also help scientists build safer systems for making medicines, fuels or materials, detecting environmental toxins, or delivering therapies without relying on fully living organisms.

More broadly, synthetic biology connects medicine and biotechnology: Viruses can be redesigned into vaccines or gene therapy, immune cells can be reprogrammed to recognize cancer, and microbes can be engineered to make useful molecules, such as insulin, or detect pollutants.

Similarly, researchers could use synthetic cells to deliver a drug only to diseased tissue, or create microbial systems that detect toxins or pathogens in water. They can also act as simplified biological factories that can make medicines without requiring a fully living organism, or as biosensors providing early warning of dangerous threats, such as bioweapons.

Creating life responsibly

The philosophical question "Is SpudCell alive?" may not have a simple yes or no answer.

Depending on whether your definition of life emphasizes metabolism, reproduction, evolution, autonomy or cellular organization, the boundary between living and nonliving can look very different.

Life is not defined by one property alone. Viruses contain genetic information but depend on host cells to reproduce. Mitochondria perform essential metabolism but cannot live independently outside of cells. A seed can remain dormant for years before resuming growth.

Synthetic biology reengineers life for practical purposes.

When synthetic biology is guided by a strong sense of responsibility, scientists can learn how to redirect harmful processes, build safer tools and help society. This requires not only asking whether biological systems can be built, but also whether their creation should be controlled, where they should function and what safeguards are needed.

Over the past two decades, scientists have built many kinds of biological kill switches – that is, genetic circuits that can shut down engineered cells under specific conditions. Some researchers have made cells dependent on a specific nutrient. Others have created cells that can survive only in a particular environment or activate self-destructive pathways when conditions change.

Kill switches are not magic off buttons and do not replace careful regulation, physical containment or public oversight. But they are an important example of synthetic biology's moral compass: to not only build useful biological tools, but to build them with safety, accountability and humility in mind.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tara Deans, Georgia Institute of Technology

Read more:

Tara Deans receives funding the National Institutes of Health. She previously received funding from the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research.