In a lab at the University of Minnesota, scientists have constructed a cell-like system that seems to perform all the functions of life. Squirming around in its petri dish, the so-called SpudCell feeds, grows and then divides, creating more SpudCells that compete and change across generations.

SpudCell follows decades of similar efforts in the field of synthetic biology, which is the creation of new materials using biology as a foundation. Researchers’ quests to create artificial and alterable versions of life’s processes have led to substances that replace blood during emergencies, more efficiently carry medications through the body and advance regenerative medicines that can replace damaged cells or tissues.

Unlike previous attempts to create lifelike cells, which have started with living cells whose genetic material is stripped down to the very basics, SpudCell is constructed from the “bottom up,” using lifeless chemical components. It’s the first time an artificial cell constructed this way has been able to complete a full life cycle and spawn the next generation.

The news of SpudCell has caused many scientists to reflect on where the field of synthetic biology is headed — and what it means to be alive.

“Keep in mind that ‘alive’ is not a precisely defined condition,” said John Glass, who leads synthetic cell research at the J. Craig Venter Institute and was not involved in the research. “As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography: ‘I know it when I see it.’ Being alive is sort of like that.”

For now, most synthetic biologists agree that no artificial cell has yet passed that threshold between lifelike and alive — and SpudCell’s originators do not claim to have created life, either. The newly created SpudCell still has several key limitations that separate it from living cells.

Although it can feed, grow and divide, SpudCell is not self-sufficient like most living cells. It can build many of the inner workings of a cell-like system, but cannot build its own ribosomes. Because it lacks these essential protein-building cell structures, a SpudCell can live only in the lab, relying on scientists to feed it a nutrient-rich mix of enzymes and proteins.

“While the approach itself to construct these cells is elegant, it is unclear how repeatable and adaptable it is ‘as is’ for other scientists to be able to progress the work,” said Ronit Freeman, a synthetic biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Researchers suggest that the work behind SpudCell can serve as a conceptual jumping-off point, inspiring big questions about what cell functions contributed to the origins of life and whether new functions can be engineered within cells.

This opportunity for biological engineering — solving problems or creating things using the principles of biology — is one of the key things that SpudCell’s researchers are working toward. Once scientists are able to pinpoint which aspects of a cell’s genes are responsible for desired structures and processes, they can start to modify them, opening the door to the development of new types of medicines, specialized materials and even foods. SpudCell is still a proof of concept, and its biggest contributions might still be to come.

“As the authors say, this is not the synthesis of life,” said Juan Perez- Mercader, a researcher working with Harvard University’s Origins of Life Initiative. “In my opinion, this is very advanced biotechnology.”

In addition to potential future benefits, though, some biosecurity experts are also keeping an eye out for the risks that could one day be associated with technologies like SpudCell.

Because SpudCell cannot survive outside a lab, several biosecurity experts confirmed that, in its present form, it does not seem to pose any threats. With any new biotechnology, though, security experts say there is as much potential for risk as there is for benefit.

“The tools themselves are not inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Rather, they can be used to build beneficial or harmful biological systems, just as a hammer can be used to build a home or to break a window,” explained Becky Mackelprang, director of security programs at the Engineering Biology Research Consortium.

Misuse of an artificial cell technology like SpudCell — such as using it to create a biological weapon that could harm humans or the environment — is still a remote risk, according to the researchers behind SpudCell. Yet it’s one the field of synthetic biology is taking seriously as similar technologies continue to advance.

Since 1975, scientists have met at the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA to discuss potential hazards of work altering DNA. The threat that new biology-based creations pose to living things has been an ever-present topic in synthetic biology. Questions about the positive and negative uses for new technologies are taken seriously for good reason.

“If a future synthetic cell is also harmful to humans, animals or the environment, that could have very serious consequences for all of us,” said Dr. Tom Inglesby, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Biosecurity experts suggest the best way to prepare for all the positives and negatives posed by artificial cell technology is to talk about them. And SpudCell is jump-starting the conversation.

“This work demands our attention, not for what has been produced but for where it leads,” said Dr. David A. Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, adding: “It is creative, disruptive and provocative in revealing what might be possible in the not-so-distant future.”