perspective: background

This project was inspired by a dual anniversary in science. Ninety years ago, Lawrence J. Henderson, Professor of Biological Chemistry at Harvard University, raised the question of whether the nature of the physical world could be described as "biocentric." Henderson's "biocentricity" hypothesis appeared in his 1913 book, The Fitness of the Environment: An Inquiry into the Biological Significance of the Properties of Matter. In physics, analogous inquiries into "fine-tuning" for life have led to a highly fertile domain of inquiry. In fact, 2003 marks the 50-year anniversary of a spectacular discovery in nuclear astrophysics by Fred Hoyle and colleagues-the discovery of the "finely tuned" resonance in "triple-alpha" reaction synthesis of carbon-12 in stars.

Subsequent research in physics and cosmology has identified a number of similarly astonishing discoveries of apparent "fine-tunings" of values of various of the constants of physics and of cosmological boundary conditions. The initial locus classicus of this form of inquiry was Hoyle's discovery, which emerged during early research into the origins of the elements in stars beyond helium. The astonishing finding by Hoyle and colleagues marked the beginning of the hugely productive career of Willy Fowler, building the modern field of nuclear astrophysics and nucleocosmochronology (for which Fowler won the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics).

"Anthropic" investigations in physics and cosmology thus have been active for the last half century, generating growing interest. These investigations have engendered the largest and most fascinating debate ever in the history of cosmology having to do with the ultimate scale of nature: Do we inhabit a unique and singular fine-tuned "universe" or one that is produced by a form of "random universes generator," resulting in a "multiverse" of infinite realization of all cosmic possibilities?

By contrast, the field of biochemistry has not experienced an analogous scale of developments, insights, or horizon-expanding debates. This, in itself, is an interesting fact. Henderson's arguments for biocentricity were applied in the domains of chemistry and biology rather than physics. Yet it is in physics that research has advanced. Is this because there is "nothing there" to find in chemistry and biology? Or rather is it because the task of finding basic "biocentric" insights is far more difficult and challenging in these domains than it is in physics? Might important progress in biochemistry emerge by following paths of inquiry initiated by Henderson 90 years ago?