99 faculty and honored guests gathered from 5 to 8pm for hors d’oeuvres, two 20 minute presentations and 30 minute panel (at the end), sandwiching the main attraction: 90 minutes of dinner and discussion by 6 at a each table designed to mix guests with different backgrounds and disciplines. It’s the best evening you ever spent on campus.

From Roundtable Coordinator Dave Thom: When we chose to address the ORIGIN of LIFE (OOL) we chose speakers who would “stick to the science.” Learning to talk about science and reflect on religious and non-devout convictions at the same time makes the evening valuable. Even more valuable? If we can inspire you to go back to your office and conduct your own research on the topic.

 

 

Table 10 facilitator was “the best.” Cronin's comments were more “ideological” than “scientific” assertions. Dr. Tour was the first Chemistry Professor in my professional life that provided me with an “origin of life” lecture from a chemistry perspective.

 

I found this roundtable to be quite provocative and a bit unconventional. Our table 7 facilitator did a great job – and the mix of participants was exceptional.

 

I understood Tour completely. The discussion was focused, the debate fully engaged, and I came away learning a lot I’d never thought about before. Discussion@table 4: excellent.

 

Jim gave us a pithy critique of the work done trying to create life in the lab and why he thinks it keeps failing. It was made more alive by his strong feelings. The arguments couldn’t have been more interesting! The slides were helpful, and the difference in style between the speakers made it more fascinating. I loved it! This brought home why the Roundtable idea is great!

 

This was a terrific roundtable. Although Jim was inappropriately aggressive - to the great detriment of his argument - at least it helped make the evening lively! The panel at the end was a reasonable idea (vs audience Q&A) that worked.

 

Jim talked about science in a wonderfully engaging way, definitely gave us all the full force of his assertions, but he moved through the technical material so quickly that it was impossible for a non-expert to judge them. Lee also talked about science, gave a taste of A.T., but I didn’t leave with a sense of understanding it in more than a trivial way. I had a good time, enjoyed my table’s discussion, but I don’t think the Battle of the Experts format is the best way of learning about a topic.

 

A dynamic evening: Jim was strident and made his points forcefully. I was convinced that current understanding of chemistry is insufficient to explain the origin of life. He gave an eloquent statement of his faith. Lee convinced me that his might be one way to start explanations but it is clearly not sufficient.

 

Dr. Tour’s enthusiastic presentation is that no lab has yet come close to explaining how life originated and that there is an ever-increasing number of unanswered questions in OOL chemistry and we should be critical and speculative of any contrary claims. I don’t get how Cronin’s theory helps in understanding the science behind how life began. I was inspired by the passion and intensity both speakers brought to the topic and although I left with more questions than answers, it certainly was a memorable evening.

 

Tour’s talk and the panel was a bit more “fiery” than previous Roundtables, but he tackled the topic well, He did go too much “into the weeds” in the biological details, perhaps more adept for an experts audience rather than this specific forum. Cronin has a very interesting paper trying to measure biological complexity. Unlike Tour, Cronin was somewhat too vague and abstract on his ideas, and he didn’t really discuss it in much detail. The topic was interesting, and I am glad I attended.  

 

I thought both scientists were brilliant but 50% of what they both said was over my pay grade. Jim made a strong case for his limited critical point and responded well to the implied charge of “God in the gaps.”  His passion, which seemed, but was not, an ad hominem attack, evoked ad hominem critiques by Lee, which was smoothed out later by the politeness and fairness of both. Lee was brilliant and fascinating but, I thought, as over-generalized as Jim was over-specific, extending his science into a universal philosophical cosmology. But it was a tour de force and another spectacular success.

 

Tour did indeed talk about science (at times, too technically to understand). His criticisms of Dr. Cronin made this a Roundtable almost an academic Smackdown. He acknowledged his fervent Christianity during the after-dinner panel. This RT modeled keen minds and a humble soul.

 

Jim brought an astonishing range of scientific remarks concerning the chemistry of origin of life considerations. It was a fantastic primer. But went by too fast to absorb. Cronin did talk about his work at the level of lay discussion. He took more time, though, to defend himself philosophically from criticisms than to give a clear explanation of what his work is about. This was a “more robust” exchange than I have previously seen at Roundtables. Forceful contradiction was the primary way that the two principals addressed one another. Nevertheless, the civility of the meeting was preserved even though the laughter was sometimes “nervous” and not relaxed.

 

I loved the flow and content, and the speakers and other attendees were engaging and brilliant. Like another time, our table quickly formed a thoughtful, close bond. I would continue the conversation with them this evening if I could! A very animated critique of origin of life chemistry, with much force.

 

The impassioned tone of Tour was not inappropriate. I have a sense that he is concerned that science is losing its ability to stay in its lane of being the provable, the empirical, the completely thought out; that which makes science unique and essential in a world becoming more and more about feelings and personal truths. Is his concern not so much with Cronin sui generis, but with what he might be representing - a growing hubris in scientists which makes predictions with problems in the underlying science which contradicts their opinions? For that reason, this listener was more impressed with Tour’s courage in pushing his point even as he probably anticipated that the audience would be seduced by the amorphous, inspirational smoothness of Dr. Cronin.

 

Jim gave a good account of his critique and his position regarding his relation to intelligent design. Lee’s contrast with Jim’s vision couldn’t be greater. Also the way to envisage the role of hypotheses bordering the philosophical in science. I absolutely loved the evening, with incisive questions that made the relation to religion of our two speakers quite clear. A 17th century natural scientist vs an 18th century atheist scientist but with a pinch of pantheistic enthusiasm. The introduction of the question of time was great. I wish that there had been more time to unpack this issue. Jim’s vision of God hidden in the folds of time was fascinating.

 

Loved it. I got a sense of Jim’s critique, and Lee’s presentation and excitement about science was great, but not knowing the science, I found them somewhat hard to follow.

 

From a research professional in George Church’s Lab: Jim gave a good overview: an entertaining talk! Lee's talk was also good, and very different from Jim’s. I think his walk-throughs of AP were helpful to understand whereas Lee’s paper was dense. Loved it! I hope you do more; I'd love to attend again. Danny was fantastic at facilitating our table discussion. Dave: Rev. Dr. Danny Yamashiro is an MIT Chaplain! He and MIT Chaplain Rev. Dr. Nathan Barczi and Dr. Mia Chung-Yee anchor Diálogos evenings of Intellectual Hospitality at MIT with the Octet Collaborative!

 

Jim’s attack style was not appropriate, but much of what he said about what OOL compounds cannot be synthesized was helpful. Lee’s goal to make things clear to non-specialists was not achieved. I liked the topic but would have preferred a more nuanced, fact-based approach rather than broad generalizations. Stimulating table conversation, particularly by the two geneticists from the George Church Lab on “What is life?” and “Are viruses, etc. alive?”

 

Jim definitely performed a “Christian being self-righteous and bombastic” as if on program, which is unfortunate mostly because it is so expected. That said, his moderation over the discussion at the close was fascinating to me, and was commented on by others. It gives me hope for the progress of human conversation and disagreement that the sheer force of a crowd can bring someone down a few notches in volume. I also did not really understand Lee’s scientific work but I understood his openness to being incorrect very well – all to his credit.

 

The emotional tenor of the presentations could have been improved. I felt a bit trapped between unwitting aggression in the first talk [“I can’t believe Lee and his colleagues have such horrible ideas”], and understandable passive-aggression [“Unlike Jim, I’m not going to be mean and hostile and derisive] said 10x over. So while it provided an energetic atmosphere, it was not a model of civil discourse. But that is certainly no fault of yours.

 

Thank you for organising another great evening! I appreciated that the speakers were clear that they differed, but I think their personal styles and jabs at each other overshadowed the science they were sharing. My table spent quite a while trying to make sense of how they actually disagreed, since we could tell there was tension and disagreement between them. It felt like we were jumping into an already existing heated debate (and I'm saying this as someone who studies biophysics, so I was far more familiar with the topic than most people at my table). I think it would have been helpful to bring religion explicitly into the conversation – this would have allow non-chemists to relate to the conversation – it was a tension in the discussion. I really enjoyed the evening, and it spawned great conversations during the dinner and continuing for days afterwards!

 

Cronin’s ideas seemed sort of space cadet looney, but he explained them with a very becoming modesty. Tour might have had a logical point or two to make, but his style was so off-putting that I don’t think he had the slightest impact. That kind of over-the-top hostility (coupled with his Christian faith) caused him to lose the debate. It wasn’t even close.

 

I found Dr. Tour’s remarks particularly negative and unhelpful. I think we all would admit that we can’t yet explain the origin of life. If he thinks that there’s a better approach he should say what it is. People can over-state the significance of their results – we’re probably all guilty of that, given funding pressures. Tour criticized others without suggesting any better way forward. I think we’d all agree that it’s a very hard problem. Dr. Cronin had a tough task to explain his new abstract theory to a broad audience. Given the circumstances he did a fine job. I found it a very interesting evening. I certainly liked it, but I wish we had a more reasoned discussion. We certainly had a good, well informed, conversation at our table. The panel format was interesting. 

 

Dr. Tour challenged some of the leading data that is being generated with current methods. His wholistic approach was inspired. As a scientist at the table, I was able to explain some things to others. Although I would have liked more participation from certain disciplines, our facilitator did a wonderful job incorporating everyone into the conversation and allowing additional questions to arise.

 

If the synthetic chemists - and other disciplines - would say that they do not know the answers yet, but are glad to collaborate with colleagues and disciplines to find the answers to the OOL questions, would Dr Tour then see this as an achievement and be happy?

For me, his presentation and his objections sounded like allegations, and the zeal of his presentation obscured the rationale of his points. I happen to understand a bit of Assembly Theory. I think that without some understanding of that, it might have been hard to follow. In any case, OOL raises profound questions and as this is a key theme in religions - I do not know a religion that does not ask the question - I do think that it is an excellent case for debate in audiences like the Roundtable community.

I very much liked the panel and their probing Socratic questions. An inspiring evening and I would have liked to talk more about the topic with the other guests.

 

Many thanks again for the kind invitation to join the Roundtable discussion, it was a fun evening. In all honesty, I thought Dr. Cronin's talk was much better than Dr. Tour's talk, both in terms of presentation and content. Moreover, Dr. Tour was from time to time disrespectful to his colleague, which I thought was not in the spirit of the Roundtable. Something to think about for next time?

 

Jim definitely talked about the science and was clear on the force of his assertions. I am a chemist, so I understood most of what he was saying. But my guess is it went over most people’s heads as it was too detailed. Cronin also talked about science, though he was a bit more at the level of the generalist audience of a roundtable. Even so, I know it was at times over the heads of folks at my table. Overall, from what we could tell, they were just trying to answer different questions. I am a bit worried this roundtable may have done some damage to the reputation of roundtables going forward. The speakers were very hostile to one another and looking to score points - both things that roundtables have generally done an amazing job of avoiding in the past (in no small part due to your leadership). Everyone at my table was clear that roundtables “are not usually like this” - but I do worry about the newcomers. We just try our best to be grace and light to folks and pray that folks will understand this is just one aspect of the discussion.

 

To me, Jim did discuss science and he gave me a taste of the critique of the chemistry that is at stake. Lee Cronin did talk about science and Assembly Theory. At our table, much of the conversation drifted away from just the scientific assertions over to the tone and attitude of the presenters. Was this a presentation of different viewpoints, or was it to be a debate? That's why I think some people perceived Jim to be perhaps “angry.” I also loved watching the panel discussion. I just like to observe and learn how others think. I loved the event and appreciate the opportunity to participate each and every time!

 

Tour gave plentiful scientific evidence from chemistry that non-living molecules show resistance to taking on the properties of life. His argument that the time theoretically for this to happen was greater than the age of the universe was one for which the evidence presented was not so clear. It was this second part of the argument that affects the “science and religion” dimension of the origin of life, since it seemed to imply that “a candid acknowledgement of the problems” leads to the conclusion that are insoluble by science. Cronin gave us a pretty clear impression of how he proposes to proceed scientifically, using both physics and biology to make this hypothesis. I think some sustained philosophical inquiry about the goals and methods proposed by the two speakers would have been able to bring some greater clarity, if there had been time - e.g. allowing Boston College Philosophy Professor Peter Kreeft to act as Socrates, where the speakers would be required to answer questions narrowly and specifically. Dave: That actually is what Peter does: and brilliantly I will add! But we make room for other panelists as well as we close each Cambridge Roundtable. With the weight given to evidence drawn from the natural sciences, there was not time for the questions underneath the questions to be clearly addressed. Tour committed to making a scientific argument that the OOL problem was insoluble by science, a mystery. Cronin was anxious to explore how life might originate “without an inherent design blueprint” but his ideas need both definition and some methodological rationale as to why they are being sought as keys to the OOL. As a non-scientist I was unaware of the current OOL debate before, and this really got me thinking!

 

With this last review I’ll interject a few times: Tour failed on behalf of science by packing his presentation with far too many examples, references, explanations, overwhelming the listener so that the essence of the science was too easily lost in a snowstorm of slides and snippets. Dave: There’s such a thing as too much information?? The sound of science was overwhelmed by the volume of his hostile diatribe against Cronin’s work and the man himself. In over a half century of attending colloquies and symposia around the world, I have never heard a more angry, uncivil, and unprofessional attack. Dave: Impressions are important. But I do think Jim attacked ideas – not Cronin himself. See the video on YouTube! Cronin did the same. I think what this teaches us is that “tone” leaves a lasting impression. Cronin was focused & informative, with a unique approach and insight into abiogenesis. In spite of Tour, he handled himself well. As a whole, he stuck to the science. I don’t think he has the final answer, but neither is he claiming that. I imagine Jim is a friend of yours, Dave, so I am hesitant in sending this uncensored, but his presentation was so out of line with the tenor and tradition of the Roundtable, that I was shocked. Dave: this guest and I didn’t see eye to eye but I dearly appreciate this guest’s loving care for our RT reputation! This guest brings an A-game to the table every night. I got a lot out of the meeting, and connected/reconnected with a number of other good people, so I was glad. Thanks for all your good, hard work. Dave: and thank you for all your good, hard work, my friend!

 

Dave here to conclude: In an age of increasing polarities, we need to help “sides” to connect with each other. More books, lectures, journal articles, or on-line seminars will never be able to do what one dinner and discussion can begin to do. It’s not about the speakers, tho they do set the table. It's about bringing your A-game to each other in discussion. Ideas and a smile are hard to not hear.