When discussing the coronavirus, people often describe it as if it has a personality or even a conscience. However, if you ask a biology student, they will tell you that viruses are not truly living organisms. At most, they exist at the boundary between life and non-life. Despite this, virologists remain divided on whether viruses should be considered alive, as they exhibit certain characteristics of living things, such as evolution and adaptation.
++ The importance of stimming for autistic people
One of the key scientific definitions of life comes from Erwin Schrödinger, who described life as a system that maintains order by using energy. Living organisms create structure and resist decay, whereas viruses rely entirely on host cells to replicate and function. By biological standards, life’s smallest unit is the cell, which can produce molecules and replicate independently. Since viruses cannot reproduce or function without a host, they do not fit this definition of life.
However, from an evolutionary perspective, living organisms are defined by their ability to reproduce and pass on genetic material. In this sense, viruses could be considered alive because they generate new virus particles. Some researchers also argue that, although viruses do not perform metabolism independently, they manipulate host cells to produce new viral components, which is a life-like process.
++ BBC reporter deported from Turkey amid protests over opposition leader’s arrest
Ultimately, defining life is complex, and viruses blur the line between living and non-living entities. This debate is not just theoretical—it has real-world implications for virology and medicine. Understanding whether viruses are alive influences how scientists develop antiviral treatments, aiming to disrupt the very processes that allow viruses to replicate within host cells.
