products of human activities. In fact, the human species is amajor cha - PDF document

products of human activities. In fact, the human species is amajor changing force in the current composition of thebiosphere.The study of the biosphere cannot be made only by TheBiosphere, published by Synergetic Press (Arizona) came out in1986 (see Table 1 for other editions of the book in differentlanguages). This was an abridged version, for it was so the Frenchsource from which it had been translated. Although abridged, itwas a most valuable publication, since it allowed English-speaking audiences to get directly acquainted with VernadskyÕsmost famous piece of writing. Besides, a typescript of an entireEnglish version of The Biosphere, with the only indication ofthe translatorÕs nameÑDavid LangmuirÑhad been circulatingamong Bostonian and New Yorker VernadskyÕs followers.Science editor Peter N. Nevraumont rescued that translation, and kind of metabolism to have emerged on Earth. As Oparin himselfstated later, VernadskyÕs works showing the biological originof the oxygen present nowadays in the EarthÕs atmosphere hadbeen of great help to him to develop his theory [12]. On theother hand, although Vernadsky was acquainted with OparinÕswork, he sees Earth as a planet on which life has always beenpresent, it being a characteristic inherent to the essence of theplanet itself [25]. He is referring to RediÕs principle of 1669:ÒAll the living are born from the livingÓ when he states thatÒliving organisms have always sprung from living organismsduring the whole of geological historyÓ. In 1936 Oparinpublished, also in Russian, a more elaborated theory on theorigin of life, favored by personnel, social factors, and alsosocial, political circumstances. The English translation, whichwas to become a classical reference, was published byMacMillan (New York) in 1938 [27]. Soon later, however, WorldWar II started, and researchers from contending countries turnedtheir interests into topics much more practical than the originof life. Only in the mid 1950s, following the Miller experiment[26], did prebiotic chemistry emerge as a discipline on its own,giving rise to a new era for the studies on the origin of life.Lovelock, Gaia and the biosphereIn 1941, Manchester University newly graduated in Chemistry,James E. Lovelock, knew by his own experience what being aresearcher in wartime meant. He had found a job at the BritishNational Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) in London.Like other scientific institutions in the country, the NIMR hadbeen compelled to do short-term research on subjects ofimmediate application, such as the measurement of bloodpressure under water, the spread of upper respiratory infections WhatÕs in a name? with this statement:ÒThe history of life on earth has been a history of interactionbetween living things and their surroundingsÓ [2]. EugeneOdum, although cautious towards Gaia, supported the idea thatthe biosphere is a homeostatic or cybernetic system of livingand nonliving components. He also understood the major roleplayed by bacteria in some ecosystems, and emphasized theÒcrying needÓ for microbial ecologists [6].Lovelock might not have known that the name ÒGaiaÓ hadalready been used by someone else to name the mutualinteractions between life and Earth. In fact, ÒGaia or Life andEarthÓ was the title of the lecture which Dutch microbiologistLourens G. M. Baas Becking (1895Ð1963) gave in his inauguraladdress as professor of general botany at the University ofLeiden in 1931 [28]. American biologist Lynn Margulis, firstcollaborator of Lovelock to provide him with the biologicalevidences that account for chemical, geological changes on theEarth surface, stated that Lovelock had considered telling hishypothesis the ÒBiocybernetic Universal SystemTendency/HomeostasisÓ [24]. It was LovelockÕs neighbor,novelist William Golding, that suggested him that, if Earth wasalive, what better than to call it Gaia, the name of the GreeksÕEarth Goddess? [20].LovelockÕs concept of Gaia, or maybe his metaphor ofconsidering the Earth as a single organism, awakenedintolerance and controversy among some sectors of the scientificcommunity as well as among some science journalists, whoeither misunderstood the theory or saw in it teleologicalconnotations. The New York Times Magazinecalled himÒBritainÕs whole Earth guruÓ [10]. Science 81Ñdo not confusewith the weekly ScienceÑ published an accurate article onLovelock, which described very well the work of Lovelock andthe scientific basis for his Gaia theory. All this, however, wasconcealed under the mischievous title ÒThe maverick and the Gradually, research studies on topics such as atmosphericchemistry, microbial ecology, oceanography and earth sciencesprovided more and more evidences to predictions that had beenmade from LovelockÕs Gaian point of view [3, 13, 19, 30]. Anearly mathematical modelÑDaisyworldÑwas followed byothers much more sophisticated. In 1988, an interdisciplinaryconference organized by the American Geophysical Union,with the only purpose of discussing Gaia, was the starting pointfor a new era. As stated on the conferenceÕs report publishedon Science[9], Gaia had become ÒrespectableÓ. However,Lovelock wanted to deprive his theory of any religiousphilosophical meaning, and coined the word geophysiology,with which he intended to replace Gaia [21]. As a researcheron atmospheric chemistry and inventor of the electron capturedetector (ECD)Ñthe most sensitive, easily portable andinexpensive analytical device able to detect substances presentin the atmosphere at concentrations as low as parts per trillion welcomed Gaia followers arrived from different countries toattend the launching of Gaia, The Society for Research andEducation in Earth System Science. The new society, based atthe University of East London,* is co-presided by JamesLovelock and Lynn Margulis. Speakers at the Gaia Societylaunching session were the above mentioned Sir Crispin Tickell, I. Vernadsky, La Biosfera, Fundaci—n Argentaria - Visor Dis, Madrid Hill, New York