Crystals: animal, vegetable or mineral?

Abstract

The morphologies of biological materials, from body shapes to membranes within cells, are typically curvaceous and flexible, in contrast to the angular, facetted shapes of inorganic matter. An alternative dichotomy has it that biomolecules typically assemble into aperiodic structures in vivo , in contrast to inorganic crystals. This paper explores the evolution of our understanding of structures across the spectrum of materials, from living to inanimate, driven by those naive beliefs, with particular focus on the development of crystallography in materials science and biology. The idea that there is a clear distinction between these two classes of matter has waxed and waned in popularity through past centuries. Our current understanding, driven largely by detailed exploration of biomolecular structures at the sub-cellular level initiated by Bernal and Astbury in the 1930s, and more recent explorations of sterile soft matter, makes it clear that this is a false dichotomy. For example, liquid crystals and other soft materials are common to both living and inanimate materials. The older picture of disjoint universes of forms is better understood as a continuum of forms, with significant overlap and common features unifying biological and inorganic matter. In addition to the philosophical relevance of this perspective, there are important ramifications for science. For example, the debates surrounding extra-terrestrial life, the oldest terrestrial fossils and consequent dating of the emergence of life on the Earth rests to some degree on prejudices inferred from the supposed dichotomy between life-forms and the rest.