stanley urey experiment

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Original protocol and results

Additional trials and discoveries, significance.

Miller-Urey experiment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Nature - The role of borosilicate glass in Miller–Urey experiment
• Frontiers - Frontiers in Physics - The spark of life: discharge physics as a key aspect of the Miller–Urey experiment
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Conducting Miller-Urey Experiments
• National Center for Science Education - The Miller-Urey Experiment
• Table Of Contents

Miller-Urey experiment , experimental simulation conducted in 1953 that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth ’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiogenically, that is, formed from chemical reactions occurring between inorganic molecules thought to be present at the time. The experiment—the results of which were published in the journal Science as “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions”—documented the production of amino acids and other organic molecules, thereby demonstrating that chemical evolution (that is, the formation of complex chemicals from simple ones) is possible. The Miller-Urey experiment is used as evidence to support hypotheses about the origins of life .

The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted by American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago . The experiment was designed to test ideas introduced independently in the 1920s by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British physiologist J.B.S. Haldane , both of whom suggested that organic molecules, such as amino acids and sugars , could be formed from abiogenic materials when acted on by an external energy source within the context of a reducing atmosphere, that is, one with low levels of free oxygen ( see also oxidation-reduction reaction ). At the time, it was thought that the atmosphere of early Earth between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago was primarily composed of ammonia and water vapour. Oparin and Haldane noted that from this “primordial soup” of materials the first organic molecules arose, which became the precursors to molecules of ever-increasing complexity that resulted in the development of living cells ( see also abiogenesis ).

To test Oparin and Haldane’s ideas, Miller and Urey designed a closed experiment in a laboratory . They constructed an enclosed glass apparatus with two large boiling flasks connected to each other with glass tubing, in which water could pool, gases could mix, and matter could change phases between liquid and gas. A large lower chamber was filled with water (a boiling flask that stood in for the oceans), and the water was boiled to produce water vapour, which ascended into the large upper chamber (a boiling flask that simulated Earth’s early atmosphere). Additional tubing allowed material to descend from the upper chamber through a condenser, where water vapour would condense into liquid and fall into a collection trap from which samples could be taken. This trap was set slightly below the lower chamber, but it was also connected to the lower chamber above the water line. The researchers removed the air from the apparatus, replacing it throughout with ammonia, hydrogen , and methane gases, and they let the various materials cycle through liquid and gas phases.

In an early run of the experiment, Miller discovered that the energy produced from boiling water was not enough to drive the chemical reactions necessary to approximate the conditions of early Earth, so in a second version of the experiment (the one whose results were published in 1953) he added electrodes to the upper chamber. After the water was boiled, the mix of gases circulated through the system past electrodes that discharged sparks (which simulated lightning ), and a condenser converted some of the gas to liquid so that it could return to the lower chamber. This process ran continuously for one week. After this period, the contents of the apparatus had visibly changed colour. A red- and yellow-coloured solution had started to collect in the trap after running the experiment for a few days and became a broth of red and brown by the experiment’s end.

To determine the identity of the molecules that resulted from their procedure, Miller and Urey terminated the reaction, added chemicals that prevented the growth of microbes (which could be introduced to the closed system when samples were collected from the broth), extracted samples of the solution, and analyzed them using paper chromatography . They discovered several types of simple organic molecules in the samples, including amino acids, some of which were relevant as the building blocks of the proteins that are present in all living organisms. Miller was able to identify the amino acids glycine , alpha-alanine (α-alanine), and beta-alanine (β-alanine) confidently; however, he was less certain about the presence of aspartic acid and α-amino- n -butyric acid, whose signs in the analysis were weak.

Miller modified the original experiment several times, and each modification captured possible variations in Earth conditions that might influence the system’s products. Some of Miller’s subsequent experiments used different energy sources, such as an electrical source that produced a silent discharge instead of a spark, and improved gas circulation through the addition of glass tubing. Other researchers also repeated the experiment during the 1950s using different energy sources, such as ultraviolet light , and used different atmospheric gases (such as carbon dioxide , hydrogen sulfide , and nitrogen ) in various combinations, which also resulted in a mix of organic chemicals but only a handful of amino acids.

Miller and others would repeat the experiment several times in subsequent decades. He reran the experiment in the early 1970s using better analytical equipment, which revealed the presence of 33 different amino acids, including more than half of the 20 or so that appear in proteins present in living things. Researchers later criticized Miller for using what they considered to be the wrong gases in the experiment; carbon dioxide and nitrogen, not ammonia and methane, were shown later to be the primary gases in Earth’s early atmosphere, with ammonia and methane occurring only in minor amounts. Miller’s 1983 trial replaced methane and ammonia with carbon dioxide and nitrogen; however, fewer amino acids were produced than in the original published experiment. This result was attributed later to a buildup of nitrites in the system, which made the mixture more acidic and caused the amino acids to break down before they could be identified.

American chemist Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography reran the experiment in 2007. In addition to simulating an atmosphere filled with carbon dioxide and nitrogen, he added iron and carbonates to the system (two materials that would have been present in large amounts on ancient Earth)—which neutralized both the nitrites and the acids in the system, thereby allowing the amino acids to persist. A group of Spanish and Italian researchers suggested in 2021 that materials in the glass apparatus itself may have also catalyzed the chemical reactions taking place within it; the various chemicals in the experiment were shown to have reacted with the interior surface of the glass to release silicates (which, in turn, reacted with other chemicals) while also leaving behind small imperfections and cracks on the interior surface that may have served as chambers for other chemical reactions.

Starting in the early 2000s, researchers examined archived vials containing samples of material collected from Miller’s experiments during the 1950s. Aided by modern analytical equipment, they discovered far more than the five amino acids Miller reported in his papers; Miller’s experiments conducted in 1953 and 1958 were each shown to have yielded more than 20 amino acids.

The experiment showed that amino acids, which are important components of proteins (which are critical to life on Earth), could have arisen from inorganic compounds during Earth’s prebiotic phase. It also demonstrated that the speculation that life could have originated through chemical reactions among nonliving materials is possible and that this hypothesis could be tested scientifically. The Miller-Urey experiment sparked research on how simple organic molecules might polymerize into more complex molecules, a process that may have produced the first living cells. Scientists have also considered the possibility that meteors brought the first organic molecules, formed in space, to Earth, and they continue to modify the Miller-Urey protocol to test new ideas about chemical reactions in primitive Earth conditions.

• Why Does Water Expand When It Freezes
• Gold Foil Experiment
• Faraday Cage
• Oil Drop Experiment
• Magnetic Monopole
• Why Do Fireflies Light Up
• Types of Blood Cells With Their Structure, and Functions
• The Main Parts of a Plant With Their Functions
• Parts of a Flower With Their Structure and Functions
• Parts of a Leaf With Their Structure and Functions
• Why Does Ice Float on Water
• Why Does Oil Float on Water
• How Do Clouds Form
• What Causes Lightning
• How are Diamonds Made
• Types of Meteorites
• Types of Volcanoes
• Types of Rocks

Miller-Urey Experiment

The Miller-Urey Experiment was a landmark experiment to investigate the chemical conditions that might have led to the origin of life on Earth. The scientist Stanley Miller, under the supervision of the Nobel laureate scientist Harold Urey conducted it in 1952 at the University of Chicago. They tried to recreate the conditions that could have existed in the first billion years of the Earth’s existence (also known as the Early Earth) to check the said chemical transformations.

Miller-Urey Experiment And The Primordial Soup Theory

The experiment tested the primordial or primeval soup theory developed independently by the Soviet biologist A.I. Oparin and English scientist J.B.S. Haldane in 1924 and 1929 respectively. The theory propounds the idea that the complex chemical components of life on Earth originated from simple molecules occurring naturally in the reducing atmosphere of the Early Earth, sans oxygen. Lightning and rain energized the said atmosphere to create simple organic compounds that formed an organic “soup”. The so-called soup underwent further changes giving rise to more complex organic polymers and finally life.

The Miller-Urey Experiment In Support Of Abiogenesis

From what was explained in the previous paragraph, it can undoubtedly be considered as a classic experiment to demonstrate abiogenesis. For those who are not conversant with the term, abiogenesis is the process responsible for the development of living beings from non-living or abiotic matter. It is thought to have taken place on the Earth about 3.8 to 4 billion years ago.

Miller-Urey Experiment Apparatus and Procedure

The groundbreaking experiment used a sterile glass flask of 5 liters attached with a pair of electrodes, to hold water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) and hydrogen (H 2 ), the major components of primitive Earth. This was connected to another glass flask of 500 ml capacity half filled with water. On heating it, the water vaporized to fill the larger container with water vapor. The electrodes induced continuous electrical sparks in the gas mixture to simulate lightning. When the gas was cooled, the condensed water made its way into a U-shaped trap at the base of the apparatus.

After electrical sparking had continued for a day, the solution in the trap turned pink in color. At the end of a week, the boiling flask was removed, and mercuric chloride added to prevent microbial contamination. After stopping the chemical reaction, the scientist duo examined the cooled water collected to find that 10-15% of the carbon present in the system was in the form of organic compounds. 2% of carbon went into the formation of various amino acids, including 13 of the 22 amino acids essential to make proteins in living cells, glycine being the most abundant.

Though the result was the production of only simple organic molecules and not a complete living biochemical system, still the simple prebiotic experiment could, to a considerable extent, prove the primordial soup hypothesis.

Miller-Urey Experiment Animation

Chemistry of the miller and urey experiment.

The components of the mixture can react among themselves to produce formaldehyde (CH 2 O), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and other intermediate compounds.

CO 2 → CO + [O] (atomic oxygen)

CH 4 + 2[O] → CH 2 O + H 2 O

CO + NH 3 → HCN + H 2 O

CH 4 + NH 3 → HCN + 3H 2

The ammonia, formaldehyde and HCN so produced react by a process known as Strecker synthesis to form biomolecules including amino acids.

CH 2 O + HCN + NH 3 → NH 2 -CH 2 -CN + H 2 O

NH 2 -CH 2 -CN + 2H 2 O → NH 3 + NH 2 -CH 2 -COOH (glycine)

In addition to the above, formaldehyde and water can react by Butlerov’s reaction to produce a variety of sugars like ribose, etc.

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on primitive Earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under abiotic conditions and not from living beings themselves.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2gjtv4/revision/1

https://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html

Article was last reviewed on Thursday, February 2, 2023

Related articles

One response to “Miller-Urey Experiment”

This experiment is currently seen as not sufficient to support abiogenesis. See Stephen C. Meyer, James Tour.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Popular Articles

Join our Newsletter

Fill your E-mail Address

Related Worksheets

• Privacy Policy

© 2024 ( Science Facts ). All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Conducting Miller-Urey Experiments

Eric t. parker.

1 School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology

James H. Cleaves

2 Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology

3 Institute for Advanced Study

Aaron S. Burton

4 Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate, NASA Johnson Space Center

Daniel P. Glavin

5 Goddard Center for Astrobiology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Jason P. Dworkin

Manshui zhou, jeffrey l. bada.

6 Geosciences Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego

Facundo M. Fernández

In 1953, Stanley Miller reported the production of biomolecules from simple gaseous starting materials, using an apparatus constructed to simulate the primordial Earth's atmosphere-ocean system. Miller introduced 200 ml of water, 100 mmHg of H 2 , 200 mmHg of CH 4 , and 200 mmHg of NH 3 into the apparatus, then subjected this mixture, under reflux, to an electric discharge for a week, while the water was simultaneously heated. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide the reader with a general experimental protocol that can be used to conduct a Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiment, using a simplified 3 L reaction flask. Since the experiment involves exposing inflammable gases to a high voltage electric discharge, it is worth highlighting important steps that reduce the risk of explosion. The general procedures described in this work can be extrapolated to design and conduct a wide variety of electric discharge experiments simulating primitive planetary environments.

Introduction

The nature of the origins of life on Earth remains one of the most inscrutable scientific questions. In the 1920s Russian biologist Alexander Oparin and British evolutionary biologist and geneticist John Haldane proposed the concept of a "primordial soup" 1,2 , describing the primitive terrestrial oceans containing organic compounds that may have facilitated chemical evolution. However, it wasn't until the 1950s when chemists began to conduct deliberate laboratory studies aimed at understanding how organic molecules could have been synthesized from simple starting materials on the early Earth. One of the first reports to this end was the synthesis of formic acid from the irradiation of aqueous CO 2 solutions in 1951 3 .

In 1952, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, approached Harold Urey about doing an experiment to evaluate the possibility that organic compounds important for the origin of life may have been formed abiologically on the early Earth. The experiment was conducted using a custom-built glass apparatus ( Figure 1A ) designed to simulate the primitive Earth. Miller's experiment mimicked lightning by the action of an electric discharge on a mixture of gases representing the early atmosphere, in the presence of a liquid water reservoir, representing the early oceans. The apparatus also simulated evaporation and precipitation through the use of a heating mantle and a condenser, respectively. Specific details about the apparatus Miller used can be found elsewhere 4 . After a week of sparking, the contents in the flask were visibly transformed. The water turned a turbid, reddish color 5 and yellow-brown material accumulated on the electrodes 4 . This groundbreaking work is considered to be the first deliberate, efficient synthesis of biomolecules under simulated primitive Earth conditions.

Figure 1. Comparison between the two types of apparatuses discussed in this paper. The classic apparatus used for the original Miller-Urey experiment ( A ) and the simplified apparatus used in the protocol outlined here ( B ). Click here to view larger image .

After the 1953 publication of results from Miller's classic experiment, numerous variations of the spark discharge experiment, for example using other gas mixtures, were performed to explore the plausibility of producing organic compounds important for life under a variety of possible early Earth conditions. For example, a CH 4 /H 2 O/NH 3 /H 2 S gas mixture was tested for its ability to produce the coded sulfur-containing α-amino acids, although these were not detected 6 . Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of a CH 4 /NH 3 mixture subjected to an electric discharge showed the synthesis of α-aminonitriles, which are amino acid precursors 7 . In 1972, using a simpler apparatus, first introduced by Oró 8 ( Figure 1B ), Miller and colleagues demonstrated the synthesis of all of the coded α-amino acids 9 and nonprotein amino acids 10 that had been identified in the Murchison meteorite to date, by subjecting CH 4 , N 2 , and small amounts of NH 3 to an electric discharge. Later, using this same simplified experimental design, gas mixtures containing H 2 O, N 2 , and CH 4 , CO 2 , or CO were sparked to study the yield of hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, and amino acids as a function of the oxidation state of atmospheric carbon species 11 .

In addition to the exploration of alternative experimental designs over the years, significant analytical advances have occurred since Miller's classic experiment, which recently aided more probing investigations of electric discharge experimental samples archived by Miller, than would have been facilitated by the techniques Miller had access to in the 1950s. Miller's volcanic experiment 12 , first reported in 1955 4 , and a 1958 H 2 S-containing experiment 13 were shown to have formed a wider variety, and greater abundances, of numerous amino acids and amines than the classic experiment, including many of which that had not been previously identified in spark discharge experiments.

The experiment described in this paper can be conducted using a variety of gas mixtures. Typically, at the very least, such experiments will contain a C-bearing gas, an N-bearing gas, and water. With some planning, almost any mixture of gases can be explored, however, it is important to consider some chemical aspects of the system. For example, the pH of the aqueous phase can have a significant impact on the chemistry that occurs there 14 .

The method described here has been tailored to instruct researchers how to conduct spark discharge experiments that resemble the Miller-Urey experiment using a simplified 3 L reaction vessel, as described in Miller's 1972 publications 9,10 . Since this experiment involves a high voltage electric arc acting on inflammable gases, it is crucial to remove O 2 from the reaction flask to eliminate the risk of explosion, which can occur upon combustion of reduced carbon-bearing gases such as methane or carbon monoxide, or reaction of H 2 with oxygen.

There are additional details that should be kept in mind when preparing to conduct the experiment discussed here. First, whenever working with glass vacuum lines and pressurized gases, there exists the inherent danger of both implosion and over-pressuring. Therefore, safety glasses must be worn at all times. Second, the experiment is typically conducted at less than atmospheric pressure. This minimizes the risk of over-pressuring the manifold and reaction flask. Glassware may be rated at or above atmospheric pressure, however, pressures above 1 atm are not recommended. Pressures may increase in these experiments as water-insoluble H 2 is liberated from reduced gases (such as CH 4 and NH 3 ). Over-pressuring can lead to seal leakage, which can allow atmospheric O 2 to enter the reaction flask, making it possible to induce combustion, resulting in an explosion. Third, it should be borne in mind that modification of this protocol to conduct variations of the experiment requires careful planning to ensure unsafe conditions are not created. Fourth, it is highly recommended that the prospective experimenter read through the entire protocol carefully several times prior to attempting this experiment to be sure he or she is familiar with potential pitfalls and that all necessary hardware is available and in place. Lastly, conducting experiments involving combustible gases require compliance with the experimenter's host institution's Environmental Health and Safety departmental guidelines. Please observe these recommendations before proceeding with any experiments. All steps detailed in the protocol here are in compliance with the authors' host institutional Environmental Health and Safety guidelines.

1. Setting Up a Manifold/Vacuum System

• Use ground glass joints and glass plugs with valves on the manifold. Ensure that all O-rings on the plugs are capable of making the necessary seals. If using glass joints, a sufficient amount of vacuum grease can be applied to help make a seal, if necessary. Silicon vacuum grease can be used to avoid potential organic contamination.
• Use glass stopcocks on the manifold. Apply the minimum amount of vacuum grease necessary to make a seal.
• Measure the manifold volume. This volume will be used for calculations related to final gas pressures in the 3 L reaction flask and should be known as precisely as possible.
• Unless the manifold has enough connections to accommodate all gas cylinders simultaneously, connect one cylinder at a time to the manifold. Include in this connection, a tap allowing the manifold to be isolated from the ambient atmosphere.
• Use suitable, clean, inert, and chemical and leak resistant tubing and ultratorr vacuum fittings to connect the gas cylinders to the manifold. Ultratorr fittings, where used, are to be finger-tightened.
• To ensure rapid attainment of vacuum and to protect the pump, insert a trap between the manifold and the vacuum pump. A liquid nitrogen finger-trap is recommended as it will prevent volatiles such as NH 3 , CO 2 , and H 2 O from entering the pump. Care should be taken, as trapped volatiles, upon warming, may overpressure the manifold and result in glass rupture.
• Connect to the manifold, a manometer or other vacuum gauge capable of 1 mmHg resolution or better. While various devices can be used, a mercury manometer, or MacLeod gauge, is preferable as mercury is fairly nonreactive.
• Measure and record the ambient temperature using a suitable thermometer.

2. Preparation of Reaction Flask

• Clean the tungsten electrodes by gently washing with clean laboratory wipes and methanol, and drying in air.
• Introduce a precleaned and sterilized magnetic stir bar, which will ensure rapid dissolution of soluble gases and mixing of reactants during the experiment.
• Attach the tungsten electrodes to the 3 L reaction flask using a minimal amount of vacuum grease, with tips separated by approximately 1 cm inside the flask. Fasten with clips.
• Insert an adapter with a built-in stopcock into the neck of the 3 L reaction flask and secure with a clip.
• Lightly grease all connections to ensure a good vacuum seal.
• Open all valves and stopcocks on the manifold, except Valve 6 and Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ), and turn on the vacuum pump to evacuate the manifold. Once a stable vacuum reading of <1 mmHg has been attained, close Valve 1 and allow the manifold to sit for ~15 min to check for vacuum leaks. If none are detected, proceed to step 2.8. Otherwise troubleshoot the various connections until the leaks can be identified and fixed.
• Apply magnetic stirring to the reaction vessel. Open Valve 1 and Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) to evacuate the headspace of the 3 L reaction flask until the pressure has reached <1 mmHg.
• Close Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) and monitor the pressure inside the 3 L reaction flask. The measured pressure should increase to the vapor pressure of water. To ensure that no leaks exist, wait ~5 min at this stage. If the pressure (as read on the manometer) increases while Valve 1 is closed during this step, check for leaks in Stopcock 1 and the various reaction flask connections. If no leak is found, proceed to the next step.

3. Introduction of Gaseous NH 3

• Calculate the necessary pressure of gaseous NH 3 to introduce into the manifold such that 200 mmHg of NH 3 will be introduced into the reaction flask. Details on how to do this are provided in the Discussion section.
• Close Valves 1 and 6, and Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) before introducing any gas into the manifold. Leave the other valves and stopcock open.
• Introduce NH 3 into the manifold until a small pressure (approximately 10 mmHg) is reached and then evacuate the manifold to a pressure of <1 mmHg by opening Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ). Repeat 3x.
• Introduce NH 3 into the manifold to reach the pressure determined in step 3.1.
• Open Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) to introduce 200 mmHg of NH 3 into the 3 L reaction flask. The NH 3 will dissolve in the water in the reaction flask and the pressure will fall slowly.
• Once the pressure stops dropping, close Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) and record the pressure read by the manometer. This value represents the pressure inside the flask and will be used to calculate the pressures for other gases that will be introduced into the manifold later.
• Open Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) to evacuate the manifold to a pressure of <1 mmHg.
• Close Valve 2 ( Figure 4 ) and disconnect the NH 3 gas cylinder from the manifold.

4. Introduction of CH 4

• Calculate the necessary pressure of CH 4 to be introduced into the manifold such that 200 mmHg of CH 4 will be introduced into the 3 L reaction flask. Example calculations are shown in the Discussion section.
• Connect the CH 4 gas cylinder to the manifold.
• Open all valves and stopcocks, except Valve 6 and Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ), and evacuate the manifold to a pressure of <1 mmHg.
• Close Valve 1 once the manifold has been evacuated ( Figure 4 ).
• Introduce CH 4 into the manifold until a small pressure (approximately 10 mmHg) is obtained. This purges the line of any contaminant gases from preceding steps. Open Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) to evacuate the manifold to <1 mmHg. Repeat 2x more.
• Introduce CH 4 into the manifold until the pressure calculated in step 4.1, is reached.
• Open Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) to introduce 200 mmHg of CH 4 into the 3 L reaction flask.
• Close Stopcock 1 once the intended pressure of CH 4 has been introduced into the 3 L reaction flask ( Figure 4 ) and record the pressure measured by the manometer.
• Open Valve 1 (Figure 4 ) to evacuate the manifold to <1 mmHg.
• Close Valve 2 ( Figure 4 ) and disconnect the CH 4 cylinder from the manifold.

5. Introduction of Further Gases ( e.g.  N 2 )

• At this point, it is not necessary to introduce additional gases. However, if desired, it is recommended to add 100 mmHg of N 2 . In this case, calculate the necessary pressure of N 2 to be introduced into the manifold such that 100 mmHg of N 2 will be introduced into the 3 L reaction flask. Example calculations are shown in the Discussion section.
• Connect the N 2 gas cylinder to the manifold.
• Introduce N 2 into the manifold until a small pressure (approximately 10 mmHg) is obtained. Open Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) to evacuate the manifold to <1 mmHg. Repeat 2x more.
• Introduce N 2 into the manifold until the pressure calculated in step 5.1 is reached.
• Open Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) to introduce 100 mmHg of N 2 into the reaction flask.
• Close Stopcock 1 once the intended pressure of N 2 has been introduced into the reaction flask, ( Figure 4 ) and record the pressure using the manometer.
• Open Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) to evacuate the manifold to <1 mmHg.
• Close Valve 2 ( Figure 4 ) and disconnect the N 2 cylinder from the manifold.

6. Beginning the Experiment

• Detach the reaction flask from the manifold by closing Stopcock 1 and Valve 1 ( Figure 4 ) once all gases have been introduced into the reaction flask, so that ambient air may enter the manifold and bring the manifold up to ambient pressure.
• After carefully disconnecting the reaction flask from the manifold, set the flask somewhere it will not be disturbed ( e.g.  inside an empty fume hood).
• Disconnect the vacuum pump and carefully remove the cold trap and allow venting inside a fully operational fume hood.
• Secure the Tesla coil connected to the high frequency spark generator.
• Connect the opposite tungsten electrode to an electrical ground to enable the efficient passage of electrical current across the gap between the two electrodes.
• Set the output voltage of the spark generator to approximately 30,000 V, as detailed by documents available from the manufacturer.
• Prior to initiating the spark, close the fume hood sash, to serve as a safety shield between the apparatus and the experimenter. Turn the Tesla coil on to start the experiment, and allow sparking to continue for 2 weeks (or other desired period) in 1 hr on/off cycles.

7. End of Experiment

• Stop the experiment by turning off the Tesla coil.
• Open Stopcock 1 ( Figure 4 ) to slowly introduce ambient air into the reaction flask and facilitate the removal of the adapter and the tungsten electrodes so samples can be collected. If desired, a vacuum can be used to evacuate the reaction flask of noxious reaction gases.

8. Collecting Liquid Sample

• Transfer the sample to a sterile plastic or glass receptacle. Plastic receptacles are less prone to cracking or breaking upon freezing, compared to glass receptacles.
• Seal sample containers and store in a freezer capable of reaching temperatures of -20 °C or lower, as insoluble products may prevent the sample solution from freezing at 0 °C.

9. Cleaning the Apparatus

• Use clean laboratory wipes to carefully remove vacuum grease from the neck of the apparatus, the adapter and stopcock, and the glass surrounding the tungsten electrodes.
• Thoroughly clean the same surfaces described in step 9.1 with toluene to fully remove organic vacuum grease from the glassware. If using silicon grease, the high vacuum grease may remain on the glassware after pyrolysis, creating future problems, as detailed in the Discussion section.
• Thoroughly clean the reaction flask with a brush and the following solvents in order: ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC), ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC) with 5% cleaning detergent, methanol, toluene, methanol, ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC) with 5% cleaning detergent, and finally ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC).
• Cover all open orifices of the reaction flask with aluminum foil and wrap the adapter and its components in aluminum foil.
• Once all the glassware has been wrapped in aluminum foil, pyrolyze for at least 3 hr in air at 500 °C.
• Gently clean electrodes with methanol and let air dry.

10. Sample Analysis

Note: When preparing samples for analysis, the use of an acid hydrolysis protocol such as has been described in detail elsewhere 15 , is useful for obtaining more amino acids. Hydrolysis of a portion of the recovered sample provides the opportunity to analyze both free amino acids as well as their acid-labile precursors that are synthesized under abiotic conditions.

• For amino acid analysis, use a suitable technique (such as liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry-based methods, or other appropriate approaches). Such analytical techniques include high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FD) 14 , and ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection in parallel with time-of-flight positive electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (UHPLC-FD/ToF-MS) 12,13 . This manuscript describes analysis using mass spectrometric analyses via a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (QqQ-MS) in conjunction with HPLC-FD.

Representative Results

The products synthesized in electric discharge experiments can be quite complex, and there are numerous analytical approaches that can be used to study them. Some of the more commonly used techniques in the literature for analyzing amino acids are discussed here. Chromatographic and mass spectrometric methods are highly informative techniques for analyzing the complex chemical mixtures produced by Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiments. Amino acid analyses can be conducted using o -phthaldialdehyde/N-acetyl-L-cysteine (OPA/NAC) 16 , a chiral reagent pair that tags primary amino groups, yielding fluorescent diastereomer derivatives that can be separated on an achiral stationary phase. Figure 2 shows a chromatogram of an OPA/NAC-derivatized amino acid standard obtained by HPLC coupled to fluorescence detection and QqQ-MS. The amino acids contained in the standard include those typically produced in Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiments. The identities of these amino acids are listed in Table 1 . Representative fluorescence traces of a typical sample and analytical blank are shown in Figure 3 , demonstrating the molecular complexity of Miller-Urey type electric discharge samples. The sample chromatogram in Figure 3 was produced from a spark discharge experiment using the following starting conditions: 300 mmHg of CH 4 , 250 mmHg of NH 3 , and 250 ml of water.

Figure 2. The 3-21 min region of the HPLC-FD/QqQ-MS chromatograms produced from the analysis of an OPA/NAC-derivatized amino acid standard . Amino acid peak identities are listed in Table 1 . The fluorescence trace is shown at the bottom and the corresponding extracted mass chromatograms are shown above. The electrospray ionization (ESI) QqQ-MS was operated in positive mode and monitored a mass range of 50-500 m/z. The ESI settings were: desolvation gas (N 2 ) temperature: 350 °C, 650 L/hr; capillary voltage: 3.8 kV; cone voltage: 30 V. The unlabeled peaks in the 367 extracted ion chromatogram are the 13 C 2 peaks from the 365 extracted ion chromatogram, as a result of the approximately 1% natural abundance of 13 C. Click here to view larger image .

Table 1. Peak identities for amino acids detected in the standard and that are typically produced in Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiments.

Figure 3. The 3-21 min region of the HPLC-FD chromatograms representative of Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiments. Peaks were identified and quantitated by retention time and mass analysis of target compounds compared to a standard and analytical blank. All target analytes with coeluting fluorescence retention times can be separated and quantitated using mass spectrometry, except for α-AIB and L-β-ABA (peaks 13 and 14), and D/L-norleucine, which coelutes with D/L-leucine (peak 23), under the chromatographic conditions used. D/L-norleucine was added as an internal standard to samples and analytical blanks during sample preparation. Amino acid separation was achieved using a 4.6 mm x 250 mm, 5 μm particle size Phenyl-Hexyl HPLC column. The mobile phase was composed of: A) ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC), B) methanol, and C) 50 mM ammonium formate with 8% methanol, at pH 8. The gradient used was: 0-5 min, 100% C; 5-15 min, 0-83% A, 0-12% B, 100-5% C; 15-22 min, 83-75% A, 12-20% B, 5% C; 22-35 min, 75-35% A, 20-60% B, 5% C; 35-37 min, 35-0% A, 60-100% B, 5-0% C; 37-45 min, 100% B; 45-46 min, 100-0% B, 0-100% C 46-55 min, 100% C. The flow rate was 1 ml/min. Click here to view larger image .

Numerous steps in the protocol described here are critical for conducting Miller-Urey type experiments safely and correctly. First, all glassware and sample handling tools that will come in contact with the reaction flask or sample need to be sterilized. Sterilization is achieved by thoroughly rinsing the items in question with ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm, <5 ppb TOC) and then wrapping them in aluminum foil, prior to pyrolyzing at 500 °C in air for at least 3 hr. Once the equipment has been pyrolyzed and while preparing samples for analysis, care must be taken to avoid organic contamination. The risk of contamination can be minimized by wearing nitrile gloves, a laboratory coat, and protective eyewear. Be sure to work with samples away from one's body as common sources of contamination include finger prints, skin, hair, and exhaled breath. Avoid contact with wet gloves and do not use any latex or Nylon materials. Second, thorough degassing of the reaction flask prior to gas addition into the reaction flask is critical. The presence of even small amounts of molecular oxygen in the reaction flask poses an explosion risk when the spark is discharged into inflammable gases such as CH 4 . While degassing the flask, the water inside the flask will boil, which will prevent a stable reading. At this stage there are two options: 1) degas the flask via freeze-thaw cycles (typically 3 are used), or 2) simply degas the liquid solution. In the latter case, some water will be lost, however, the amount will be relatively minor compared to the remaining volume. Third, a well-equipped and efficient setup must be carefully constructed to establish a consistent spark across the electrodes throughout the entirety of the experiment. BD-50E Tesla coils are not designed for prolonged operation, as they are intended for vacuum leak detection. Intermittent cooling of the Tesla coil is thus recommended for extended operational lifetime. There are multiple ways of achieving this. One simple way is to attach a timer in-line between the spark tester and its power supply and program the timer such that it alternates in 1 hour on/off cycles. Cooling the Tesla coil with a commercial fan may also be necessary to prolong the life of the Tesla coil. The Tesla coil tip should be touching or almost touching one of the tungsten electrodes; a distance between the two of approximately 1 mm or less. Additionally, an intense discharge can be achieved using a length of conductive metal wire with a loop in one end draped lightly over the electrode opposite the one touching the Tesla coil to avoid breaking the seal to the contents. It is also recommended to have a second spark generator available in case the primary spark generator fails due to extended use.

There are many additional notes worth keeping in mind when carrying out various steps in the protocol outlined here. When preparing the manifold system for an experiment and using a mercury manometer, it is generally conceded that a precision of 1 mmHg is the best achievable, due to the resolution of the human eye. Some gases may present conductivity problems with resistance-based gauges. Mercury manometers present potential spill hazards, which should be prepared for in advance.

While assembling the 3 L reaction flask, the use of silicon vacuum grease can mitigate potential organic contamination, but care should be taken to remove this thoroughly between runs. Failure to do so will result in the accumulation of silica deposits during high-temperature pyrolysis, which can interfere with vacuum seals. Additionally, the tungsten electrodes are commercially available as 2% thoriated tungsten and should be annealed into half-round ground glass fittings . Do not pyrolyze the glass-fitted tungsten electrodes in an oven. The coefficients of thermal expansion of tungsten and glass are different and heating above 100 °C may weaken the seal around the glass annealed electrodes and introduce leaks to the system. Also, ultrapure water can be introduced into the 3 L reaction flask by pouring, using care to avoid contact with any grease on the port used, or by pipetting, using a prepyrolyzed glass pipette. The aqueous phase in the reaction flask can be buffered, if desired. For example, Miller and colleagues 9 buffered the solution to pH ~8.7 with an NH 3 /NH 4 Cl buffer. To do this the aqueous phase is made 0.05 M in NH 4 Cl prior to introducing it into the reaction flask. NH 4 Cl of 99.5% purity, or greater, should be used. The remainder of the NH 3 is then added to the reaction flask as a gas.

In preparation for gas introduction into the 3 L reaction flask, the flask can be secured onto the manifold by placing the flask on a cork ring, set atop a lab jack and gently raising the flask assembly until a snug connection is achieved. When checking for leaks, it is worth noting that likely sources of leaks include poor seals at the junctions of the half-round ground glass joints, which attach the tungsten electrodes to the reaction flask, and the stopcock of the adapter attached to the neck of the 3 L reaction flask. If leaks from these sources are detected, carefully remove the 3 L reaction flask from the manifold, wipe these areas with clean laboratory tissue, reapply a fresh coating of vacuum grease and reattach the flask to the manifold to search for leaks. If no leaks are found, proceed to introduce gases into the reaction flask.

While introducing gases into the apparatus, gas cylinders should be securely fastened to a support. Care should be taken to introduce gases slowly. Valves on gas cylinders should be opened slowly and carefully while monitoring the manometer to avoid over-pressuring the glassware and attached fittings. It is important to note that while adding NH 3 into the reaction flask, because NH 3 is appreciably soluble in water below the pK a of NH 4 + (~9.2), essentially all of the NH 3 gas introduced into the manifold will dissolve in the aqueous phase, rendering the final pressure in the flask and manifold as the vapor pressure of water at the ambient temperature. Once this pressure is attained, one may assume the transfer is complete. The following are examples of the calculations that must be executed in order to precisely introduce gases into the reaction flask at their desired pressures:

Introduction of Gaseous NH 3

Due to the solubility of NH 3 , essentially all of it will transfer from the manifold to the reaction flask and dissolve in the aqueous phase as long as the NH 3 in the manifold is at a higher pressure than the vapor pressure of water in the reaction flask. Therefore, the ambient temperature should be noted and the vapor pressure of water at that temperature should be referenced prior to introducing NH 3 into the manifold. The target pressure of NH 3 to be introduced into the reaction flask should be equal to the target pressure of NH 3 in the 3 L reaction flask, plus the vapor pressure of water in the reaction flask, at the recorded ambient temperature. For example, at 25 °C, the vapor pressure of water is approximately 24 mmHg. Thus, in order to introduce 200 mmHg of NH 3 into the reaction flask, load roughly 225 mmHg of NH 3 into the manifold prior to transferring NH 3 from the manifold and into the reaction flask. This will result in approximately 200 mmHg of NH 3 being introduced into the reaction flask.

Introduction of CH 4

After NH 3 addition and its dissolution in the aqueous phase, the pressure in the headspace of the reaction flask will be equal to the vapor pressure of water at 25 °C, approximately 24 mmHg. This value will be used, in conjunction with the example manifold shown in Figure 4 , to carry out a calculation for how much CH 4 to introduce into the manifold such that 200 mmHg of CH 4 will be introduced into the reaction flask:

P 1 = total pressure desired throughout the entire system, including the reaction flask V 1 = total volume of the entire system, including the reaction flask

P 2 = pressure of CH 4 needed to fill manifold volume prior to introduction into reaction flask V 2 = volume of manifold used for gas introduction

P 3 = pressure already in the headspace of the reaction flask V 3 = volume of the reaction flask

P 1 = 200 mmHg of CH 4 + 24 mmHg of H 2 O = 224 mmHg V 1 = 3,000 ml + 100 ml + 300 ml + 40 ml + 20 ml + 3,000 ml + 40 ml + 500 ml = 7,000 ml

P 2 = pressure of CH 4 being calculated V 2 = 100 ml + 300 ml + 40 + 20 + 3,000 ml+ 40 ml + 500 ml = 4,000 ml

P 3 = 24 mmHg of H 2 O V 3 = 3,000 ml

Introduction of N 2

After introduction of CH 4 , the headspace of the reaction flask is occupied by 200 mmHg of CH 4 and 24 mmHg of H 2 O for a total of 224 mmHg. This value will be used, along with the dimensions of the example manifold shown in Figure 4 , to calculate the N 2 pressure that needs to be introduced into the manifold such that 100 mmHg of N 2 will be introduced into the reaction flask:

P 2 = pressure of N 2 needed to fill manifold volume prior to introduction into reaction flask V 2 = volume of manifold used for gas introduction

P 1 = 24 mmHg of H 2 O + 200 mmHg of CH 4 + 100 mmHg of N 2 = 324 mmHg V 1 = 3,000 ml + 100 ml > + 300 ml + 40 ml + 20 ml + 3,000 ml + 40 ml + 500 ml = 7,000 ml

P 2 = pressure of N 2 being calculated V 2 = 100 ml + 300 ml + 40 ml + 20 ml + 3,000 ml + 40 ml + 500 ml = 4,000 ml

P 3 = 200 mmHg of CH 4 + 24 mmHg of H 2 O = 224 mmHg V 3 = 3,000 ml

Figure 4. Manifold/vacuum system used to introduce gases into the 3 L reaction flask. Valves controlling gas flow are labeled as V 1 - V 8 , while stopcocks controlling gas flow are labeled as S 1 and S 2 . It is worth noting that while Valves 1, 2, and 6, and Stopcock 1 are referred to explicitly in the protocol, the other valves and stopcock in the manifold shown here are useful for adding or removing volume ( i.e.  holding flasks) to or from the manifold. For example, when introducing gases into the manifold at relatively high pressures (approximately 500 mmHg or greater), it is advised that the experimenter makes use of all purge flasks attached to the manifold to increase the accessible volume of the manifold and help minimize the risk of over-pressuring the manifold.

After initiating the experiment, the system must be checked on regularly to ensure the experiment is running properly. Things to check include: 1) the spark generator is producing a spark, and 2) the spark is being generated across the tungsten electrodes in a continuous manner. If the above conditions are not met, disconnect the Tesla coil from its power supply and replace it with the backup Tesla coil. Meanwhile, repairs to the malfunctioning Tesla coil can be made. Often times, the contact plates inside the spark generator housing can become corroded from extended use and should be polished, or replaced.

Upon completion of the experiment, the gases in the head-space may be irritating to the respiratory system. Harmful gases, such as hydrogen cyanide 4 can be produced by the experiment. If the experimenter is not collecting gas samples for analysis, it may be helpful to connect the apparatus to a water aspirator to evacuate volatiles for approximately one hour after completion of the experiment, while the apparatus remains in the fume hood, prior to collecting liquid samples. For safety reasons, it is advised that the apparatus is vented in a fully-operational fume hood. Sample collection should be performed in an operational fume hood and sample handling in a positive-pressure HEPA filtered flow bench is recommended.

Among the numerous types of products formed by spark discharge experiments, amino acids are of significance. Amino acids are synthesized readily via the Strecker synthesis 17 . The Strecker synthesis of amino acids involves the reaction of aldehydes or ketones and HCN generated by the action of electric discharge on the gases introduced into the reaction apparatus, which upon dissolving in the aqueous phase, may react with ammonia to form α-aminonitriles that undergo hydrolysis to yield amino acids. This is, of course, but one mechanism of synthesis, and others may also be operative, such as direct amination of precursors including acrylonitrile to give β-alanine precursors, or direct hydrolysis of higher molecular weight tholin-like material to give amino acids directly, by-passing the Strecker mechanism.

Amino acid contamination of the samples produced by Miller-Urey experiments can occur if the precautions mentioned earlier are not followed explicitly. During sample analysis, it is important to search for signs of terrestrial contamination that may have originated from sample handling or sample storage. The use of OPA/NAC 16 in conjunction with LC-FD techniques allows for the chromatographic separation of D- and L-enantiomers of amino acids with chiral centers and their respective, individual quantitation. Chiral amino acids synthesized by the experiment should be racemic. Acceptable experimental error during the synthesis of amino acids with chiral centers is generally considered to be approximately 10%. Therefore chiral amino acid D/L ratios suggestive of enrichment in one enantiomer by more than 10% is a good metric by which to determine if the sample has been contaminated.

The methods presented here are intended to instruct how to conduct a Miller-Urey type spark discharge experiment; however, there are limitations to the technique described here that should be noted. First, heating the single 3 L reaction flask ( Figure 1B ), will result in condensation of water vapor onto the tips of the electrodes, dampening the spark, and reducing the generation of radical species that drive much of the chemistry taking place within the experiment. Furthermore, the use of a heating mantle to heat the apparatus is not necessary to synthesize organic compounds, such as amino acids. This differs from Miller's original experiment where he used a more complex, custom-built, dual flask apparatus ( Figure 1A ) 5 and heated the small flask at the bottom of the apparatus, which had water in it ( Figure 1A ). Heating the apparatus helped with circulation of the starting materials and aimed to mimic evaporation in an early Earth system. Second, the protocol detailed here recommends a 1 hr on/off cycle when using the Tesla coil, which effectively doubles the amount of time an experiment takes to complete, compared to the experiments conducted by Miller, as he continuously discharged electricity into the system 4 . Third, as spark generators are not intended for long-term use, they are prone to malfunction during prolonged use and must be regularly maintained and sometimes replaced by a back-up unit, if the primary spark generator fails during the course of an experiment. Last, the protocol described here involves the use of glass stopcocks, which require high vacuum grease to make appropriate seals. If desired, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) stopcocks can be used to avoid vacuum grease. However, if examining these stopcocks for potential leaks with a spark leak detector, be cautious to not overexpose the PTFE to the spark as this can compromise the integrity of the PTFE and lead to poor seals being made by these stopcocks.

The significance of the method reported here with respect to existing techniques, lies within its simplicity. It uses a commercially available 3 L flask, which is also considerably less fragile and easier to clean between experiments than the original design used by Miller 5 . Because the apparatus is less cumbersome, it is small enough to carry out an experiment inside a fume hood.

Once the technique outlined here has been mastered, it can be modified in a variety of ways to simulate numerous types of primitive terrestrial environments. For example, more oxidized gas mixtures can be used 14,18,19 . Furthermore, using modifications of the apparatus, the energy source can be changed, for example, by using a silent discharge 4 , ultraviolet light 20 , simulating volcanic systems 4,12,21 , imitating radioactivity from Earth's crust 22 , and mimicking energy produced by shockwaves from meteoritic impacts 23 , and also cosmic radiation 18,19 .

The classic Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids, important building blocks of biological proteins, can be synthesized using simple starting materials under simulated prebiotic terrestrial conditions. The excitation of gaseous molecules by electric discharge leads to the production of organic compounds, including amino acids, under such conditions. While amino acids are important for contemporary biology, the Miller-Urey experiment only provides one possible mechanism for their abiotic synthesis, and does not explain the origin of life, as the processes that give rise to living organisms were likely more complex than the formation of simple organic molecules.

Disclosures

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgments

This work was jointly supported by the NSF and NASA Astrobiology Program, under the NSF Center for Chemical Evolution, CHE-1004570, and the Goddard Center for Astrobiology. E.T.P. would like to acknowledge additional funding provided by the NASA Planetary Biology Internship Program. The authors also want to thank Dr. Asiri Galhena for invaluable help in setting up the initial laboratory facilities.

• Oparin AI. The Origin of Life. Izd. Moskovshii Rabochii; 1924. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haldane JB. The origin of life. Rationalist Annu. 1929; 148 :3–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison WM, Morrison DC, Hamilton JG, Benson AA, Calvin M. Reduction of Carbon Dioxide in Aqueous Solutions by Ionizing Radiation. Science. 1951; 114 :416–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller SL. Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955; 77 :2351–2361. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller SL. A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science. 1953; 117 :528–529. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyns HK, Walter W, Meyer E. Model experiments on the formation of organic compounds in the atmosphere of simple gases by electrical discharges (Translated from German) Die Naturwissenschaften. 1957; 44 :385–389. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponnamperuma C, Woeller F. α-Aminonitriles formed by an electric discharge through a mixture of anhydrous methane and ammonia. Biosystems. 1967; 1 :156–158. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oró J. Synthesis of Organic Compounds by Electric Discharges. Nature. 1963; 197 :862–867. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ring D, Wolman Y, Friedmann N, Miller SL. Prebiotic Synthesis of Hydrophobic and Protein Amino Acids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1972; 69 :765–768. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolman Y, Haverland WJ, Miller SL. Nonprotein Amino Acids from Spark Discharges and Their Comparison with the Murchison Meteorite Amino Acids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1972; 69 :809–811. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roscoe S, Miller SL. Energy Yields for Hydrogen Cyanide and Formaldehyde Syntheses: The HCN and Amino Acid Concentrations in the Primitive Ocean. Orig. Life. 1987; 17 :261–273. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson AP, et al. The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science. 2008; 322 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker ET, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011; 108 :5526–5531. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano A, Miller SL, Bada JL. A reassessment of prebiotic organic synthesis in neutral planetary atmospheres. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2008; 38 :105–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glavin DP, et al. Amino acid analyses of Antarctic CM2 meteorites using liquid chromatography-time of flight-mass spectrometry. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2006; 41 :889–902. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao M, Bada JL. Determination of α-dialkylamino acids and their enantiomers in geologic samples by high-performance liquid chromatography after a derivatization with a chiral adduct of o-phthaldialdehyde. J. Chromatogr. A. 1995; 690 :55–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strecker A. About the artificial formation of lactic acid and a new Glycocoll the homologous body Justus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie. 1850; 75 :27–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miyakawa S, Yamanashi H, Kobayashi K, Cleaves HJ, Miller SL. Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: implications for the origins of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002; 99 :14628–14631. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobayashi K, Kaneko T, Saito T, Oshima T. Amino Acid Formation in Gas Mixtures by Particle Irradiation. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 1998; 28 :155–165. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sagan C, Khare BN. Long-Wavelength Ultraviolet Photoproduction of Amino Acids on the Primitive Earth. Science. 1971; 173 :417–420. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harada K, Fox SW. Thermal Synthesis of Natural Amino-Acids from a Postulated Primitive Terrestrial Atmosphere. Nature. 1964; 201 :335–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponnamperuma C, Lemmon RM, Mariner R, Calvin M. Formation of Adenine by Electron Irradiation of Methane Ammonia, and Water. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1963; 49 :737–740. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bar-Nun A, Bar-Nun N, Bauer SH, Sagan C. Shock Synthesis of Amino Acids in Simulated Primitive Environments. Science. 1970; 168 :470–473. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

A is for abiogenesis —

Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new discovery, 1952 miller-urey experiment showed organic molecules forming from inorganic precursors..

Jennifer Ouellette - Oct 28, 2021 6:59 pm UTC

In 1952, a University of Chicago chemist named Stanley Miller and his adviser, Harold Urey, conducted a famous experiment . Their results, published the following year, provided the first evidence that the complex organic molecules necessary for the emergence of life ( abiogenesis ) could be formed using simpler inorganic precursors, essentially founding the field of prebiotic chemistry. Now a team of Spanish and Italian scientists has recreated that seminal experiment and discovered a contributing factor that Miller and Urey missed. According to  a new paper published in the journal Scientific Reports, minerals in the borosilicate glass used to make the tubes and flasks for the experiment speed up the rate at which organic molecules form.

In 1924 and 1929, respectively, Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane had hypothesized that the conditions on our primitive Earth would have favored the kind of chemical reactions that could synthesize complex organic molecules from simple inorganic precursors—sometimes known as the " primordial soup " hypothesis. Amino acids formed first, becoming the building blocks that, when combined, made more complex polymers.

Miller set up an apparatus to test that hypothesis by simulating what scientists at the time believed Earth's original atmosphere might have been. He sealed methane, ammonia, and hydrogen inside a sterile 5-liter borosilicate glass flask, connected to a second 500-ml flask half-filled with water. Then Miller heated the water, producing vapor, which in turn passed into the larger flask filled with chemicals, creating a mini-primordial atmosphere. There were also continuous electric sparks firing between two electrodes to simulate lighting. Then the "atmosphere" was cooled down, causing the vapor to condense back into water. The water trickled down into a trap at the bottom of the apparatus.

That solution turned pink after one day and deep red after a week. At that point, Miller removed the boiling flask and added barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid to stop the reaction. After evaporating the solution to remove any impurities, Miller tested what remained via paper chromatography. All known life consists of just 20 amino acids. Miller's experiment produced five amino acids, although he was less certain about the results for two of them.

When Miller showed his results to Urey, the latter suggested a paper should be published as soon as possible. (Urey was senior but generously declined to be listed as co-author, lest this lead to Miller getting little to no credit for the work.) The paper appeared in 1953 in the journal Science. "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids," Miller said in a 1996 interview . The original apparatus has been on display at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science since 2013.

Miller died in 2007. Shortly before he passed, one of his students, Jeffrey Bada, now at the University of San Diego, inherited all his mentor's original equipment. This included several boxes filled with vials of dried residues from the original experiment. Those 1952 samples were re-analyzed the following year using the latest chromatography methods, revealing that the original experiment actually produced even more compounds (25) than had been reported at the time.

Miller had also performed additional experiments simulating conditions similar to those of a water-vapor-rich volcanic eruption, which involved spraying steam from a nozzle at the spark discharge. Bada and several colleagues re-analyzed the original samples from those experiments, too, and found this environment produced 22 amino acids, five amines, and several hydroxylated molecules. So the original experiments were even more successful than Miller and Urey realized.

There have been many, many more experiments on abiogenesis over the ensuing decades, but co-author Joaquin Criado-Reyes of the Universidad de Granada in Spain and his collaborators thought that one potential factor had been overlooked: the role of the borosilicate glass that comprised the flasks and tubes Miller had used. They noted that Miller's simulated atmosphere was highly alkaline, which should cause the silica to dissolve. "Therefore, it could be expected that upon contact of the alkaline water with the inner wall of the borosilicate flask, even this reinforced glass will slightly dissolve, releasing silica and traces of other metal oxides [into the vapor]," the authors wrote.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

The Science Notes

Your Best Science Education Portal

Miller Urey Experiment: Hypothesis, Steps, Conclusions, and Limitations

The Miller Urey Experiment played a crucial role in investigating the origin of life on our planet. This comprehensive guide explores the experiment’s hypothesis, step-by-step process, key findings, and limitations, shedding light on its significance in unraveling the mysteries of life’s beginnings.

Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis

The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis, proposed by Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane, postulates that life didn’t spontaneously emerge on early Earth due to different environmental conditions. It suggests that life gradually evolved from chemical reactions, starting with the combination of atoms into inorganic molecules and the subsequent formation of simple organic compounds. These compounds then assembled into complex organic structures, ultimately leading to the emergence of the first cell.

Steps of the Miller Urey Experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, aimed to simulate early Earth’s conditions and test the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. Here are the key steps of the experiment:

Simulating Early Earth’s Atmosphere:  The researchers recreated early Earth’s atmosphere in a closed system using a mixture of gases believed to be present during that era. They used a mixture of gases, including methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water vapor (H2O), and hydrogen (H2).

Introduction of Energy:  Sparks or electric discharges were introduced to simulate the energy sources on early Earth, such as lightning strikes.

Circulation and Condensation:  The gas mixture and energy were circulated continuously, mimicking Earth’s water cycle and allowing for the formation of various organic compounds.

Collection and Analysis:  Samples were collected from the closed system and analyzed using chromatography and spectrometry to identify and characterize the organic compounds formed during the experiment.

Results and Findings:  The experiment produced a variety of organic molecules, including amino acids—the building blocks of proteins —supporting the notion that early Earth’s conditions could have facilitated the synthesis of organic compounds essential for life’s origin.

Conclusions of the Miller Urey Experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment yielded significant conclusions, including:

• Organic compounds, including amino acids, can be synthesized from inorganic materials under simulated early Earth conditions.
• Basic building blocks of life may have emerged spontaneously from non-living matter.
• The experiment demonstrated the potential for diverse organic compound formation, including rare amino acids.
• External energy sources played a crucial role in facilitating chemical reactions and organic compound synthesis.
• The experiment offered insights into the chemical reactions that might have occurred in early Earth’s atmosphere.
• The findings supported the concept of abiogenesis, where life can arise from non-living matter through natural processes.
• The Miller-Urey experiment laid the foundation for further research in prebiotic chemistry and the study of life’s origins.

Limitations of the Miller Urey Experiment

 It’s important to consider the limitations of the Miller-Urey experiment, which include:

• The experiment’s simulation of early Earth’s atmosphere may not perfectly represent the actual conditions.
• The specific gases used may not accurately reflect the true composition of early Earth’s atmosphere.
• The experiment’s short duration and scale may not fully capture the complexity and length of natural processes involved in life’s origin.
• While the experiment produced organic compounds, it didn’t address the assembly of complex biomolecules or replicating systems crucial for life’s origin.

Ongoing Debates and Significance

Critics argue that the experiment oversimplifies the interconnected nature of biochemical systems and may not fully represent the processes behind life’s origin. There is an ongoing debate regarding the specific conditions and pathways leading to life’s emergence, with the Miller-Urey experiment presenting one plausible scenario. While it doesn’t address the origin of genetic information or self-replicating systems, subsequent research has refined and expanded upon its findings, leading to revised interpretations. The Miller-Urey experiment remains a significant milestone in our understanding of prebiotic chemistry and contributes to unraveling the complex puzzle of life’s origin.

In conclusion, the Miller-Urey experiment’s hypothesis, steps, conclusions, and limitations provide valuable insights into the origin of life on Earth. It serves as a foundation for further research, stimulating ongoing debates and refining our understanding of life’s emergence from non-living matter.

Learn more:

Amino Acids: Types, Functions, Sources, and Differences between Essential and Non-Essential Amino Acids

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Dear Madam / Sir, Warm greetings from the National Digital Library of India (NDLI). Please visit NDLI at https://www.ndl.gov.in/ or…

This is what learning and good research with good examples and control standards

it's my honour to check my Lab. results with yours. thanks so much for your efforts. Welcome in National Nutrition…

This particular article is exactly what I needed to understand SNP, since I wanted to know it’s utility in donor…

Hello, Sarmila! Why did you use NaOH, and how do you justify it? Many thanks for your reply in advance

• Biology Article

Miller Urey Experiment

Miller and urey experiment.

Stanley L. Muller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment to describe the origin of life on earth. They were of the idea that the early earth’s atmosphere was able to produce amino acids from inorganic matter. The two biologists made use of methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia which they considered were found in the early earth’s atmosphere. The chemicals were sealed inside sterile glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop and circulated inside the apparatus.

One flask is half-filled with water and the other flask contains a pair of electrodes. The water vapour was heated and the vapour released was added to the chemical mixture. The released gases circulated around the apparatus imitating the earth’s atmosphere. The water in the flask represents the water on the earth’s surface and the water vapour is just like the water evaporating from lakes, and seas. The electrodes were used to spark the fire to imitate lightning and storm through water vapour.

The vapours were cooled and the water condensed. This condensed water trickles back into the first water flask in a continuous cycle. Miller and Urey examined the cooled water after a week and observed that 10-15% of the carbon was in the form of organic compounds. 2% of carbon had formed 13 amino acids . Yet, the Miller and Urey experiments were condemned by their fellow scientists.

Also read: Origin Of Life

Criticism of the Miller Urey Experiment

The experiment failed to explain how proteins were responsible for the formation of amino acids. A few scientists have contradicted that the gases used by Miller and Urey are not as abundant as shown in the experiment. They were of the notion that the gases released by the volcanic eruptions such as oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide make up the atmosphere. Therefore, the results are not reliable.

Oparin and Haldane

In the early 20th century, Oparin and Haldane suggested that if the atmosphere of the primitive earth was reducing and if it had sufficient supply of energy such as ultraviolet radiations and lightning, organic compounds would be synthesized at a wide range.

Oparin believed that the organic compounds would have undergone a series of reactions to form complex molecules. He suggested that the molecules formed coacervates in the aqueous environment.

Haldane proposed that the atmosphere of the primordial sea was devoid of oxygen, and was a composed of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and ultraviolet light. This gave rise to a host of organic compounds. The sea contained large amounts of organic monomers and polymers, and the sea was called a ‘hot dilute soup’. He conceived that the polymers and monomers acquired lipid membranes. The molecules further developed and gave rise to the first living organism. ‘Prebiotic soup’ was the term coined by Haldane.

Also read: Evolution of Life on Earth

For more information on the Miller Urey Experiment, visit BYJU’S Biology website, or go to BYJU’S app.

Further Reading:

• Genetic Drift
• Vestigial Organs
• Biogenetic Law
• Biosafety Issues
• Mass Extinctions

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Biology related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Icon 1 — The Miller-Urey Experiment

The experiment itself

The understanding of the origin of life was largely speculative until the 1920s, when Oparin and Haldane, working independently, proposed a theoretical model for "chemical evolution." The Oparin-Haldane model suggested that under the strongly reducing conditions theorized to have been present in the atmosphere of the early earth (between 4.0 and 3.5 billion years ago), inorganic molecules would spontaneously form organic molecules (simple sugars and amino acids). In 1953, Stanley Miller, along with his graduate advisor Harold Urey, tested this hypothesis by constructing an apparatus that simulated the Oparin-Haldane "early earth." When a gas mixture based on predictions of the early atmosphere was heated and given an electrical charge, organic compounds were formed ( Miller, 1953 ; Miller and Urey, 1959 ). Thus, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically, that is through non-biological processes, under conditions thought to be similar to those of the early earth. This experiment provided the structure for later research into the origin of life. Despite many revisions and additions, the Oparin-Haldane scenario remains part of the model in use today. The Miller-Urey experiment is simply a part of the experimental program produced by this paradigm.

Wells boils off

Wells says that the Miller-Urey experiment should not be taught because the experiment used an atmospheric composition that is now known to be incorrect. Wells contends that textbooks don't discuss how the early atmosphere was probably different from the atmosphere hypothesized in the original experiment. Wells then claims that the actual atmosphere of the early earth makes the Miller-Urey type of chemical synthesis impossible, and asserts that the experiment does not work when an updated atmosphere is used. Therefore, textbooks should either discuss the experiment as an historically interesting yet flawed exercise or not discuss it at all. Wells concludes by saying that textbooks should replace their discussions of the Miller-Urey experiment with an "extensive discussion" of all the problems facing research into the origin of life.

These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells's knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells's claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth's early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions ( Figure 1 ; Rode, 1999 ; Hanic et al., 2000 ). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998 ), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000 ), and even the action of waves on a beach ( Commeyras, et al., 2002 ) would have been quite effective.

Even if Wells had been correct about the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not explain that our theories about the origin of organic "building blocks" do not depend on that experiment alone ( Orgel, 1998a ). There are other sources for organic "building blocks," such as meteorites, comets, and hydrothermal vents. All of these alternate sources for organic materials and their synthesis are extensively discussed in the literature about the origin of life, a literature that Wells does not acknowledge. In fact, what is most striking about Wells's extensive reference list is the literature that he has left out. Wells does not mention extraterrestrial sources of organic molecules, which have been widely discussed in the literature since 1961 (see Oró, 1961 ; Whittet, 1997 ; Irvine, 1998 ). Wells apparently missed the vast body of literature on organic compounds in comets (e.g. Oró, 1961 ; Anders, 1989 ; Irvine, 1998 ), carbonaceous meteorites (e.g. Kaplan et al., 1963 ; Hayes, 1967 ; Chang, 1994; Maurette, 1998 ; Cooper et al., 2001 ), and conditions conducive to the formation of organic compounds that exist in interstellar dust clouds ( Whittet, 1997 ).

Wells also fails to cite the scientific literature on other terrestrial conditions under which organic compounds could have formed. These non-atmospheric sources include the synthesis of organic compounds in a reducing ocean (e.g., Chang, 1994 ), at hydrothermal vents (e.g., Andersson, 1999 ; Ogata et al., 2000 ), and in volcanic aquifers ( Washington, 2000 ). A cursory review of the literature finds more than 40 papers on terrestrial prebiotic chemical synthesis published since 1997 in the journal Origins of life and the evolution of the biosphere alone. Contrary to Wells's presentation, there appears to be no shortage of potential sources for organic "building blocks" on the early earth.

Instead of discussing this literature, Wells raises a false "controversy" about the low amount of free oxygen in the early atmosphere. Claiming that this precludes the spontaneous origin of life, he concludes that "[d]ogma had taken the place of empirical science" ( Wells 2000 :18). In truth, nearly all researchers who work on the early atmosphere hold that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life originated ( Copley, 2001 ) and therefore oxygen could not have played a role in preventing chemical synthesis. This conclusion is based on many sources of data , not "dogma." Sources of data include fluvial uraninite sand deposits ( Rasmussen and Buick, 1999 ) and banded iron formations ( Nunn, 1998 ; Copley, 2001 ), which could not have been deposited under oxidizing conditions. Wells also neglects the data from paleosols (ancient soils) which, because they form at the atmosphere-ground interface, are an excellent source to determine atmospheric composition ( Holland, 1994 ). Reduced paleosols suggest that oxygen levels were very low before 2.1 billion years ago ( Rye and Holland, 1998 ). There are also data from mantle chemistry that suggest that oxygen was essentially absent from the earliest atmosphere ( Kump et al. 2001 ). Wells misrepresents the debate as over whether oxygen levels were 5/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "low," or 45/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "significant." But the controversy is really over why it took so long for oxygen levels to start to rise. Current data show that oxygen levels did not start to rise significantly until nearly 1.5 billion years after life originated ( Rye and Holland, 1998 ; Copley, 2001 ). Wells strategically fails to clarify what he means by "early" when he discusses the amount of oxygen in the "early" atmosphere. In his discussion he cites research about the chemistry of the atmosphere without distinguishing whether the authors are referring to times before, during, or after the period when life is thought to have originated. Nearly all of the papers he cites deal with oxygen levels after 3.0 billion years ago. They are irrelevant, as chemical data suggest that life arose 3.8 billion years ago ( Chang, 1994 ; Orgel, 1998b ), well before there was enough free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to prevent Miller-Urey-type chemical synthesis.

Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment tells us nothing about the other stages in the origin of life, including the formation of a simple genetic code (PNA or "peptide"-based codes and RNA-based codes) or the origin of cellular membranes (liposomes), some of which are discussed in all the textbooks that Wells reviewed. The Miller-Urey experiment only showed one possible route by which the basic components necessary for the origin of life could have been created, not how life came to be. Other theories have been proposed to bridge the gap between the organic "building blocks" and life. The "liposome" theory deals with the origin of cellular membranes, the RNA-world hypothesis deals with the origin of a simple genetic code, and the PNA (peptide-based genetics) theory proposes an even simpler potential genetic code ( Rode, 1999 ). Wells doesn't really mention any of this except to suggest that the "RNA world" hypothesis was proposed to "rescue" the Miller-Urey experiment. No one familiar with the field or the evidence could make such a fatuous and inaccurate statement. The Miller-Urey experiment is not relevant to the RNA world, because RNA was constructed from organic "building blocks" irrespective of how those compounds came into existence ( Zubay and Mui, 2001 ). The evolution of RNA is a wholly different chapter in the story of the origin of life, one to which the validity of the Miller-Urey experiment is irrelevant.

What the textbooks say

All of the textbooks reviewed contain a section on the Miller-Urey experiment. This is not surprising given the experiment's historic role in the understanding of the origin of life. The experiment is usually discussed over a couple of paragraphs (see Figure 2 ), a small proportion (roughly 20%) of the total discussion of the origin and early evolution of life. Commonly, the first paragraph discusses the Oparin-Haldane scenario, and then a second outlines the Miller-Urey test of that scenario. All textbooks contain either a drawing or a picture of the experimental apparatus and state that it was used to demonstrate that some complex organic molecules (e.g., simple sugars and amino acids, frequently called "building blocks") could have formed spontaneously in the atmosphere of the early earth. Textbooks vary in their descriptions of the atmospheric composition of the early earth. Five books present the strongly reducing atmosphere of the Miller-Urey experiment, whereas the other five mention that the current geochemical evidence points to a slightly reducing atmosphere. All textbooks state that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life arose. Four textbooks mention that the experiment has been repeated successfully under updated conditions. Three textbooks also mention the possibility of organic molecules arriving from space or forming at deep-sea hydrothermal vents ( Figure 2 ). No textbook claims that these experiments conclusively show how life originated; and all textbooks state that the results of these experiments are tentative.

It is true that some textbooks do not mention that our knowledge of the composition of the atmosphere has changed. However, this does not mean that textbooks are "misleading" students, because there is more to the origin of life than just the Miller-Urey experiment. Most textbooks already discuss this fact. The textbooks reviewed treat the origin of life with varying levels of detail and length in "Origin of life" or "History of life" chapters. These chapters are from 6 to 24 pages in length. In this relatively short space, it is hard for a textbook, particularly for an introductory class like high school biology, to address all of the details and intricacies of origin-of-life research that Wells seems to demand. Nearly all texts begin their origin of life sections with a brief description of the origin of the universe and the solar system; a couple of books use a discussion of Pasteur and spontaneous generation instead (and one discusses both). Two textbooks discuss how life might be defined. Nearly all textbooks open their discussion of the origin of life with qualifications about how the study of the origin of life is largely hypothetical and that there is much about it that we do not know.

Wells's evaluation

As we will see in his treatment of the other "icons," Wells's criteria for judging textbooks stack the deck against them, ensuring failure. No textbook receives better than a D for this "icon" in Wells's evaluation, and 6 of the 10 receive an F. This is largely a result of the construction of the grading criteria. Under Wells's criteria (Wells 2000:251-252), any textbook containing a picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus could receive no better than a C, unless the caption of the picture explicitly says that the experiment is irrelevant, in which case the book would receive a B. Therefore, the use of a picture is the major deciding factor on which Wells evaluated the books, for it decides the grade irrespective of the information contained in the text! A grade of D is given even if the text explicitly points out that the experiment used an incorrect atmosphere, as long as it shows a picture. Wells pillories Miller and Levine for exactly that, complaining that they bury the correction in the text. This is absurd: almost all textbooks contain pictures of experimental apparatus for any experiment they discuss. It is the text that is important pedagogically, not the pictures. Wells's criteria would require that even the intelligent design "textbook" Of Pandas and People would receive a C for its treatment of the Miller-Urey experiment.

In order to receive an A, a textbook must first omit the picture of the Miller-Urey apparatus (or state explicitly in the caption that it was a failure), discuss the experiment, but then state that it is irrelevant to the origin of life. This type of textbook would be not only scientifically inaccurate but pedagogically deficient.

Why we should still teach Miller-Urey

The Miller-Urey experiment represents one of the research programs spawned by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Even though details of our model for the origin of life have changed, this has not affected the basic scenario of Oparin-Haldane. The first stage in the origin of life was chemical evolution. This involves the formation of organic compounds from inorganic molecules already present in the atmosphere and in the water of the early earth. This spontaneous organization of chemicals was spawned by some external energy source. Lightning (as Oparin and Haldane thought), proton radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and geothermal or impact-generated heat are all possibilities.

The Miller-Urey experiment represents a major advance in the study of the origin of life. In fact, it marks the beginning of experimental research into the origin of life. Before Miller-Urey, the study of the origin of life was merely theoretical. With the advent of "spark experiments" such as Miller conducted, our understanding of the origin of life gained its first experimental program. Therefore, the Miller-Urey experiment is important from an historical perspective alone. Presenting history is good pedagogy because students understand scientific theories better through narratives. The importance of the experiment is more than just historical, however. The apparatus Miller and Urey designed became the basis for many subsequent "spark experiments" and laid a groundwork that is still in use today. Thus it is also a good teaching example because it shows how experimental science works. It teaches students how scientists use experiments to test ideas about prehistoric, unobserved events such as the origin of life. It is also an interesting experiment that is simple enough for most students to grasp. It tested a hypothesis, was reproduced by other researchers, and provided new information that led to the advancement of scientific understanding of the origin of life. This is the kind of "good science" that we want to teach students.

Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment should still be taught because the basic results are still valid. The experiments show that organic molecules can form under abiotic conditions. Later experiments have used more accurate atmospheric compositions and achieved similar results. Even though origin-of-life research has moved beyond Miller and Urey, their experiments should be taught. We still teach Newton even though we have moved beyond his work in our knowledge of planetary mechanics. Regardless of whether any of our current theories about the origin of life turn out to be completely accurate, we currently have models for the processes and a research program that works at testing the models.

How textbooks could improve their presentations of the origin of life

Textbooks can always improve discussions of their topics with more up-to-date information. Textbooks that have not already done so should explicitly correct the estimate of atmospheric composition, and accompany the Miller-Urey experiment with a clarification of the fact that the corrected atmospheres yield similar results. Further, the wealth of new data on extraterrestrial and hydrothermal sources of biological material should be discussed. Finally, textbooks ideally should expand their discussions of other stages in the origin of life to include PNA and some of the newer research on self-replicating proteins. Wells, however, does not suggest that textbooks should correct the presentation of the origin of life. Rather, he wants textbooks to present this "icon" and then denigrate it, in order to reduce the confidence of students in the possibility that scientific research can ever establish a plausible explanation for the origin of life or anything else for that matter. If Wells's recommendations are followed, students will be taught that because one experiment is not completely accurate (albeit in hindsight), everything else is wrong as well. This is not good science or science teaching.

Table of Contents

• Icon 2 — Darwin's Tree of Life
• Icon 3 — Homology
• Icon 4 — Haeckel's Embryos
• Icon 5 — Archaeopteryx
• Icon 6 — Peppered Moths
• Icon 7 — Darwin's Finches
• Icons of Evolution? Conclusion
• Icons of Evolution? Figures
• Icons of Evolution? References
• "Icons" Critique — pdf versions
• Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm
• 10 Answers to Jonathan Wells's "10 Questions"

• The Big Think Interview
• Your Brain on Money
• Explore the Library
• The Universe. A History.
• The Progress Issue
• A Brief History Of Quantum Mechanics
• 6 Flaws In Our Understanding Of The Universe
• Michio Kaku
• Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Michelle Thaller
• Steven Pinker
• Ray Kurzweil
• Cornel West
• Helen Fisher
• Smart Skills
• High Culture
• The Present
• Hard Science
• Special Issues
• Starts With A Bang
• Everyday Philosophy
• The Learning Curve
• The Long Game
• Perception Box
• Strange Maps
• Free Newsletters
• Memberships

What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong

• The famous experiment showed that a mixture of gases and water could produce amino acids and other biomolecular precursors.
• However, new research shows that an unexpected factor may have played a major part in the result: glassware.
• Complex experiments need good controls, and the Miller-Urey experiment failed in this regard.

Science in the early 20th century was undergoing many simultaneous revolutions . Radiological dating numbered the years of Earth’s existence in the billions, and eons of sediment demonstrated its geological evolution. The biological theory of evolution had become accepted, but mysteries remained about its selection mechanism and the molecular biology of genetics. Remnants of life dated far, far back, beginning with simple organisms. These ideas came to a head with the question of abiogenesis : could the first life have sprung from non-living matter?

In 1952, a graduate student named Stanley Miller, just 22 years old, designed an experiment to test whether the amino acids that form proteins could be created under the conditions thought to exist on the primordial Earth. Working with his Nobel Prize-winning advisor Harold Urey, he performed the experiment, which is now told time and again in textbooks all over the world.

The experiment mixed water and simple gases — methane, ammonia, and hydrogen — and shocked them with artificial lightning within a sealed glass apparatus . Within days, a thick colored substance built up at the bottom of the apparatus. This detritus contained five of the basic molecules common to living creatures. Revising this experiment over the years, Miller claimed to find as many as 11 amino acids. Subsequent work varying the electrical spark, the gases, and the apparatus itself created another dozen or so. After Miller’s death in 2007, the remains of his original experiments were re-examined by his former student . There may have been as many as 20-25 amino acids created even in that primitive original experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a daring example of testing a complex hypothesis. It is also a lesson in drawing more than the most cautious and limited conclusions from it.

Did anyone consider the glassware?

In the years following the original work, several limitations curbed excitement over its result . The simple amino acids did not combine to form more complex proteins or anything resembling primitive life. Further, the exact composition of the young Earth did not match Miller’s conditions. And small details of the setup appear to have affected the results. A new study published last month in Scientific Reports investigates one of those nagging details. It finds that the precise composition of the apparatus housing the experiment is crucial to amino acid formation.

The highly alkaline chemical broth dissolves a small amount of the borosilicate glass reactor vessel used in the original and subsequent experiments. Dissolved bits of silica permeate the liquid, likely creating and catalyzing reactions . The eroded walls of the glass may also boost catalysis of various reactions. This increases total amino acid production and allows the formation of some chemicals which are not created when the experiment is repeated in an apparatus made of Teflon. But, running the experiment in a Teflon apparatus deliberately contaminated with borosilicate recovered some of the lost amino acid production.

Complex questions need carefully designed experiments

The Miller-Urey experiment was based on a complicated system. Over the years, many variables were tweaked, such as the concentration and composition of gases. For the purpose of demonstrating what might be plausible — that is, whether biomolecules can be created from inorganic materials — it was stunningly successful. But there wasn’t a good control. We now see that might have been a pretty big mistake.

One of the elements of art in science is to divine which of innumerable complexities matter and which do not. Which variables can be accounted for or understood without testing, and which ones can be cleverly elided by experimental design? This is a borderland between hard science and intuitive art. It is certainly not obvious that glass would play a role in the outcome, but it apparently does.

A more certain and careful form of science is to conduct an experiment that varies one and only one variable at a time. This is a slow and laborious process. It can be prohibitively difficult for testing complex hypotheses like, “Could life evolve from non-life on the early Earth?” The authors of the new work performed just such a single-variable test. They ran the entire Miller-Urey experiment multiple times, varying only the presence of silicate glass. The runs performed in as glass vessel produced one set of results, while those using a Teflon apparatus produced another.

Systematically marching through each potential variable, one at a time, might be called “brute force.” But there is art here too, namely, in deciding which single variable out of many possibilities to test and in what way. In this case, we learned that glass silicates played an important role in the Miller-Urey experiment. Perhaps this means that silicate rock formations on the early Earth were necessary to produce life. Maybe.

• NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE

Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life

In 1958, a young scientist called Stanley Miller electrified a mixture of simple gases, designed to mimic the atmosphere of our primordial lifeless planet. It was a sequel to one of the most evocative experiments in history, one that Miller himself had carried five years earlier. But for some reason, he never finished his follow-up. He dutifully collected his samples and stored them in vials but, whether for ill health or dissatisfaction, he never analysed them.

The vials languished in obscurity, sitting unopened in a cardboard box in Miller’s office. But possessed by the meticulousness of a scientist, he never threw them away. In 1999, the vials changed owners. Miller had suffered a stroke and bequeathed his old equipment, archives and notebooks to Jeffrey Bada , one of his former students. Bada only twigged to the historical treasures that he had inherited in 2007. “Inside, were all these tiny glass vials carefully labeled, with page numbers referring Stanley’s laboratory notes. I was dumbstruck. We were looking at history,” he said in a New York Times interview .

By then, Miller was completely incapacitated. He died of heart failure shortly after, but his legacy continues. Bada’s own student Eric Parker has finally analysed Miller’s samples using modern technology and published the results, completing an experiment that began 53 years earlier.

Miller conducted his original 1953 experiment as a graduate student, working with his mentor Harold Urey. It was one of the first to tackle the seemingly insurmountable question of how life began. In their laboratory, the pair tried to recreate the conditions on early lifeless Earth, with an atmosphere full of simple gases and laced with lightning storms. They filled a flask with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen and sent sparks of electricity through them.

The result, both literally and figuratively, was lightning in a bottle. When Miller looked at the samples from the flask, he found five different amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and essential components of life.

The relevance of these results to the origins of life is debatable, but there’s no denying their influence. They kicked off an entire field of research, graced the cover of Time magazine and made a celebrity of Miller. Nick Lane beautifully describes the reaction to the experiment in his book, Life Ascending : “Miller electrified a simple mixture of gases, and the basic building blocks of life all congealed out of the mix. It was as if they were waiting to be bidden into existence. Suddenly the origin of life looked easy.”

Over the next decade, Miller repeated his original experiment with several twists. He injected hot steam into the electrified chamber to simulate an erupting volcano, another mainstay of our primordial planet. The samples from this experiment were among the unexamined vials that Bada inherited. In 2008, Bada’s student Adam Johnson showed that the vials contained a wider range of amino acids than Miller had originally reported in 1953.

Miller also tweaked the gases in his electrified flasks. He tried the experiment again with two newcomers – hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide – joining ammonia and methane. It would be all too easy to repeat the same experiment now. But Parker and Bada wanted to look at the original samples that Miller had himself collected, if only for their “considerable historical interest”.

Using modern techniques, around a billion times more sensitive than those Miller would have used, Parker identified 23 different amino acids in the vials, far more than the five that Miller had originally described. Seven of these contained sulphur, which is either a first for science or old news, depending on how you look at it. Other scientists have since produced sulphurous amino acids in similar experiments, including Carl Sagan . But unbeknownst to all of them, Miller had beaten them to it by several years. He had even scooped himself – it took him till 1972 to publish results where he produced sulphur amino acids!

The amino acids in Miller’s vials all come in an equal mix of two forms, each the mirror image of the other. You only see that in laboratory reactions – in nature, amino acids come almost entirely in one version. As such, Parker, like Miller before him, was sure that the amino acids hadn’t come from a contaminating source, like a stray bacterium that had crept into the vials.

Imagine then, a young and violent planet, wracked with exploding volcanoes, noxious gases and lightning strikes. These ingredients combined to brew a “primordial soup”, fashioning the precursors of life in pools of water. On top of that, meteorites raining down from space could have added to the accumulating molecules. After all, Parker found that the amino acid cocktail in Miller’s samples is very similar to that found on the Murchison meteorite , which landed in Australia in 1969.

These are powerful images, so why aren’t people more excited? Echoing many sources I spoke to, Jim Kasting , who studies the evolution of Earth’s atmosphere, said, “I am underwhelmed by it.” The main problem with the study is that Miller was probably wrong about the conditions on early Earth.

By analysing ancient rocks, scientists have since found that Earth was never particularly teeming in hydrogen-rich gases like methane, hydrogen sulphide or hydrogen itself. If you repeat Miller’s experiment with a more realistic mixture – heavy in carbon dioxide and nitrogen, with just trace amounts of other gases – you’d have a hard time finding amino acids in the resulting brew.

Parker accepts the problem, but he suggests that a few specific places on the planet may have had the right conditions. Exploding volcanoes, for example, throw up masses of sulphurous compounds, as well as methane and ammonia. These gases, belched forth into lightning storms , could have produced amino acids that rained out and gathered in tidal pools. But Kasting still isn’t convinced. “Even then the reduced gases would not be as concentrated as they are in this experiment.”

Even if our young planet had the right conditions to produce amino acids, that’s a less impressive feat than it appeared in the 1950s. “Amino acids are old hat and are a million miles from life,” says Nick Lane. Indeed, as Miller’s experiments showed, it’s not difficult to create amino acids. The far bigger challenge is to create nucleic acids – the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these “replicators”, molecules that can make copies of themselves. Lane says, “Even if you can make amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soup conditions, it has little if any bearing on the origin of life.”

The problem is that replicators don’t spontaneously emerge from a mixture of their building blocks, just as you wouldn’t hope to build a car by throwing some parts into a swimming pool. Nucleic acids are innately “shy”. They need to be strong-armed into forming more complex molecules, and it’s unlikely that the odd bolt of lightning would have been enough. The molecules must have been concentrated in the same place, with a constant supply of energy and catalysts to speed things up. “Without that lot, life will never get started, and a soup can’t provide much if any of that,” says Lane.

Deep-sea vents are a better location for the origins of life. Deep under the ocean’s surface, these rocky chimneys spew out superheated water and hydrogen-rich gases. Their rocky structures contain a labyrinth of small compartments that could have concentrated life’s building blocks into dense crowds, and minerals that would have catalysed their get-togethers. Far away from visions of languid soups, these churning environments are the current best guess for the site of life’s hatchery.

So Miller’s iconic experiment, and its now-completed follow-ups, probably won’t lay out the first steps of life. As Adam Rutherford, who is writing a book on the origin of life, says, “It’s really a historical piece, like finding that Darwin had described a Velociraptor in one of his notebooks.”

If anything, the analysis of Miller’s vials is a testament to the value of meticulous scientific work. Here was a man who prepared his samples so cleanly, who recorded his notes so thoroughly, and who stored everything so carefully, that his contemporaries could pick up where he left off five decades later.

Reference: Parker, Cleaves, Dworkin, Glavin, Callahan, Aubrey, Lazcano & Bada. 2011. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. PNAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019191108

Photos by Carlos Gutierrez and Marco Fulle

More on origins:

• A possible icy start for life
• Tree or ring: the origin of complex cells
• The origin of complex life – it was all about energy

Related Topics

• Best of the World
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Out of Eden Walk
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: August 2007

Stanley Miller 1930–2007

• Michael P Robertson 1  

Nature Chemical Biology volume  3 ,  page 437 ( 2007 ) Cite this article

5313 Accesses

101 Altmetric

Metrics details

During the 1993 meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life in Barcelona, Spain, a local newspaper proclaimed the attendance of el padre de la química prebiòtica —the father of prebiotic chemistry—referring to Stanley Lloyd Miller. The title was dramatic, but not inappropriate. Forty years earlier, as a 23-year-old graduate student, Miller had shocked both the scientific community and society as a whole with his demonstration that organic biomolecules could be synthesized in a laboratory simulation of the primitive Earth. In the years following his landmark experiment, Miller continued to be a leader and innovator in the study of the origin of life and surely had earned the venerable title.

Stanley Miller was born in Oakland, California, and earned his bachelor's degree in chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, before attending the University of Chicago for his doctoral studies. It was in Chicago that Miller would perform the experiments that would shape his career, despite an initial preference for theory over 'messy' and 'time-consuming' experiments. Following a one-year postdoctoral fellowship at the California Institute of Technology, Miller joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1955. In 1960 he was recruited by his mentor Harold Urey to the brand-new San Diego campus of the University of California, where he spent the remainder of his career until his death on 20 May 2007.

The story of Miller's defining achievement begins in 1951, when, as a new graduate student at the University of Chicago, Miller attended a lecture given by Harold Urey on the subject of the origin of the solar system. Urey described the conditions under which Earth and the other planets would have formed and suggested an outline for the conditions under which life presumably had arisen. Theories for the origin of life, in 1951 and still today, can be partitioned into two broad competing philosophies: autotrophy and heterotrophy. An autotrophic organism is characterized by its ability to grow and reproduce by synthesizing everything it needs, requiring only the most basic inorganic materials and an energy source, such as sunlight or various gradients. In contrast, heterotrophic organisms are simpler because they do not rely on making all of their nutrients themselves, but instead must scavenge some of their complex organic building blocks from the environment. Heterotrophy, articulated most famously with Darwin's suggestion that life arose from a 'warm little pond', had long been a familiar concept, but this begged the question of where the building blocks for life—amino acids, nucleic acid bases and sugars, among others—would have come from. Urey believed that for the origin of life to be most plausible, these biological starting materials should have been formed as the result of relatively robust and likely natural processes. These ideas intrigued Miller, and he eventually approached Urey with the proposal of studying the abiotic synthesis of organic biomolecules under prebiotic conditions for his thesis project.

The now-famous Miller-Urey experiment was designed to simulate the conditions of the primitive Earth as they were understood at the time. A sealed glass apparatus was constructed with two hollow spheres in a closed circuit of tubing. One sphere contained water and could be heated to simulate the Earth's oceans. It was connected to a second sphere that represented the Earth's atmosphere, and in the original experiment was filled with a reducing mixture of gases based on Urey's model of the early Earth. The circuit was completed by a trap between the 'atmosphere' and the 'ocean' to condense volatile materials from the 'atmosphere' and 'rain' them into the 'ocean'. The experiment was initiated with the addition of an energy source in the form of a spark discharge between two electrodes in the 'atmosphere' to simulate lightning. When the 'lightning' was turned on in Miller's experiment, the colorless, gaseous starting materials, over the course of days, gave rise to a rich and complex mixture of organic molecules that turned the experiment's 'ocean' yellow and deposited a sticky, tar-like substance on the walls of the atmosphere flask. In Miller's analysis of the products, he found large amounts of several amino acids, one of the main types of building blocks for life. The experiment was a success beyond anyone's expectations, and the discovery, published in Science in 1953, was considered shocking and amazing. The implications were tremendous in the context of the heterotrophic model of life's origin because the fundamental components for the assembly of living systems, rather than being specialized, rare molecules, would have been produced in large quantities as a consequence of natural processes and, because of availability, would have promoted their assimilation into the substance of life. The discovery captivated the imaginations of scientists and nonscientists alike, and fueled a new era of origins-related research that continues to this day.

Miller continued for the rest of his career to contribute important advances along with a standard of careful research, insightful dialog and leadership in the field of prebiotic chemistry that he had helped create. He continued to investigate the prebiotic syntheses of amino acids and helped match the amino acid signatures found in fallen meteorites to that of spark-discharge experiments, showing that this prebiotic synthesis process had occurred at least somewhere in our own solar system. Miller also focused on the components of nucleic acids, vitamins and coenzymes, and placed constraints on the set of likely conditions at the origin of life by carefully studying the decomposition kinetics of biomolecules. And although origins research remained Miller's primary emphasis, he also made fundamental contributions to the study of clathrate hydrates and the mechanism of general anesthesia.

In recent years, the relevance of Miller's spark-discharge experiment has been questioned by some. Currently favored models for the composition of the primitive atmosphere predict a nearly neutral atmosphere rather than the highly reducing mix of gases used in the Miller-Urey experiment. Spark-discharge experiments performed in those types of neutral atmospheres have traditionally not produced many, if any, detectable amino acids, although a recent report suggests that simply buffering the 'ocean' is sufficient to rescue high levels of amino acid production. Although many questions remain to be answered, it appears that Miller's simulated prebiotic synthesis is robust and quite likely ubiquitous in the universe. But beyond the specific details of Miller's discovery, most importantly, it transformed origins-of-life research from a largely theoretical to an experimental science, and an explosion of data and ideas has blossomed in the decades that have followed. A humble and generous mentor, Stanley inspired those around him with his passion and dedication to his science, but those who knew him will also remember his kindness and sense of humor.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Michael P. Robertson is at the Center for Molecular Biology of RNA, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA. [email protected],

Michael P Robertson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Robertson, M. Stanley Miller 1930–2007. Nat Chem Biol 3 , 437 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio0807-437

Download citation

Issue Date : August 2007

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio0807-437

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Possible Key to Life's Chemistry Revealed in 50-Year-Old Experiment

An old experiment, rediscovered after more than 50 years, may demonstrate how volcanoes – and possibly chemical reactions far from primitive Earth in outer space – played a role in creating the first amino acids, the building blocks of life.

In 1953, chemists Harold Urey and Stanley Miller performed a landmark experiment intended to mimic the primordial conditions that created the first amino acids, by exposing a mix of gases to a lightning-like electrical discharge. Five years later, in 1958, Miller performed another variation on this experiment. This time he added hydrogen sulfide, a gas spewed out by volcanoes, to the mix. [ Scientists Hunt for Signs of Earliest Life on Earth ] But for some reason, Miller never analyzed the products of the hydrogen sulfide reaction. About half a century later, Miller's former student Jeffrey Bada, a marine chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, discovered the old samples in a dusty cardboard box in Miller's laboratory, which Bada had inherited. (Miller passed away in 2007.)

Old experiment, new analysis

Using modern analytical techniques, Bada and his team, which included Eric Parker, then at Scripps, analyzed the products of the reaction, which were housed in small vials. They found an abundance of promising molecules: 23 amino acids and four amines, another type of organic molecule. The addition of hydrogen sulfide had also led to the creation of sulfur-containing amino acids, which are important to the chemistry of life. (One of these, methionine, initiates the synthesis of proteins.)

The results of the experiment – which exposed a mix of volcanic gases, including hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide gas to an electrical discharge – tell us that volcanic eruptions coinciding with lightning may have played a role in synthesizing large quantities and a variety of biologically crucial molecules on the primitive Earth, Parker, now a graduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology, told LiveScience.

"The gas mixture Miller used in this experiment was likely not ubiquitous throughout early Earth's atmosphere on a global scale, but it may have been common on a more local scale where there was heavy volcanic activity," Parker said.

Parallel to the Urey-Miller experiment

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

By comparison, the famous Urey-Miller experiment in 1953 exposed hydrogen, steam, methane and ammonia to an electrical discharge. The initial results included far fewer organic molecules – only five amino acids. However, Bada and his team reanalyzed these old samples along with previously unpublished results with modern techniques, revealing a much greater variety of biologically important products. 

The results of the 1958 experiment, however, show that adding hydrogen sulfide to the reaction enriches the mixture of organic molecules produced, according to Bada.

The 1958 reaction – which also incorporated carbon dioxide, a gas not included in the earlier experiment – created a mix more like that which geoscientists now believe made up the atmosphere of primordial Earth, Parker said.

From outer space?

Amino acids, which combine to form proteins, which, in turn, form cellular structures and control reactions in living things, are not unique to Earth. They have been found on meteorites, mainly from samples acquired from asteroids and from one comet , according to Scott Sandford, a research scientist at NASA 's Ames Research Center in California.   

Bada's team compared the amino acids produced by the 1958 experiment with those contained in a type of carbon-rich meteorite, known as a carbonaceous chrondite. These meteorites are believed to provide snapshots of the types of organic reactions that took place in the early solar system , Bada told LiveScience in an email.

The researchers compared the amino acids produced by the hydrogen sulfide experiment with those contained by several carbonaceous chrondites. Some matched well, while others did not, suggesting that hydrogen sulfide played a role in the synthesis of amino acids in certain environments within our early solar system, but not in others, Bada wrote. Although the meteorites are all from our solar system, the same results would be expected in other solar systems elsewhere in the universe, he said.

There is a theory that life on Earth got a jump start from organic molecules when they arrived on the planet from space, Sandford told LiveScience. There is no doubt that space delivers much of the molecular building blocks for terrestrial life, but the question is the role the molecules played in getting life started, he added.

"In the end, if life was trying to get started, my guess is the process wasn't very picky about where the molecules came from," Sandford said. "[Early life] didn't care if that amino acid was formed in space or a lightning strike in Earth's atmosphere or came out of a hydrothermal vent … So in the end, it is possible life got started from acquiring building blocks from a wide variety of sources."

Sandford's work involves simulating ices found in many environments in space – including comets – that contain molecules similar to those used in the Urey-Miller experiment, and bombarding them with ionizing radiation. And like the reactions believed to have taken place on primordial Earth, these simulated cosmic ice reactions synthesize amino acids.

"At some level, the universe seems to be hard-wired to create amino acids, provided you have the right elements present and energy," he said.

A smelly piece of science history

It's not clear why Miller never analyzed the samples he produced with the hydrogen-sulfide experiment, but Parker speculates that it may have had something to do with the rotten-egg odor of hydrogen sulfide .

"When I was working with them by hand I could smell them myself," Parker said. "It wasn't so strong that it was overpowering, but it was strong enough to convince me to not stick my nose in front of it again."

But, unpleasant odors aside, the experience was a memorable one.

"It is sort of surreal to hold the sample vial in your hands and look at Stanley Miller's handwriting on the label," Parker said. "It was a very unique opportunity to go back in time and look at what he did and be able to use modern analysis techniques to be able to analyze samples produced over 50 years and see what they still contain today."

Their work is published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

You can follow LiveScience writer Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry .

Live Science x HowTheLightGetsIn — Get discounted tickets to the world’s largest ideas and music festival

Do opposites really attract in relationships?

200 meteorites on Earth traced to 5 craters on Mars

Most Popular

• 2 Scientists collect high-resolution images of the North Star's surface for 1st time
• 3 Supercharged 'cocoon of energy' may power the brightest supernovas in the universe
• 4 AI and brain implant enables ALS patient to easily converse with family 'for 1st time in years'
• 5 Fallout from NASA's asteroid-smashing DART mission could hit Earth — potentially triggering 1st human-caused meteor shower

November 26, 2021

Redo of a Famous Experiment on the Origins of Life Reveals Critical Detail Missed for Decades

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an underappreciated, though outsize, role.

By Sarah Vitak

Chemist Stanley Miller re-creates the Miller-Urey experiment using the original laboratory equipment in the 1980s.

Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis/VCG/Getty Images

Sarah Vitak: This is Scientific American ’s 60 Second Science. I’m Sarah Vitak.

The question of how life came to be has captivated humans for millennia. The prevailing theory now is that, on a highly volatile early Earth, lightning struck mineral-rich waters and that the energy from lighting strikes turned those minerals into the building blocks of life: organic compounds like amino acids—something we often refer to as the “primordial soup.” The wide acceptance of this theory is in large part due to the very famous Miller-Urey experiment. You surely encountered this in a science textbook at some point. But to refresh your memory: in 1952 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey simulated the conditions of early Earth by sealing water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen in a glass flask. Then they applied electrical sparks to the mixture. Miraculously, amino acids came into existence amid the roiling mixture. It was a big deal.

But recently a team of researchers realized that—much like that first primordial soup sitting in a bowl of Earth—the experiment’s container played an underappreciated role—that perhaps it was also critical to the creation of organic building blocks inside their laboratory life soup.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

I talked to someone from the team.

Saladino: I am Raffaele Saladino from University of Tuscia in Italy.

Vitak: Then, much like today, when a researcher goes to start an experiment, often one of the first things they do is reach for their glassware. Well, today, actually, we use a lot of plastic as well.

Saladino:  But 20 years ago in the lab, only glass containers because, in the mind of the researcher, glass is inert.

Vitak: He said inert, meaning that it doesn’t react with the chemicals you put inside it. But in reality, that is not necessarily always the case.

Most of the time glass is pretty inert. When you’re baking with Pyrex (which is made of borosilicate glass, the same type of glass most labware is made out of) the cookware isn’t going into your brownies. But when you’re baking, whatever is in the pan is usually mostly water, so it will come at a pH of around 7 or so.

But the pH of the Miller-Urey experiment is much higher. In the original experiments, they used a pH of 8.7, which is more alkaline, or basic.

Saladino: Why alkaline environment is an important topic? Since under alkaline condition borosilicate can be impacted through blinds in the reaction menu, it is not inert it became a reagent. 

Vitak: In fact, this was actually noted by Miller in his original experiments--that the alkaline conditions caused the silica to dissolve. But it was overshadowed by the discovery of the synthesis of organic compounds. And as future researchers carried on they missed that point in Miller’s notes.

Saladino: The attention was concentrated on modifying the atmosphere, on modifying the energy, the intensity, and modifying the analytical tools.

Vitak: And the role of the silica got forgotten entirely. 

Dr. Saladino’s team wanted to see if the glass was doing anything in the reaction. To test this they set up three different versions of the original experiment where everything was the same except the containers. For comparison they chose teflon which does not dissolve when holding an alkaline solution, the way the glass does.

Saladino: There is the experiment only glass, the experiment only Teflon, and in the middle, there is the experiment in teflon with some pieces of glass added inside.

Vitak: Then they used a technique called mass spectrometry to analyze what each reaction produced. Mass spectrometry is great for figuring out what kinds of molecules are in a complex mixture.

They found that teflon produced very few organic compounds. There were more compounds in the teflon with glass pieces. But the glass container, by far, created the greatest number and largest variety of organic molecules.

The mechanism of exactly how the silica helps catalyze the reaction is not clear yet--but it is very clearly does.

The obvious question then is: Was there silica available in the early earth environment?

Saladino:  The water is not suspended in a vacuum. No? The water is in geochemistry, it is surrounded by minerals. Borosilicate and silica are the most abundant minerals surrounding the water.

Vitak: The team has two next major objectives in mind. First, to try updating the experiment to model more closely the amount of silica that would have been available in the early Earth.

Second, they want to try replacing the silica with extraterrestrial minerals like, pieces of meteorite or rocks from other planets. Apart from just being very cool, that could give a more concrete idea of how to look for life in space. 

But here on Earth, coming one step closer to fully understanding why we exist is that much more satisfying. Even after nearly 70 years, a key discovery in our complex origin story still carries new revelations. As the authors say in the paper: "The role of the rocks was hidden in the walls of the reactors."

Thanks for listening. For Scientific American’s 60 Second Science, I’m Sarah Vitak. 

[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast .]

Advertisement

Glass flask catalysed famous Miller-Urey origin-of-life experiment

By Jason Arunn Murugesu

25 October 2021

Harold Urey (1893-1981) was a pioneering chemist

US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

A famous origin-of-life experiment from the 1950s may have more accurately mimicked nature than we initially thought.

The influential Miller-Urey experiment showed that with just water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane – and electric sparks to mimic lightning – you could form several of the protein precursors necessary for life on Earth. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey’s aim was to recreate the chemical conditions of early Earth.

But what the researchers had never explicitly considered was whether the nature of the container used in the experiment had any effect on the outcome.

“We don’t know why no one looked at this before,” says Ernesto Di Mauro at the Institute of Molecular Biology and Pathology in Rome, Italy. “Sometimes it’s the simplest things that people miss.”

Di Mauro and his team repeated the experiment with the same type of borosilicate glass container used in the original experiment and also reran the study with a container made from Teflon. In a third rerun of the experiment, they added glass chips to the Teflon container mixture.

Read more: The epic hunt for the place on Earth where life started

The team speculated that the reactions performed in the presence of glass would generate more complex molecules because glass contains silicates. Silicate can get dissolved and reabsorbed on to the surface of a mixture and so affect what type of reactions occur, says Di Mauro.

Teflon on the other hand, which wasn’t widely used in the 1950s when Miller and Urey ran their experiment, is chemically inert and has no such effect.

Di Mauro’s team found that the glass beaker did indeed contain the most diverse mixture of complex organic reaction products. Meanwhile, the Teflon beaker with glass chips produced fewer complex compounds – probably because the glass chips had a lower combined surface area than the glass beaker itself. There were even fewer complex compounds when the experiment was run in a Teflon beaker with no glass present.

“The glass is like the rocks on Earth – it catalyses the reaction,” says Di Mauro.

More than 90 per cent of Earth’s crust is made up of silicates, and they are also common on planets like Mars, where they may also have helped to catalyse reactions that might be important for the origin of life.

“I’m surprised no one has looked at this before,” says Valentina Erastova at the University of Edinburgh, UK. “I think this study just confirms for me that the Miller-Urey experiments were even smarter than originally envisaged.”

Scientific Reports DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00235-4

• origins of life

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

We now know that life began on Earth much earlier than we thought

Subscriber-only

Top astrobiologist explores the possibilities of alien life

Has the mystery of life’s 'handedness' finally been cracked?

Oldest rocks on Earth may contain strange and ancient life forms

Popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

- The experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3 ) and hydrogen (H 2 ) - materials which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere. The chemicals were all sealed and circulated inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to add water vapour to the chemical mixture and the resulting gases were circulated around the apparatus, simulating the Earth's atmosphere. The flask with heated water represents water on the Earth's surface and the recycled water vapor is just as water evaporates from lakes and seas, before going into the atmosphere and forming into rain. Sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning storms (believed to be common on the early earth) through the water vapors, and then the vapors were cooled again so that the water could condense (simulating the oceans) and trickle back into the first water flask in a continuous cycle. At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed, by analyzing the cooled water, that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first. Other Experiments The Miller-Urey experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine which is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry (deals with origins of life: how the first molecular building blocks of life were formed and self-assembled into replicating systems) with a reducing atmosphere (an atmosphere characterized by little or no free oxygen but contains hydrogen or hydrogen-containing compounds such as methane or ammonia - the atmospheric conditions believed to be on early Earth). Criticism of the Miller-Urey Experiment There have been a number of objections to the implications derived from these experiments. Some scientists believe that Earth's original atmosphere might contain less of the methane (CH 4 ) and ammonia (NH 3 ) molecules (reducing molecules) as was thought at the time of Miller-Urey experiment. But other experiments maintain that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen - implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature. In this new scenario, organics could have been produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept. This studies make the experiments conducted by Miller-Urey and others relevant again. Another objection is that Miller-Urey Experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted (although the time scale would be 100 million years instead of a week). Conditions similar to those of the Miller-Urey experiments are present in other regions of the solar system, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the driving force for chemical reactions. On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, 19 of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds formed by these processes. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules. This could imply an origin of life outside of Earth, which then migrated here. Repeat The Miller-Urey Experiment However, before you start, please pay notice that chemicals and electricity could be sometimes dangerous, when not given appropriate care, can harm you. As a rule: this experiment should be performed under the supervision of teachers or adults familiar with chemistry and electrical safety procedures. Consult your teacher or other knowledgeable adults and experts about how to obtain the mentioned materials and supplies and how to use them properly and safely in these experiment. Do not do this experiment alone! Notify your parents and school authorities before you begin - wait for their approval. If you have decided to embark on this challenge, before you begin, consult the link section of this page and further resources provided. Ensure that you understand the basic principals. Surf the web further and consult your local library, your teachers and other knowledgeable adults and experts. Useful Links 221 IMAGES Miller-Urey experiment Miller-Urey Experiment CLASS-12 CHAPTER-7 PART-3 EVOLUTION- CHEMOGENETIC THEORY & UREY-MILLER Miller, Stanley; Miller-Urey experiment Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new Finding the recipe for life on Earth COMMENTS Miller-Urey experiment The Miller-Urey experiment[ 1] (or Miller experiment[ 2]) was an experiment in chemical synthesis carried out in 1952 that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic Earth. It is seen as one of the first successful experiments demonstrating the synthesis of organic compounds from ... Miller-Urey experiment The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted by American chemist Stanley Miller under the supervision of American scientist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. The experiment was designed to test ideas introduced independently in the 1920s by Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin and British physiologist J.B.S. Haldane, both of whom suggested that organic molecules, such as amino acids and ... Miller-Urey Experiment Miller-Urey Experiment The Miller-Urey Experiment was a landmark experiment to investigate the chemical conditions that might have led to the origin of life on Earth. The scientist Stanley Miller, under the supervision of the Nobel laureate scientist Harold Urey conducted it in 1952 at the University of Chicago. Conducting Miller-Urey Experiments In 1952, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, approached Harold Urey about doing an experiment to evaluate the possibility that organic compounds important for the origin of life may have been formed abiologically on the early Earth. The experiment was conducted using a custom-built glass apparatus ( Figure 1A ... Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new In 1952, a University of Chicago chemist named Stanley Miller and his adviser, Harold Urey, conducted a famous experiment. Miller Urey Experiment: Hypothesis, Steps, Conclusions, and Limitations The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, aimed to simulate early Earth's conditions and test the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. Here are the key steps of the experiment: Simulating Early Earth's Atmosphere: The researchers recreated early Earth's atmosphere in a closed system using a mixture of ... A Brief Explanation Of Miller Urey Experiment Miller and Urey Experiment. Stanley L. Muller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment to describe the origin of life on earth. They were of the idea that the early earth's atmosphere was able to produce amino acids from inorganic matter. The two biologists made use of methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia which they considered were found ... Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment Bada was revisiting the famous experiment first done by his mentor, chemist Stanley Miller, at the University of Chicago in 1953. Miller, along with his colleague Harold Urey, used a sparking ... Icon 1 In 1953, Stanley Miller, along with his graduate advisor Harold Urey, tested this hypothesis by constructing an apparatus that simulated the Oparin-Haldane "early earth." When a gas mixture based on predictions of the early atmosphere was heated and given an electrical charge, organic compounds were formed ( Miller, 1953; Miller and Urey, 1959 ). Biology: Miller-Urey Experiment The most elegant and famous set of investigations into how life began on the planet was the Miller/Urey experiment, done by graduate student Stanley L. Miller and biochemist Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago in 1953. The success of their work also spawned the scientific subspecialty of exobiology. Exobiology is the speculative study ... Message in a bottle: revisiting the origin of life A new version of the famous 1952 Miller-Urey experiment suggests that the glass of the flask may have been a key ingredient for its chemical reactions. Miller-Urey Experiment Stanley Miller's experiment, or the Miller-Urey experiment, was and is one of the most significant experiments within biology and biochemistry. The experiment essentially pioneered the fields of ... What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the building blocks of life could form in the primordial soup. But it overlooked one key variable. What Was The Miller-Urey Experiment? The experiment was a success in that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were produced during the simulation. Miller-Urey experiment The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that made organic compounds out of Inorganic compounds by applying a form of energy. [ 1][ 2] The idea was to simulate hypothetical conditions thought to be present on the early Earth ( Hadean or early Archaean ). It was a test of the chemical origins of life. Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life Scientists finish a 53-year-old classic experiment on the origins of life. In 1958, a young scientist called Stanley Miller electrified a mixture of simple gases, designed to mimic the atmosphere ... Miller-Urey Experiment Watch this short video to find out how a graduate student named Stanley Miller performed a groundbreaking experiment in 1953 to help support the theory of Ch... Stanley Miller 1930-2007 The now-famous Miller-Urey experiment was designed to simulate the conditions of the primitive Earth as they were understood at the time. Possible Key to Life's Chemistry Revealed in 50-Year-Old Experiment In 1953, chemists Harold Urey and Stanley Miller performed a landmark experiment intended to mimic the primordial conditions that created the first amino acids, by exposing a mix of gases to a ... Redo of a Famous Experiment on the Origins of Life Reveals Critical The Miller-Urey experiment showed that the conditions of early Earth could be simulated in a glass flask. New research finds the flask itself played an underappreciated, though outsize, role. Glass flask catalysed famous Miller-Urey origin-of-life experiment The Miller-Urey experiment showed how precursor molecules for life can be generated from simple chemicals - now we know the glass flask holding the mixture catalysed the reaction Miller-Urey Experiment The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago. The experiment used water (H 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), ammonia (NH 3) and hydrogen (H 2) - materials which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth ... A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth ... UREY, H.C., ON THE EARLY CHEMICAL HISTORY OF THE EARTH AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 38: 351 (1952). essay homework paper phd project resume review speech study thesis