Following a brief snark in the office just now, I have a question for all y'all:
If viruses don't have a 'life'-cycle, what do they have?
« Hints for speakers | Main | Science Blogging 2008—Part 2 »
Following a brief snark in the office just now, I have a question for all y'all:
If viruses don't have a 'life'-cycle, what do they have?

All your base are belong to us
The BioLOG is back, bigger and bad to the bone
LabLit
From the blurb: LabLit.com is dedicated to real laboratory culture and to the portrayal and perceptions of that culture – science, scientists and labs – in fiction, the media and across popular cultur
Mind the Gap
Adventures in the London sci-lit-art scene...and occasionally beyond
Humans in Science
Similar to 'Lab Rats', a very human look at the process of doing science and how daily life impacts our profession
The Daily Grind
Jonathan Sanderson, a TV producer interested in making 'popular science' shows
Comments
First of all, I think the whole "Are viruses alive???" question is far less profound than most of the people who pose it think. It says nothing about life (which is what people seem to think it says), though it may be interesting in what it tells us about "life" the word. (The word dates to before the 12th century. Viruses were discovered in the 20th century. It is hardly surprising, or interesting, that a 12th century word doesn't cover all 20th century concepts.)
That said, I'm so tired of people asking, with that smug little glint in their eyes as they pose this profound philosophical conundrum their 3rd-grade science teacher presented to them, "Ah, but are viruses really alive?" that I call it a "replication cycle" instead, in an attempt to forestall them.
Posted by: iayork | September 12, 2008 10:26 AM
I would go with infection cycle or the replication cycle cited above.
Posted by: Paulo | September 12, 2008 10:35 AM
I've even heard viral cycle
Posted by: Corey | September 12, 2008 03:19 PM
replicative cycle
Posted by: nige | September 14, 2008 05:57 AM