First, context: a "life/not-life" distinction is far more "science" than science - widespread in "science" education, but rarely comes up in science research. (Might be interesting to create a list of similar?) Why the emphasis there... I don't know - perhaps because we teach by memorizing definitions and lists, not by learning design spaces and their landmarks? Or at least by giving exemplars without characterizing variance.
One of the few places I've seen it come up in science, was ecosystem multi-scale simulation software. Where virus was squarely in the heritable characteristics under selection pressure ("life") bucket, rather than abiotic or biogenic.
Informal "do you think of viruses as alive?" seems to vary by field. I've seen a marine bio labs be overwhelmingly yes. I've been told medical immunology leans no. But it seems more social-media engagement question than research question or synthesis.
Not sure why you linked that particular article, as it does not mention anywhere whether viruses are alive (though it implies they're alive with the sentence "Vaccines may consist of either live or killed viruses").
They are infectious agents, but many life forms are infectious agents.
That article (and the more general article on viruses) both pointedly avoid referring to viruses as organisms, "any living thing that functions as an individual".
Which specifically addresses edge cases including viruses, which "are not typically considered to be organisms, because they are incapable of autonomous reproduction, growth, metabolism, or homeostasis".
The terms "live" and "killed" have historical origins, but would better be read as "active" or "deactivated", and the immediately succeeding sentence clarifies this: "Live vaccines contain weakened forms of the virus, but these vaccines can be dangerous when given to people with weak immunity."
And yes, there are infectious agents which also happen to be organisms, such as bacteria, amoebas, funguses, etc. Tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis), many stomach ulcers (Helicobacter pylori), botulism (Clostridium botulinum), and e. coli poisoning (Escherichia coli) are all infectious disease caused by bacteria. Giardiasis is a G-I infection of the Giardia amoeba. There are numerous fungal infections (many UTI infections, athlete's foot, jock itch, nail infections).
Further down the non-life infectious agent chain are prion diseases such as Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow" disease in cattle, "Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease", amongst others). These are literally misfolded proteins, which lack not only metabolism but any genetic material (DNA, RNA), but still propagate.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't claiming viruses are or aren't alive. I was pointing out you chose a citation that doesn't contain support for your claim. There are plenty of sources that would back you up, but that link doesn't.
> That article (and the more general article on viruses) both pointedly avoid referring to viruses as organisms
As if you expect people to carefully read the whole article, notice it doesn't mention anywhere whether viruses are alive, and conclude that by not mentioning this it supports your claim. By the same logic, it pointedly avoids saying viruses aren't alive.
> Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell—although some bacteria such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. The virocell model first proposed by Patrick Forterre considers the infected cell to be the "living form" of viruses and that virus particles (virions) are analogous to spores. Although the living versus non-living debate continues, the virocell model has gained some acceptance.
ok, i get that, and now is a bacteria considered more agentic than a virus then ? (that's a bit of a side-question sorry). bacterias at least reproduce on their own so they check all the boxes.
