Resuscutating RNA...not that it needed saving

There is a problem that has been dogging biologists for a long time...How did life emerge from the the chemical building blocks of life, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Phosphorus?  We know that these elements existed, and it has been postulated for the past two decades or so that RNA is the most likely first step toward the self-replicating chemistry that is life.  The two components of life that are thought to be required for early life are some sort of cell membrane, such as the micelles that are readily formed by amphipathic molecules, and some sort of molecule that can carry genetic information.  There is a lot of evidence that RNA is this first genetic molecule.  It has some interesting characteristics, such as its capability to act as an enzyme for RNA replication, it's ability to catalyze peptide bonds (important for protein synthesis), and catalyze other chemical reactions.  While there are some still some questions about the RNA world, I recently heard about one possible solution to what I see as the biggest problem: how do you form the RNA bases from simpler molecules?

Experiments aiming to recreate the basic chemicals of life have been done for well over half a century.  The basic experiment is to take elemental molecules, such as C, N, O, P, etc., and subject them to electricity, heat, pressure.  Many complex molecules have fallen out of these experiments, but never DNA or RNA.

Cue John Sutherland and his coworkers.  They devised an interesting new take on this old experiment.  They started with simple components, but took a cue from organic chemistry and added parts stepwise.  One of the largest problems has been that the addition of the cytosine base to the ribose sugar just does not work.  However, they were able to form a ribose that had a reactive nitrogen upon which the cytosine base could be built.  Although this may seem artificial (and it certainly was), many of the steps that they took are not that dissimilar to what might have happened, given a long enough time period.  This is really a huge step forward, as it strengthens the RNA world hypothesis.

Here are links to two news and views articles, as well as the paper itself.  I found it very interesting; let me know what you think.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/459171a.html 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html
You probably need access to Nature to see the last two.