Not sure I catch your meaning. Why would we want to artificially make non-living matter into living matter? I'd be happening with just finding out how it occurred the first time around.

: It would certainly be intriguing if we discovered how it happens, for many,
: many reasons.

: I don't think I can agree with you on that... I think that's reaching. The
: study of animal behaviour in an environment is a far cry from chemistry.
: If you use the argument that everything happens at its core down at the
: molecular level, then ALL form of science can be traced back to chemistry.
: That's an awfully large pot to stir, and IMO irrelevant to the discussion
: here.
: As we know it in practice, the science of chemistry is distinct from the
: science of biology, though there are intersecting fields.

But how an animal behaves can ultimately be boiled down to chemistry. It's brain, like a human's can suffer damage or be stimulated with chemicals or electrical impulses to cause it to feel differently, behave differently, perceive differently. All that behavior can still be evaluated at chemically. Advancements in the field are increasing all the time. You can discuss how one behavior leads to another but if you dig down deep enough, you're still talking chemistry at its core.