3 ms·

I'm leaning towards it being life myself. I just wish there was way kore of a smoking gun there than there seems to bez though there's a lot of tantalising circ

I'm leaning towards it being life myself. I just wish there was way kore of a smoking gun there than there seems to bez though there's a lot of tantalising circumstantial evidence I suppose in the end it might actually be settled by the sample return mission, if similar fossils or even living microbes are found. Agreed that the announcement was extremely mishandled, as has seemingly become a tradition in astrobiology. Every major announcement like this har turned out to either be completely false(Martian canals, macroscopic life in Venera images from Venus, extremophiles with arsenic in the genetic code), or much less cut and dry than it seemed(ALH, phosphine on Venus). Also just wanted to say, it's so nice to have a discussion like this where we disagree but in a civil manner and exchange interesting thoughts. It's a rare thing these days, so thank you.

adastra22 4y ago
Likewise! Unfortunately I don't think the sample return mission is likely to settle this. Any extant life is probably underground to avoid the harsh radiation and hostile chemical environment of the surface. Especially now that we know there is a lot of underground ice, and almost certainly liquid aquifers. I think we'll need to send people to get access to those and sample water sources that are likely to have life. Maybe it will turn up a fossil though! Regarding astrobiology announcements, I think the source of the problem is the refocusing on the search for life as a core nasa mission. That happened after congress turned against Mars exploration in the early 90's, as someone politically astute figured out that was a strong enough justification to keep funding. But frustratingly it became the only viable reason for exploration, and therefore a lot of money and reputation is on stake for anyone who can deliver an astrobiology win. All that pressure leads to hyped up press announcements for early results that haven't been confirmed. I was working at the NASA Astrobiology Institute when the arsenic extremophile announcement was made, and perhaps my views are a bit colored from that. I thought we handled it alright with the information that we had, but it was just one study that hadn't been adequately replicated or peer reviewed. There was just so much pressure to get out ahead with our own announcement rather than have the story break on its own. Getting further review requires public sharing of knowledge, so I'm not sure what the right approach is :(

adastra22 4y ago

Likewise! Unfortunately I don't think the sample return mission is likely to settle this. Any extant life is probably underground to avoid the harsh radiation and hostile chemical environment of the surface. Especially now that we know there is a lot of underground ice, and almost certainly liquid aquifers. I think we'll need to send people to get access to those and sample water sources that are likely to have life. Maybe it will turn up a fossil though! Regarding astrobiology announcements, I think the source of the problem is the refocusing on the search for life as a core nasa mission. That happened after congress turned against Mars exploration in the early 90's, as someone politically astute figured out that was a strong enough justification to keep funding. But frustratingly it became the only viable reason for exploration, and therefore a lot of money and reputation is on stake for anyone who can deliver an astrobiology win. All that pressure leads to hyped up press announcements for early results that haven't been confirmed. I was working at the NASA Astrobiology Institute when the arsenic extremophile announcement was made, and perhaps my views are a bit colored from that. I thought we handled it alright with the information that we had, but it was just one study that hadn't been adequately replicated or peer reviewed. There was just so much pressure to get out ahead with our own announcement rather than have the story break on its own. Getting further review requires public sharing of knowledge, so I'm not sure what the right approach is :(