Given the political climate re science and life, a website run for lawyers might be the safe place to publish. The idea of the US government (via nasa) looking for life elsewhere than earth rubs certain people the wrong way, people with political power.
I can't follow all the chemistry but this seems like the takeaway, from the Nature paper (open acccess!):
> Regardless, confirmation of macromolecular organic matter supports the possibility that future optimized TMAH thermochemolysis experiments can liberate ancient biosignatures preserved in macromolecules on Mars (if present). The broad structural variety of organic molecules observed in situ from surface materials suggests some chemical diversity is preserved in ancient Martian sediments despite >3.5 billion years of diagenesis and radiation exposure.
Macromolecules, not just "organic" (which, reminder, does not mean "biological"). It seems like you can still get macromolecules abiotically, but it's a little more tantalizing.
- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004
- Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018
- Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026
We now know for certain that it is possible for complex organic molecules to be preserved for ~3.5 billion years on the Martian surface.
The big question everyone wants to know is if life ever existed on Mars. Now we know that it's possible for that question to be answer, since we have confirmation of complex organic molecules actually being preserved.
This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.
Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NASA, but how do they decide?
If you put forward a hypothesis: these molecules were produced by life, then other scientists will search for arguments to disprove your hypothesis. If after some time none of those arguments hold up to scrutiny, we must assume the hypothesis is correct.
If NASA finds something indisputable like an RNA fragment, basically every scientific mind on the planet will try to find explanations that don't involve life. If all abiotic arguments are disproven, then by elimination we've proven that the molecule was produced biologically. If even one argument can conclusively prove an abiotic process that can produce exactly what we observe, then we must assume the no-life case. This is where we are now.
Once the scientific community reaches consensus, the call is made implicitly when the hypothesis is accepted as fact into the scientific canon. The announcement will likely go through various global leaders and/or NASA, as it's an announcement that impacts our entire species, not just one country.
Note that proof by elimination is only one method of proving a hypothesis. Most of the others don't apply here.
in summary, we were all imagining a Star Trek "take me to your leader" moment of First Contact, and instead he imagines it will be a slow transition of increasing evidence that convinces more and more people over years and years.
Officially it'll be "called" when a politician feels like it's solid enough proof for them to leech off of it.
Scientifically, it'll be called when there's too much evidence to genuinely dispute it. Probably when a collection of specimens is found, either dead or alive, that can be shown to be unrelated or distantly related to Earth life.
They found molecules on Mars?
Great, now we know that Mars is made out of different materials.
But we knew that before we sent a lonely Rover over there.
Wake me up if they find ATP (adenosine triphosphate).
Without ATP no life.
Shouldn't this link directly to the paper in question, instead of... Shuffles papers... Courthousenews?
Given the political climate re science and life, a website run for lawyers might be the safe place to publish. The idea of the US government (via nasa) looking for life elsewhere than earth rubs certain people the wrong way, people with political power.
The paper might contain too much jargon for lawyers.
I can't follow all the chemistry but this seems like the takeaway, from the Nature paper (open acccess!):
> Regardless, confirmation of macromolecular organic matter supports the possibility that future optimized TMAH thermochemolysis experiments can liberate ancient biosignatures preserved in macromolecules on Mars (if present). The broad structural variety of organic molecules observed in situ from surface materials suggests some chemical diversity is preserved in ancient Martian sediments despite >3.5 billion years of diagenesis and radiation exposure.
Macromolecules, not just "organic" (which, reminder, does not mean "biological"). It seems like you can still get macromolecules abiotically, but it's a little more tantalizing.
The way I see it:
- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004 - Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018 - Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026
We now know for certain that it is possible for complex organic molecules to be preserved for ~3.5 billion years on the Martian surface.
The big question everyone wants to know is if life ever existed on Mars. Now we know that it's possible for that question to be answer, since we have confirmation of complex organic molecules actually being preserved.
This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.
>- Water on Mars: confirmed 2004 - Organic molecules on Mars: confirmed 2018 - Complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA precursors) on Mars: 2026
This. It's been an incredibly steady march from "dead space rock" to "life".
It would be nice to prove or disprove the Viking gas experiments while some of the people who worked on that stuff are still alive.
> This legitimizes future missions/spending on life searching missions to the Martian surface.
How about spending money to get clean drinking water to the whole humanity (and other living creatures) here on earth first?
Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NASA, but how do they decide?
Science is built on consensus.
If you put forward a hypothesis: these molecules were produced by life, then other scientists will search for arguments to disprove your hypothesis. If after some time none of those arguments hold up to scrutiny, we must assume the hypothesis is correct.
If NASA finds something indisputable like an RNA fragment, basically every scientific mind on the planet will try to find explanations that don't involve life. If all abiotic arguments are disproven, then by elimination we've proven that the molecule was produced biologically. If even one argument can conclusively prove an abiotic process that can produce exactly what we observe, then we must assume the no-life case. This is where we are now.
Once the scientific community reaches consensus, the call is made implicitly when the hypothesis is accepted as fact into the scientific canon. The announcement will likely go through various global leaders and/or NASA, as it's an announcement that impacts our entire species, not just one country.
Note that proof by elimination is only one method of proving a hypothesis. Most of the others don't apply here.
Hank Green has a good pop-science video on this topic (what things are being found on Mars, and what they might mean): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWuFBZw9Olk
in summary, we were all imagining a Star Trek "take me to your leader" moment of First Contact, and instead he imagines it will be a slow transition of increasing evidence that convinces more and more people over years and years.
Officially it'll be "called" when a politician feels like it's solid enough proof for them to leech off of it.
Scientifically, it'll be called when there's too much evidence to genuinely dispute it. Probably when a collection of specimens is found, either dead or alive, that can be shown to be unrelated or distantly related to Earth life.
Depends who your audience is
For most people whatever life it is will to need to look like at least like whatever they think is life
So if they don’t consider bacteria or simple cells life then you’ll have no ability to convince them
They found molecules on Mars? Great, now we know that Mars is made out of different materials. But we knew that before we sent a lonely Rover over there.
Wake me up if they find ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Without ATP no life.
[flagged]
[dead]