Maybe Viking Did Find Organics on Mars

[Swift]

From Universe Today (yes I know it is linked elsewhere on BAUT, but I thought worthy of repeating here)

A new look at data from the Mars Viking landers concludes that the two landers may have found the building blocks of life on the Red Planet after all way back in 1976. The surprise discovery of perchlorates by the Phoenix mission on Mars 32 years later could mean the way the Viking experiment was set up actually would have destroyed any carbon-based chemical building blocks of life – what the experiment set about to try and find.

“This doesn't say anything about the question of whether or not life has existed on Mars, but it could make a big difference in how we look for evidence to answer that question," said Chris McKay of NASA's Ames Research Center. McKay coauthored a study published online by the Journal of Geophysical Research – Planets, reanalyzing results of Viking's tests for organic chemicals in Martian soil.

The Viking lander scooped up some soil, put it in a tiny oven and heated the sample. The only organic chemicals identified in the Martian soil from that experiment chloromethane and dichloromethane — chlorine compounds interpreted at the time as likely contaminants from cleaning fluids used on the spacecraft before it left Earth. But those chemicals are exactly what the new study found when a little perchlorate — the surprise finding from Phoenix — was added to desert soil from Chile containing organics and analyzed in the manner of the Viking tests.

[marsbug]

An interesting theory- it needs testing on mars.

[RGClark]

Thanks for the link. Gil Levin may turn out to have been right:

Modern Myths Concerning Life on Mars.
by
Gilbert V. Levin
BioSpherix Division, Spherix Incorporated, Annapolis, MD 21401, US
Electroneurobiología 2006; 14 (5), pp. 3-25
http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/Gi...dern_Myths.htm


Bob Clark

[tnjrp]

There seems to be a bot of a "fad" going on about reassessing Viking data, for some reason or another. Darling and Schulze-Makuch went a step further than McKay last April:
http://www.wsutoday.wsu.edu/pages/pu...19755&TypeID=1

[ravens_cry]

I once had an old National Geographic with an article by the scientists about the results as they were doing the tests. At least the way it was presented, they knew they had something very intriguing, though they were obviously cautious about calling it life.

[RGClark]

Gil Levin discusses the changing view of some scientists that Viking might have found life on Mars in this video here:

Gilbert V Levin Commentary On The Book Mars The Living Planet.
http://wn.com/Gilbert_V_Levin_commen..._LIVING_PLANET

Mars: The Living Planet [Hardcover]
Barry Digregorio (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Mars-Living-Pl.../dp/1883319587

Bob Clark

[A.DIM]

Thanks Bob Clark, for that video of Levin discussing his work.
And good timing too, given the surprising news of persistent water on and near the surface of Mars in the recent geological past. The case for life on Mars, past and present, has certainly gotten stronger.
Do you think, as he suggests, if the National Science Foundation were to revisit the evidence they'd conclude he found life, or at least that a biological explanation is more likely?

[RGClark]

Thanks Bob Clark, for that video of Levin discussing his work.
And good timing too, given the surprising news of persistent water on and near the surface of Mars in the recent geological past. The case for life on Mars, past and present, has certainly gotten stronger.
Do you think, as he suggests, if the National Science Foundation were to revisit the evidence they'd conclude he found life, or at least that a biological explanation is more likely?

Thanks for the link. The geologically recent large amounts of water could be anywhere from a 100 million years ago to a few thousand years ago. That it could be just a few thousand years ago is suggested by the fact that Mars undergoes large obliquity variations on the time scales of a few 10's of thousands of years. At extreme cases where the poles are pointed more to the Sun, the polar ice caps could be melted, increasing the atmospheric pressure and the amount of water, ice or liquid, in the lower latitudes.
I found it interesting as well that some MRO observations have shown meteorite impacts that occurred within a few years ago that uncovered large subsurface ice deposits at middle latitudes and within just a few meters of the surface. Missions like the european ExoMars, which can dig underground, might be able to sample such deposits. Since the underground deposits are likely to be long lasting they would be good places to look for dormat microbial life.
In regards to this question of life on Mars, I would put it above 50%. But scientists in general are conservative. I think they probably wouldn't be so definitive that the Viking biology results were caused by chemical reactions, but wouldn't go so far as to say they were caused by life.


Bob Clark

[RGClark]

There is also the detection of seasonal production of methane on Mars. An interesting fact that I haven't seen discussed about the Mars methane is that even the proposed non-biological sources for it would suggest that liquid water exists near the surface of Mars. A nice summary of the methane results and the proposed explanations is here:

Atmosphere of Mars.
3.4 Methane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Methane

The non-biological processes include volcanic processes, including geothermal, and geochemical processes. The volcanic processes with the abundance now apparent of subsurface ice on Mars suggest liquid water would exist near surface. And the suggested geochemical processes all require liquid water to work.
Gil Levin has collected articles on the Mars life question, including discussion of the Mars methane, here:

RESEARCH ON MARS – Papers by Gilbert V. Levin, Ph.D.
http://www.gillevin.com/mars.htm

Bob Clark

[A.DIM]

Bob Clark, thanks.
To me, it seems what we've learned about Mars, as well as life on Earth (eg. extremophiles), in the last 15 years or so weights the evidence in favor of present biology/organics. Though inconclusive I think the change in mindset and perspective can influence what experiements are taken on future missions. No longer is it thought Mars is such a dead inhospitable world, especially when we've got extremophiles on Earth which could survive the conditions found there.
I too put the probability above 50%.

[kzb]

I did not know the full story of the Viking LR experiment until I saw that Journal of Cosmology site. Three very important assertions, I wonder if people on here can support or refute:

(1) Apparent metabolic release of C-14 was detected in the experiment (as is well known), however when the soil was pre-heated to as low a temperature as 51 degrees (C), the apparent metabolic release did not happen. Exactly how it would happen if heat-labile microorganisms were present in the soil.

(2) Inorganic chemical explanations included the build-up of reactive species in the soil under the constant UV irradiation. However the LR experiment was repeated using soil from under a rock (scooped up at dawn), and the same results obtained as for exposed soil.

(3) Repeated "feedings" of the same soil sample resulted in the release effect fading and stopping. This was reported as evidence of an inorganic chemistry origin of the observations. However, if the LR experiment is done here on Earth using soil from cold valleys in Antarctica, this same thing happens !

All very interesting, I had not known some of these things previously

[marsbug]

Nor had I, 2 and 3 are especially interesting to know. However skepticism is the name of the game here; despite what I'd very much like to conclude all I think can reallybe concluded from this information is that in 1976 we didn't know enough about life in extreme cold deserts, expecialy the kind of life that might be expected to survive on hyper-arctic mars, to design a definitive test for its presence.

[RGClark]

Gil Levin describes his Labeled Release experiment on the Viking missions and the history of this life detection method which he invented in these videos here:



Here is Levin from an earlier video lecture describing his conclusions on the life on Mars question from the data returned by his experiment:



Since this text version is dated 1993 I gather this is when this lecture was given:

THE OXIDANT ON MARS - CHEMISTRY OR BIOLOGY?
Gilbert V. Levin
INTERNATIONAL TESLA SOCIETY
MARS FORUM
Colorado Springs, CO
November 13, 1993
http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/1993_tesla_society.htm


Bob Clark

[kzb]

That Tesla Society paper is fascinating, with everything else, I think I am now re-evaluating my position on extant life on Mars.

One thing is though, I've been thinking that Earth/Mars life would have a common origin, that is either both came from a common source, or one planet's life is descended from the other planet's life. The fact that life could have been transported between the planets, perhaps many times back and forth, I don't think is controversial any more.

[kzb]

An interesting assertion from Levin is that there was no detector which checked whether the sample container for the GC (organics detection) experiment was actually full or not. So the sample size is not definitely known and a has been assumed in the calculations.

If there is a big excess of perchlorate over organic matter in the soil, when heated it would react and oxidise all organics to CO2 and H2O, perhaps also generating a trace of these organochlorines.

If there is a LOT of both organic matter and perchlorate in the soil, heating it could be quite exciting -end of lander I'm afraid.

[Ronald Brak]

I guess if I were to bet I would put money down on there being life on mars. But - and I want to be quite clear on this point - I'm a nut.

[RGClark]

Found this when searching on Google for the journal article discussed:

Mars organics get new lease on life.
Viking mission may have destroyed compounds that make biology possible while trying to detect them.
By Ron Cowen
Web edition : Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
"...when Navarro-González and his colleagues added 1 percent by weight magnesium perchlorate to soil from the Atacama Desert in Chile, which is thought to closely resemble Martian soil and is known to contain organic compounds, they found an intriguing result. Heating the perchlorate-adulterated desert soil to temperatures comparable to those in the Viking experiments produced the same chlorinated organic compounds that were found by the landers in 1976 but dismissed as contaminants. Nearly all the organic compounds originally in the Chilean soil were destroyed during the heating.
Similarly, the team says, the soil at the two Viking sites likely contained plenty of organics that were destroyed upon heating and were turned into chlorinated methane compounds due to the presence of perchlorate.
“The bottom line of this work is that the Viking landers did detect organics on Mars, we just did not realize it,” McKay asserts. He and his colleagues estimate that the Martian soil contains a few parts per million of organics, comparable with the driest parts of the Atacama Desert."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._lease_on_life

I'm surprised that McKay would say that. McKay is a highly regarded Mars expert. In the other articles on this research I've read, the researchers opinions were that Viking could have missed the organics. But here McKay is being more definitive in that he thinks they were there and gives an estimate of the amounts.


Bob Clark

[kzb]

Hmmm one per cent magnesium perchlorate ? Is this realistic ? If martian soil contains this much perchlorates, it could be quite hazardous. Simply grinding it between hard surfaces might have untoward effects.

The explanation is very credible given the presence of perchlorates: remember the expectation was that some organic matter would be found, which would have been there from carbonaceous meteorites. The fact that none at all was found surely means it was destroyed during the heating process.

If you say the experiment is correct, that is, there is so little organic matter in the soil that it is undetectable, you then have to explain what has destroyed, or what has happened to, the carbonaceous meteoric material.

[A.DIM]

Found this when searching on Google for the journal article discussed:

Mars organics get new lease on life.
Viking mission may have destroyed compounds that make biology possible while trying to detect them.
By Ron Cowen
Web edition : Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
"...when Navarro-González and his colleagues added 1 percent by weight magnesium perchlorate to soil from the Atacama Desert in Chile, which is thought to closely resemble Martian soil and is known to contain organic compounds, they found an intriguing result. Heating the perchlorate-adulterated desert soil to temperatures comparable to those in the Viking experiments produced the same chlorinated organic compounds that were found by the landers in 1976 but dismissed as contaminants. Nearly all the organic compounds originally in the Chilean soil were destroyed during the heating.
Similarly, the team says, the soil at the two Viking sites likely contained plenty of organics that were destroyed upon heating and were turned into chlorinated methane compounds due to the presence of perchlorate.
“The bottom line of this work is that the Viking landers did detect organics on Mars, we just did not realize it,” McKay asserts. He and his colleagues estimate that the Martian soil contains a few parts per million of organics, comparable with the driest parts of the Atacama Desert."
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._lease_on_life

I'm surprised that McKay would say that. McKay is a highly regarded Mars expert. In the other articles on this research I've read, the researchers opinions were that Viking could have missed the organics. But here McKay is being more definitive in that he thinks they were there and gives an estimate of the amounts.


Bob Clark

It doesn't surprise me much to hear McKay speak with authority. Whom else might we ask? Levin?


I was however a little surprised to see no mention of Levin in that article, saying instead, "When the Viking landers touched down on Mars in 1976 and scooped up soil samples, scientists were surprised that the two craft failed to unearth evidence that the Red Planet contained any organic compounds. The apparent lack of organic molecules — a basic requirement for carbon-based organisms — helped to cement the notion of Mars as an entity that would not easily support life."

I wonder, if they were "surprised" they didn't find organics, why were Levin's LR results dismissed?

[kzb]

I wonder, if they were "surprised" they didn't find organics, why were Levin's LR results dismissed?

I guess it is not unreasonable in retrospect. No organics, therefore no life, and the LR results must have an inorganic chemistry explanation.

Since then, it has been found there is no detectable peroxide on Mars (the favoured inorganic rationalisation at the time). If you now say that any organic matter could have been destroyed by perchorates during the experiment, it puts an entirely new spin on the story.

However, the perchlorate experiment used 1% by weight perchlorate, is this a realistic concentration?

[John Jaksich]

In previous posts---I have attempted to show how the Mass Spectroscopy data from the Viking Missions were mis-interpreted. A, very-well regarded chemical Mass Spectroscopist who goes by the name of Dr. Fred McLafferty of Cornell University published his finding in his book ----> The Interpretation of Mass Spectra---it is co-authored by Franticek Turecek (pardon my spelling) of the Univesity of Washington. It was published in 1993.

I request some assistance from the Moderators--since Google Books has re-moved the page on which the spectrum was published. I had posted it earlier this year!

[RGClark]

In previous posts---I have attempted to show how the Mass Spectroscopy data from the Viking Missions were mis-interpreted. A, very-well regarded chemical Mass Spectroscopist who goes by the name of Dr. Fred McLafferty of Cornell University published his finding in his book ----> The Interpretation of Mass Spectra---it is co-authored by Franticek Turecek (pardon my spelling) of the Univesity of Washington. It was published in 1993.

I request some assistance from the Moderators--since Google Books has re-moved the page on which the spectrum was published. I had posted it earlier this year!

I found a post where you discussed this here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....58#post1391658


Bob Clark

[John Jaksich]

Yes ---I know--but --as i mentioned *google books* has apparently removed the very page of which I referred. ---where previously I was able to post the page at BAUT---without worry of copyright infringement.

I know it is not your problem---I was hoping one of the moderators had an insight into what had occurred?

[Van Rijn]

I wonder, if they were "surprised" they didn't find organics, why were Levin's LR results dismissed?

I guess it is not unreasonable in retrospect. No organics, therefore no life, and the LR results must have an inorganic chemistry explanation.

My recollection was that they had set down a list of conditions ahead of time for the life experiments: If they hit the right conditions, they would consider it "smoking gun" evidence for life. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

Reinterpreting after the fact can be a problem because people tend to want to notice only the stuff that supports their argument and ignore the stuff that doesn't. Really, the Viking results are going to be ambiguous until somebody does new experiments that can nail it down, and see whether there really was life, or if it was non-life chemistry.

[Colin Robinson]

> THE OXIDANT ON MARS - CHEMISTRY OR BIOLOGY?
> Gilbert V. Levin

Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't think that Levin's interpretation of the Viking results should be lumped together with McKay's. True, neither agrees with the widely held view that says there can't have been life in those soil samples because no organic compounds were detected by the GC experiment.

But Levin's hypothesis is there was NOT a mineral oxidant in the Viking soil samples (and therefore oxidization demonstrated in the LR experiment was done by organisms) whereas McKay's hypothesis is that there WAS a mineral oxidant there, namely perchlorate, (which has recently been reported elsewhere on Mars) and this oxidant affected the result of the GC experiment.

These two hypotheses both seem quite reasonable in themselves, but if one hypothesis is on target, surely that means the other is not?

[RGClark]

> THE OXIDANT ON MARS - CHEMISTRY OR BIOLOGY?
> Gilbert V. Levin
Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't think that Levin's interpretation of the Viking results should be lumped together with McKay's. True, neither agrees with the widely held view that says there can't have been life in those soil samples because no organic compounds were detected by the GC experiment.
But Levin's hypothesis is there was NOT a mineral oxidant in the Viking soil samples (and therefore oxidization demonstrated in the LR experiment was done by organisms) whereas McKay's hypothesis is that there WAS a mineral oxidant there, namely perchlorate, (which has recently been reported elsewhere on Mars) and this oxidant affected the result of the GC experiment.
These two hypotheses both seem quite reasonable in themselves, but if one hypothesis is on target, surely that means the other is not?

A very good point. I don't know if McKay et. al. did this experiment but a key experiment that needs to be performed would be to see if the results of the LR experiment could be explained by perchlorates+organics, but no life. Since life is so abundant in Earth samples you would have to sterilize the samples you got from Earth soils, then add perchorates, and see if you got the LR results. Or you could take Atacama desert samples known already to contain perchlorates, sterilize these and see if you can get the LR results.
Another experiment I suggested previously to McKay and other Mars scientists, involves some unusual microbes discovered recently. These microbes have the ability to evolve oxygen in the dark. One of the Viking biology experiments observed oxygen being evolved in the dark.
It had been thought that microbes could only evolve oxygen in the light through photosynthesis, so it was thought this experiment could not have been detecting life. Yet these microbes do have this capability to evolve oxygen in the dark. Curiously, some strains of these microbes also metabolize perchlorates. So the experiment I suggested to McKay and others would be to see if these microbes could explain the results of some or all of the Viking biology experiments.

Bob Clark

[RGClark]

Yes ---I know--but --as i mentioned *google books* has apparently removed the very page of which I referred. ---where previously I was able to post the page at BAUT---without worry of copyright infringement.
I know it is not your problem---I was hoping one of the moderators had an insight into what had occurred?

What you might also do is write the author and ask what his opinion is of the recent observations of the methane in the Martian atmosphere.
Also, the moderators will correct me if I'm wrong but it seems "fair use" would allow you to copy from the print book itself and post here just the graph you're interested in, as long as you included the identifying info about the title of the book and authors it's from. It would be analogous to just posting a paragraph from the book, whereas posting an entire page might be getting more iffy in regards to copyright infringement.


Bob Clark

[RGClark]

What you might also do is write the author and ask what his opinion is of the recent observations of the methane in the Martian atmosphere.
Also, the moderators will correct me if I'm wrong but it seems "fair use" would allow you to copy from the print book itself and post here just the graph you're interested in, as long as you included the identifying info about the title of the book and authors it's from. It would be analogous to just posting a paragraph from the book, whereas posting an entire page might be getting more iffy in regards to copyright infringement.

Actually this discussion might be moot because I typed in the ISBN number you gave for the book in an earlier post in the Google search box and it pulled up right away including the page 5 containing the graph:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xQW...page&q&f=false

Bob Clark

[John Jaksich]

Actually this discussion might be moot because I typed in the ISBN number you gave for the book in an earlier post in the Google search box and it pulled up right away including the page 5 containing the graph:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xQW...page&q&f=false

Bob Clark

I noticed what you are speaking of---Thanks---I think I will write to the authors and just--maybe I will get a response---I believe that Dr. McLafferty has retired and Dr. Turicek is at the University of Washington--Seattle.

Thank you very much---Bob

[RGClark]

Nice article here that the search for past or extant life should be re-made to a priority on Mars:

Search for Life on Mars a Top Priority for Robot Probes, Scientists Say.
By Charles Q. Choi
Astrobiology Magazine Contributor
posted: 11 November 2010
06:11 am ET
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...fe-101111.html


Bob Clark