"Has life been found in a meteorite?"

[orphia nay]

Fox News (amongst others) has reported on a new Journal of Cosmology article by Richard Hoover:

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

The Bad Astronomer has addressed the article. I like his conclusion...

So, to conclude: a claim has been made about micro-fossils in a meteorite. The claims are interesting, the pictures intriguing, but we are a long, long way from knowing whether the claim is valid or not! We’ve been down this road before and been disappointed. As with any scientific claim, skepticism is needed, and in the case of extraordinary claims, well, you know the saying.

It will be interesting to see other scientists' comments. The journal claims:

Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.

Also:

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011.

Who's got the popcorn?

[John Jaksich]

Fox News (amongst others) has reported on a new Journal of Cosmology article by Richard Hoover:

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

The Bad Astronomer has addressed the article. I like his conclusion...



It will be interesting to see other scientists' comments. The journal claims:



Also:



Who's got the popcorn?

I don't want to sound like a complete Idiot---but you found a nice article

---- now my rant:
--(and my previous ATM thread on the subject only goes to show what a little money and resources can do to shred individuals with out enough resources to back up their claims)


it only goes to show that it is much better to play one's cards close to one's chest prior to announcing extra-ordinary claims ---even in casual forums such as this one?

[schlaugh]

So when I click on the title in the linked article it takes me to....Amazon.com? Where I can buy a book on Panspermia co-written by the author. Doesn't bode well for the peer review...

ETA: OK, snarky comment aside, the images are intriguing but my recollection is that these shapes can also be formed by non-organic geologic processes, as was argued for the "fossils" in the Mars meteorite ALH84001.

I also don't see any indications in the paper where Hoover, et al tried to falsify their hypothesis, e.g. "the filaments also resemble structures formed by such and such process, but we rule this out because..." Maybe falsification is in the paper but if so then I'm not seeing it.

[John Jaksich]

So when I click on the title in the linked article it takes me to....Amazon.com? Where I can buy a book on Panspermia co-written by the author. Doesn't bode well for the peer review...

ETA: OK, snarky comment aside, the images are intriguing but my recollection is that these shapes can also be formed by non-organic geologic processes, as was argued for the "fossils" in the Mars meteorite ALH84001.

I also don't see any indications in the paper where Hoover, et al tried to falsify their hypothesis, e.g. "the filaments also resemble structures formed by such and such process, but we rule this out because..." Maybe falsification is in the paper but if so then I'm not seeing it.

Despite my very poor form---he has done a good job--his papers to the best of my knowledge have been peer reviewed previously.

I would assume that "his book is a literature review of his prior works"

In my educated opinion ----he is no hack, charlatan, nor bad scientist. He happens to be a pre-eminent leader in Astro-biology.

And, I will have many "here" who will take glee in trying to disprove it.

[schlaugh]

And in fairness, the rules of the Journal of Cosmology require articles to be peer reviewed by at least two others. So let's see if the methods and conclusions stand up over time.

The link to Amazon lands you on a pitch for a book on Panspermia for $95. Maybe it's normal for papers to include links to buy commercially-available publications; it just seemed out of place.

[John Jaksich]

And in fairness, the rules of the Journal of Cosmology require articles to be peer reviewed by at least two others. So let's see if the methods and conclusions stand up over time.

The link to Amazon lands you on a pitch for a book on Panspermia for $95. Maybe it's normal for papers to include links to buy commercially-available publications; it just seemed out of place.

I believe I can understand a lack of what seems to be credibility---the journal was "overwhelmed" by some (?) nefarious publications--

You don't have to take my opinion----if you want --I can list the publications that I have in my archive ----he does tend to support ALH84001 even prior to you may have noticed---

In the end ---try to ask some of the others here?

[Hungry4info]

In my educated opinion ----he is no hack, charlatan, nor bad scientist. He happens to be a pre-eminent leader in Astro-biology.

That may very well be. It isn't him we are skeptical of, nor his authority, it's his claim.

[orphia nay]

So when I click on the title in the linked article it takes me to....Amazon.com? Where I can buy a book on Panspermia co-written by the author. Doesn't bode well for the peer review...

I hadn't noticed that. It does seem a bit odd, considering this is the first "evidence" for life elsewhere.

I'm off to search the article for signs of the author having any self-doubt.

[marsbug]

I'm skeptical, very skeptical. Thats the only appropriate attitude IMHO. I'm not qualified to pass judgment on the hypothesis, but reading the paper my immediate reactions go like this:

The author has made an effort to present real data supporting his hypothesis. That doesn't make it right, but it inclines me not to dismiss it out of hand.

I think his conclusions are a bit too much for the data he has - but to be honest I would feel that way about anything short of a living organism with 'from space' tattooed on it (and I'd be suspicious of that as being too good to be true).

If all this paper ever does is demonstrate how easy it is to reach the wrong conclusion in this field it is still a valuable contribution.

He is, IMHO, doing the right thing by opening this paper to general attack .

I'm not 100% happy that he used EDS (energy dispersive spectroscopy) as opposed to WDS (wavelength dispersive spectroscopy). My experiance of EDS in materials science is that it is sensitive to calibration errors, and has a large footprint size. I don't know what the current state of the art is, I'm used to working with an EDS that is approaching 10 years old now. But our SEM also has a WDS feature, and WDS is better regarded by many in materials science (my field). WDS is more time consuming, and EDS is a valid technique if done right, I would just have been a bit happier with WDS.

I don't think the author being a fan of panspermia ideas should be held against the paper - the paper has to stand or fall on its own merits, and because the author likes panspermia ideas doesn't automatically mean he's allowed himself to be predjudiced.

The SEM images are good quality.

This is analysis of putative fossils, and so there is a lot of room for debate either way, and I expect the debate to go on and on. The longer it goes on without the evidence being totally refuted the more credibility it will gain. I'd be very surprised if it is quickly accepted, nor should it be - claims of this kind should be pressure testsed harder than most.

Briefly looking at the journal of cosmology: they do seem to be quite panspermia oriented. That shouldn't be allowed to impact on critique of the paper, and as I don't have time to go through all their papers it would be unfair of me to even regard an interest in panspermia as being suspicious of the journal. Panspermia (at least some of its variants - interstellar panspermia is not IMHO) is a legitimate mainstream hypothesis, though IMHO edge-of-mainstream, so theres no reason it shouldn't be legitimate focus for a journal. Unless when I get around to reading the other papers they go 'wooooooo...WOoooOOOooooooOoo', which they may or may not.

Even so that would be a mark against the journal, not this paper in particular which could still be a good egg.

Thats my 2 pence worth, on first impressions.

PS: Yes the link to Amazon gets my hackles up. But still....to damn the hypothesis in the paper the logic and evidence in the paper itself are what must be attacked.

[baric]

Anything from the Journal of Cosmology sets off major alarm bells in my head. Approach with extreme skepticism.

[gsup1]

I scanned the paper quickly and the first thing that strikes me is why they have not shown the negative control image of the moon dust samples and silicon wafers. They mentioned it in the paragraph right before the Section 3 starts. Doesn't one need to show the image of what is devoid of life in order to make qualitative comparisons? I am not a material scientist so can anyone address this?

[marsbug]

Thats not a materials science question, its a biology ( and micro-paleantology) question - but its a good point; a comparison shot of similar materials known to be devoid of biological relics, abiotic structures that can look similar, confirmed microfossils of the species they are discussing, and live examples of those species would have been good.

However it wouldn't address the main criticism of all images purported to show microfossils in meteroites: because it looks like a microbe, even nearly identical in a comparison shot like I described above, doesn't mean it ever was one! Abiotic mechanisms can produce very similar structures.

The compositional data they supply goes some way towards addressing this. After some more thought I don't think (despite haveing read some more on the journal of cosmology and yes it looks like it could be as bad as suggested above) this is strictly bad science.... but not brilliant science either and thats what I'd need supporting such a bold conclusion.

For me the falling down is that while the evidence presented is interesting and even slightly suggestive, and the author hasn't done anything really wrong (to my very limited understanding of this field), he still hasn't done enough to convince me.

I'd be interested to see if, with enough funding, someone could though.

Edit: PS I wouldn't bet on him being able to find the evidence needed to convince a really skeptical audience, but I think theres enough here to justify a closer look at these structures.

[marsbug]

Does anyone know of papers by the same author in a better respected journal?

[centsworth_II]

The following are from the reference section of this report. I haven't checked them out.


Hoover, Richard B., Hoyle, Fred, Wickramasinghe, N. C., Hoover, Miriam J. and Al-Mufti, S.,
“Diatoms on Earth, Comets, Europa, and in Interstellar Space,” Earth, Moon, and Planets, 35,
19-45, 1986a.

Hoover, Richard B., Hoyle, Fred, Wallis, M. K., and Wickramasinghe, N. C., “Can Diatoms
Live on Cometary Ice?” in Asteroids, Comets and Meteors II., Proceedings of Meeting at
Astronomical Observatory of Uppsala University, June, 1985, (C. I. Lagerkvist, Ed.), pp. 359-
352, 1986b.

Hoover, Richard B. and Gilichinsky, David, “Significance to Astrobiology of Microorganisms in
Permafrost and Ice,” in Permafrost Response on Economic Development, Environmental
Security and Natural Resource Potential, NATO-ARW held in NOVOSIBIRSK, SIBERIA, 12-
16 Nov. 1998. (Roland Paepe, Ed.) Klewer Publishing, New York, 553-580 (2001).

Hoover, Richard B., Pikuta, Elena V., Bej, Asim K., Marsic, Damien, Whitman, William B.,
Tang, Jane, and Krader, Paul. “Spirochaeta americana sp. nov., a new haloalkaliphilic,
obligately anaerobic spirochaete isolated from soda Mono Lake in California.” Int J Syst Evol
Microbiol 53, 815-821, (2003).

Hoover, R. B. and Rozanov, A. Yu., “Microfossils, Biominerals and Chemical Biomarkers in
Meteorites.” in Perspectives in Astrobiology, Vol. 366, NATO Science Series: Life and Behavioural
Sciences, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1-18, 2005.

Hoover, R. B., “Fossils of Prokaryotic microorganisms in the Orgueil meteorite,” Instruments, Methods,
and Missions for Astrobiology IX, Proc. SPIE 6309, 630902:1-17 (2006).

Hoover, Richard B., Pikuta, Elena V., Townsend, Alisa, Anthony, Joshua, Guisler, Melissa,
McDaniel, Jasmine, Bej, Asim and Storrie-Lombardi, Michael, Microbial Extremophiles from
the 2008 Schirmacher Oasis Expedition: Preliminary Results, SPIE 7097, 70970L1-12, (2008).

Hoover, R. B. (2007). “Comets, carbonaceous meteorites, and the origin of the Biosphere.” In Biosphere
Origin and Evolution (N. Dobretsov, N. Kolchanov, and A. Rozanov, Eds.), Springer, New York, 55-69
(2008).

[centsworth_II]

Richard Hoover has a bunch of stuff published by this group of journals.

[Canis Lupus]

Only 14 posts thus far - a little surprising? Potentially one of the the biggest stories ever. Great to see a scientist willing to subject his work to the rigours of such large scale scrutiny - not that he could avoid it with such an extraordinary claim.

Fingers crossed he is correct - that's my scientific contribution to the discussion.

Edit: ok a 15th came along while I was typing, and then there was mine also, making 16. So, that's more like it.

[Jamotron]

Potentially one of the the biggest stories ever.

Extremely unlikely. Taking the whole situation with journal and authors in to account it seems like a poorly put together cry for attention.

Great to see a scientist willing to subject his work to the rigours of such large scale scrutiny

Aren't all publishing scientists like this? Publishing a paper in any major journal for surely submits oneself to a lot of scrutiny.

[marsbug]

Thanks centsworth

[Infinitenight2093]

Only 14 posts thus far - a little surprising? Potentially one of the the biggest stories ever. Great to see a scientist willing to subject his work to the rigours of such large scale scrutiny - not that he could avoid it with such an extraordinary claim.

Fingers crossed he is correct - that's my scientific contribution to the discussion.

Edit: ok a 15th came along while I was typing, and then there was mine also, making 16. So, that's more like it.

Agreed.

[transreality]

The bloggers are on it.

PZ Myers has a go at the paper

the JoC publicist responds

A common comment of reviewers is it is not really in their field so they don't feel confident to make criticism. Panspermia seems to have profited by exploiting a crack between biological and astronomical disciplenes. Perhaps this crack has just closed up.

[Ara Pacis]

Well, evidence and proof are two different things. Maybe he should try to bring them back to life, maybe create a theme park out of it.

[baric]

The bloggers are on it.

PZ Myers has a go at the paper

the JoC publicist responds

As evidenced by that last link and Ms. Tao's much earlier appearance in the "Journal of Cosmology" thread on BAUT, perhaps they would have been better served by a different publicist.

[Van Rijn]

And in fairness, the rules of the Journal of Cosmology require articles to be peer reviewed by at least two others. So let's see if the methods and conclusions stand up over time.

The article should stand or fall on its own merits, but since you brought it up, you might want to read this:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....39#post1790939

where I linked to an article by David Brin, where he talks about what happened when he reviewed an article at the request of the JOC, and the reaction he received from others at JOC when he pointed out issues he found in the article.

Or you might read this:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology4.html

which is an anti-Big Bang article on JOC written by someone who doesn't appear to have a good understanding of the mainstream cosmology he's arguing against.

In short, there is good reason to question the value of JOC peer review.

[Van Rijn]

Here's a post at MSNBC on this paper. It also includes a number of links to other pages on the subject:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...y-stirs-debate

The BA has a post on it:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...n-a-meteorite/

I thought this post had a number of interesting points:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/...meteorite.html

The conclusion:

The Ivuna meteorite sample showed a couple of micron-scale squiggles, one of which contained about 2.5-fold more carbon than the background. One of the five Orguil samples had at least one patch of clustered fibers; these contained more sulfur and magnesium than the background, and less silicon. As evidence for life this is pathetic, no better than that presented by McKay's group for the ALH84001 Martian meteorite in 1996.

[orphia nay]

From Lana Taos' response to PZ Myers' post:

"9) We have repeatedly offered to publish critical commentary. We are still waiting."

So they're not going to post the criticism of the most famous science blogger in the world? They're going to fixate on his minor issue with the journal's credibility and ignore his many problems with the "science" in the paper?

Not a good start to the "biggest peer review in history".

[chrlzs]

A small side issue - does anyone recall some electron-micrographs published back (~2 years back?) when a similar claim was made (not sure which one), showing similar but earthly, and non-life-derived, structures? Am I misremembering?

Sorry I'm being so vague, but I can't find the images (if they exist) on the search terms that immediately occurred to me. So maybe I'm hallucinating...

[tnjrp]

Maybe you are thinking of Hoover's previous paper on the subject?
http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/collo...7/rhoover.html

[marsbug]

A common comment of reviewers is it is not really in their field so they don't feel confident to make criticism. Panspermia seems to have profited by exploiting a crack between biological and astronomical disciplenes. Perhaps this crack has just closed up.

We can hope that that much good at least will come out of this. JoC say they invited 100 scientists to write critical reviews - have they said who?

Edit: Mooching about the intenet there are a lot of well thought out and pretty damning criticisms going around especially over the lack of control samples and the elephant in the room of 150 year old samples exposed to Earths atmosphere being used. But there are also a lot of circular logic criticisms along the lines of: 'this isn't be evidence of meteorite life because evidence of meteorite life would have to be squished and crushed up and these objects are intact enough to be used as evidence' and 'these aren't evidence of panspermia because they are in a meteorite and everyone knows meteroites are uninhabitable'. Theres also a lot of criticism by people who confess to knowing little about microfossils, SEM or EDS on Hoovers use of SEM and EDS to study these 'microfossils'.

Its kinda depressing that so many skeptics seem to make the same mistakes JoC makes (circular logic, being badly informed on what is being criticised, presenting opinion as fact)* . This kind of criticism only adds fuel to the fires of the 'they're all against us and wont give us a fair chance' attitude JoC obviously feels.

A lovely critiscism of Chandra Wickramasinghe from RRResearch:

' He argued like a lawyer - his only goal seemed to be convincing the audience that his conclusion was correct, regardless of the contrary evidence that an unbiased consideration of the evidence would provider'

Although the rest of the article wasn't the kind of reasoned and well informed (and hence much more effective) attack I'm hoping the '100 scientists invited to publish criticism' will provide.

* I know: dumb me for listening too hard to the 'net scuttlebut.

[marsbug]

As RRResearch is written by a microbiologist I ought to be clear why I'm not satisfied with her criticism: on points of contamination, lack of controls, and generally less than amazing method she's on the money. But by her own admission she's neither an expert on microfossils nor very familiar with the tehcnques used to analyse the composition of these 'microfossils'. I'm hoping to read a critical review by someone who is working in the field of microfossils and has more experience of EDS and FESEM - for me that would put this to bed, and I'm hoping someone at JoC has had the courage to put at least a few people like that on their list of 100 invited scientists. Although the more I learn about JoC the less hopefull I'm getting TBH.

[tnjrp]

Finnish astrobiologist Harry Lehto was interviewed today on the subject for the net version of the astronomy magazine Tähdet ja avaruus. He appeared to broadly agree with Redfield's concerns although he doesn't comment on the publication like for example PZ Myers.