"Has life been found in a meteorite?"

[marsbug]

....Putative microfossils in meteorites are unacceptable as evidence of ET life.

As long as they remain putative they are.

Not neccessarily damning - papers often get rejected by one journal but accepted by another. It does not mean that the standards of the second are lower.

I had at least one paper rejected by two relatively low ranked journals and ultimately acepted by a third higher ranked one

I bow to greater experiance, perhaps I am too quick to judge on this point.

[Swift]

Fixed it for you. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, remember?

That is not an explicit BAUT rule, and if it was, it only formally applies to ATM and CT threads, remember? And be very careful when quoting someone - highlighting is fine (though it should be noted), changing what they wrote to make your own point is not.

At this point, this thread seems to be a good discussion of the paper in question, with everyone batting around all the relevent issues, and it seems to be well within the special rules for the Life in Space forum. I see no problems with anyone advocating non-mainstream positions. If someone is concerned that another member is violating that, please report the post.

Thank you all.

[JonClarke]

As long as they remain putative they are.

The problem is minerals can take on the most extraordinary morphologies. People at ANU did some fascinating work on biomorphic crystals, examples are shown. They certainly would have fooled me!

After 40 years or more work in the Pilbara, not everyone is convinced that there is evidence of life in the oldest well preerved rock on Earth in the Pilbara, despute stromatolites and microfossils, stable istopes, biomarkers and trace fossils diwcovered by the efforts of scores of researchers. It is much larger in meteorites.

Maybe I am being cynical but I thibnk there is also a human dynamic at work . If you can't be the one who finds evidence for early life or bugs in meteorites or arsenic life, you can achieve fame by being the one who decries it. It is a lot easier.

Not that I am saying that this is the case here, I think the evidence is rather in this case is rather flimsy and the author has been pushing this barrow for some years without much success.

[JonClarke]

I bow to greater experiance, perhaps I am too quick to judge on this point.

The trouble is it is game. There is a lot of institutional pressure for many people to publish in high ranking journals. So more people submit to them, including stuff which may not be apprpriate. They can't publish everything and so more and more stuff gets rejecting. It does not mean it is bad, neccessarily, just does not meet the window.

The paper I am thinking of was about the Atacama, it first went to the Sourth Amerrican Journal of Earth Sciences (the most relevant journal I thought) and when rejected, to (I think) Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (my local journal). That rejected it too. I then though I would give it one last chance and submitted it to Geomorphology, probably the highest ranked journal in the field, not expecting anything and it was accepted immediately with only minimal edits (as far as i recall).

Another time some colleagues and I submitted a paper to JGR and it was rejected overnight (we did not pass muster as geophysicists. obviously). Icarus accepted it immediately however. Go figure....

Mostly recently I submitted a paper to an international journal based in the US of spring deposits which was rejected as not being of international interest (there is a pattern here, subjects from Australia are often not considered of international interest by US and European journals, whereas obscure details from the Ozarks or Bavaria often are). On the other hand Geol Soc of America are quite happy for it to go in a Special Publication as a Mars analogue.

It's a lottery sometimes, I tell you!

On the other hand, International Journal of Astrobiology (which rejected) is a much more credible journal than Journal of Cosmology, and they may well have been right to reject this paper. of course I am biased, IJA recently published one of mine!

[Van Rijn]

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".

Well, I do have to say I have trouble taking a criticism that starts with

No, no, no. No no no no no no no no.

No, no.

No.

seriously. That isn't to say that the JOC does well on this either (lots of editorializing and unprofessional sounding material there), but I think Myers should send a critique of the article to the JOC without the side comments.

[marsbug]

@jonclarke: My own experiance of peer review is limited to one successfully published paper and a handfull of poster presentations, all at conferences. What I found mystifying was that the paper was thrown together almost at the last minute, whereas one of the poster presentations began life as a six month series of experiments, I polished the write up for another four - almost to the exclusion of everything else. I was certain that this wasn't just 'a good egg', it might be a real (if hardly paradigm busting) contribution to my field. A higher than average rate of submissions, a large number from 'names in the field' saw it reduced to a poster..... so I'm glad to hear you say it can be a lottery!
I can sympathise with Hoover if he feels his hard work was treated unfairly by the journal of astrobiology - even though I seriously doubt he has what he thinks he has - and I'd have to look hard at my own reflection if I found myself bashing his paper just because everyone else was doing so.

[slang]

seriously. That isn't to say that the JOC does well on this either (lots of editorializing and unprofessional sounding material there), but I think Myers should send a critique of the article to the JOC without the side comments.

So PZ should change his blogging style just for this particular occasion? I disagree. I can't access scienceblogs atm, but as I recall he does raise some serious issues with the paper. And after his previous posts about Joseph's work, and considering the treatment other reviewers for the JoC allegedly got from their editors, I doubt that there would be any benefit in sending a critique by PZ to the JoC.

[slang]

Some Commentaries on Hoover's paper thus far, from JoC.

Illuminating!

Yes.. none of the widely cited criticisms listed in this thread. Very few comments from actual specialists in astrobiology.

1. The Origins of Life, Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Says nothing about the paper, references himself, goes on about Genesis. Not exactly a respected scientist either, IMHO.

2. The Search for Extraterrestrial Life, Michael H. Engel, Ph.D
"There are legitimate reasons to initially be skeptical of these findings"
Little support for the paper, except on some details

3. Fear of the Unknown: Do You Believe in Extraterrestrial Life? Definitely maybe!, Cody Youngbull, Ph.D.
"Unless you doubt Hoover's integrity or the instruments and methods he used, then the amino-acid set, isotopic ratios, and elemental signatures imply you must rule out the idea that this evidence of ancient microbial life in space is nothing more than standard biological contamination."
Duh.. So, IF he is correct, THEN he is correct... The methodology is exactly what is being called in question by some critics. Rest of the response is just metadiscussion, nothing qualitatively about the paper

4. Why Couldn't Life Evolve Independently, On Earth? Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D.
Whoopie! An astronaut responds! Except... he says absolutely nothing qualitatively about the paper!

5. A Critical Analysis: Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CII Carbonaceous Meteorites, M.A. Line, Ph.D.
School of Agricultural Science?
Generally supportive, but points to some weaknesses in the paper

6. Life from Outer Space, B.G. Sidharth, Ph.D.
International Institute for Applicable Mathematics & Information Sciences??
he says nothing qualitatively about the paper, except describing what it is about. Why is this person a relevant scientist?

7. Adjusting the Moral Compass for Navigating in a Living Universe, Saara Reiman
School of Social and Moral philosophy??
says nothing qualitatively about the paper

8. Did Earth Seed the Solar System With Life? Patrick Godon, Ph.D.
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Supports the conclusion that the paper has firm evidence of fossils of bacteria. BUT.. it might be stuff from Earth!
I wonder how he is qualified to judge the quality of a paper in this field. It's no easy stuff.

9. Life in CI1 Carbonaceous Chondrites? Martin D. Brasier, Ph.D.
Critical of the paper on several grounds

10. Bioinformatic Analysis of Cyanobacterium Nitrogen Fixation Genes in Support of the Cylindrospermopsis-like Fossil Explanation of Meteorite Microscopic Data
Todd Holden, Ph.D., George Tremberger Jr., Ph.D., Tak Cheung, Ph.D.
"Hoover makes a compelling case"

11. Microfossils in Comet Dust and Meteorites: A Vindication of Panspermia Chandra Wickramasinghe, Ph.D.,
Where? Missing...

12. The Discovery of Fossil Evidence of Extraterrestrial LIfe in Meteors
Elena Pikuta, Ph.D.
Very supportive. Ph.D in what?

13. Understanding the Emergence of Life on Earth
Rosanna del Gaudio, Ph.D.,
"I am not convinced that the bacteriomorphic structures identified by Hoover are fossilized bacteria"
But the paper supports her own hypothesis "Multiple Root Genesis".

14. Is The Origin of Life Really Alien?
Andrea Nani, Ph.D.1, Andrea E. Cavanna, M.D. Ph.D.2,
1School of Psychology, University of Turin, Italy. 2Department of Neuropsychiatry, BSMHFT and University of Birmingham, UK, 2Department of Neuropsychiatry, Institute of Neurology and University College London, UK
What!? Psychology!?
says nothing qualitatively about the paper

15.? What 15? Inflating the count?

16. Alien Microfossils? Criticism and Analysis
Paolo Pasquinelli, Ph.D.,
Laboratorio di ricerca sociale, Università di Pisa
Critical of the paper.

17. Discovery of Cyanobacteria in Meteorites: Implications for Astrobiology and Cosmology
Frank J. Tipler, Ph.D.
Department of Mathematics and Department of Physics
says nothing qualitatively about the paper
assumes it's true and rambles on

18. Extraterrestrial Life, Syntropy and Water
Antonella Vannini, Ph.D., and Ulisse Di Corpo
says nothing qualitatively about the paper
just that it seems to be incompatible with Genesis and evolution

19. Life Everywhere!
Pushkar Ganesh Vaidya, Ph.D.
Indian Astrobiology Research Centre (IARC)
Supportive. "I can see no reason to dispute the evidence indicating the presence of microfossils similar to cyanobacteria."

19. Let There be Life: Thermosynthesizers and Hoover's Meteorites. CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites Should be Tested for the Presence of Thermosynthesizers
Anthonie W.J. Muller, Ph.D.
Accepts the findings, then goes on about his own research

19. Our Cosmic Ancestry
Prasanta Mukhopadhyay, Ph.D.
Global Geoenergy Research Limited?
says nothing qualitatively about the paper
except that it's wonderful?

(Yes, they list three items 19. Supposedly the latter two should be 20 and 21, according to the index).

It is interesting how many of the responses cite papers from JoC associated persons (Joseph, Wickramasinghe, Sidharth), all very similar in style.

So, at least 3 commenters are associated with JoC, hardly independent. 5 or 6 are supportive of the paper, but it is not clear that they are qualified in this field. Many of the rest are just speculating about possible implications of the paper. Some of my notes during reading may be a little snide, I only saw afterwards that JoC specifically asked for such speculation.

[transreality]

Dr. Pikuta is an 'extremophile' researcher and previous co-author with Richard Hoover.

[Van Rijn]

From Lana Taos' response to PZ Myers' post:

Are you sure that is a response to PZ Myers' post? I don't see any specific comment about Myers, and that seems to be something that David Dobbs received.

[Van Rijn]

So PZ should change his blogging style just for this particular occasion? I disagree.

I didn't say that. I was saying that, separate from the blog post, Myers should send a critique of the article to the JOC, this time without the side comments. I was responding to the suggestion that the JOC should publish his blog post as part of the peer review. I don't see why they should be expected to publish anything that wasn't sent to them.

I can't access scienceblogs atm, but as I recall he does raise some serious issues with the paper. And after his previous posts about Joseph's work, and considering the treatment other reviewers for the JoC allegedly got from their editors, I doubt that there would be any benefit in sending a critique by PZ to the JoC.

Really? I can see benefits. Either they would publish it (in which case, the critique could be seen along with the article) or they wouldn't (in which case it would be evidence that their request for peer review wasn't serious).

[slang]

Are you sure that is a response to PZ Myers' post? I don't see any specific comment about Myers, and that seems to be something that David Dobbs received.

Ah yes, I wondered the same thing when I read that post.

I didn't say that. I was saying that, separate from the blog post, Myers should send a critique of the article to the JOC, this time without the side comments. I was responding to the suggestion that the JOC should publish his blog post as part of the peer review. I don't see why they should be expected to publish anything that wasn't sent to them.

Fair enough, I misunderstood.

Really? I can see benefits. Either they would publish it (in which case, the critique could be seen along with the article) or they wouldn't (in which case it would be evidence that their request for peer review wasn't serious).

That's what I would expect when dealing with a proper Journal, but there is already evidence they don't deal well with criticism*. I think it's already rather obvious that the 'peer review' isn't serious. Why does that general comment from Schmitt show in the list of comments, other than to profit off his name? Who are these 100 "experts" they claim to have invited? Who are these 5000 other scientists, their membership mailing list? This is advertising, not peer review. The page doesn't even link to the paper, only to Amazon.

ETA: *) On the web page containing the paper:

Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks. They are lying to you.
[...]
Have the Terrorist Won? Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study.
[...]
Why is America in decline?

Maybe the terrorists have won.

... and plenty more where that came from.

I meant to add a link to this review by Ian Musgrave on the Panda's Thumb. No doubt another charlatan and crackpot.
Life from Beyond Earth on a Meteorite, or Pareidolia?

[astromark]

Has this reached any form of a conclusion ?
I would not be the only interested party that has not the slightest notion of what is really happening here.
I see a exasperating level of intolerance for the ignorance of the masses.. and thats me... maybe most of us.
I do not know the detail of micro biology let alone micro biological fossil recognition... but want to know the answer.
Yes or No. Have some microbiological experienced folk found the fossils of what might have been what we call life ?
and please cut the snide and rude manner in which you respond to such ignorance. I asked this question a second time as after the first...I saw rudeness and arrogance, unacceptable.
Yes I have looked through the original paper re post one. and still fail to understand any excitement. I am also aware of the presence of a 'Intelligent design' component.
Has the question been answered or is this just wishful thinking ?
If the answer is Yes... why are the networks not screaming about this 'find.'
Trying to avoid the crackpot woo woo propagandistic nonsense... Mark.

[Van Rijn]

That's what I would expect when dealing with a proper Journal, but there is already evidence they don't deal well with criticism*.

Oh, I know that. I earlier linked to David Brin's experience: He was invited by the JOC to participate in peer review on another article. He apparently took it pretty seriously and sent in a very detailed review, and got back an extremely angry response. My guess is that, being a science fiction writer with a professional degree who had stories with pretty wild ideas, somebody on the staff thought he would be an easy reviewer, and it didn't work out.

There are plenty of issues about JOC that are pretty obvious indicators that that they shouldn't be trusted. Put it like this: I have just about as much trust in the accuracy of their articles as I have for a typical claim in the BAUT ATM section. I could mention a lot more things I've guessed about JOC, but with one of their people making paroinoid soinding statements, where I wonder if this person is emotionally on edge, and having a habit of talking about pursuing legal action every time they feel slighted, I think I won't be mentioning many of my suspicions. The JOC is going away so it won't be an issue for much longer anyway.


Anyway, I think that additional critiques for this article, if they have been done well, by someone who understands the field, really should be sent to JOC for publication. If they aren't published, that won't be terribly surprising, but it might be helpful information for people who don't understand the science, but do understand that ignoring criticism does mean something.

[transreality]

Yes or No. Have some microbiological experienced folk found the fossils of what might have been what we call life ?

No.

[baric]

ETA: *) On the web page containing the paper:



... and plenty more where that came from.

Wow, whomever wrote that is insane.

[A.DIM]

Yes.. none of the widely cited criticisms listed in this thread. Very few comments from actual specialists in astrobiology.

What constitutes a "specialist" in astrobiology, I must ask? In my experience, scientists who call themselves "astrobiologists" often have backgrounds from nearly every scientific field.
How do they "specialize" when it's most interdisciplinary?

It is interesting how many of the responses cite papers from JoC associated persons (Joseph, Wickramasinghe, Sidharth), all very similar in style.

So, at least 3 commenters are associated with JoC, hardly independent. 5 or 6 are supportive of the paper, but it is not clear that they are qualified in this field. Many of the rest are just speculating about possible implications of the paper. Some of my notes during reading may be a little snide, I only saw afterwards that JoC specifically asked for such speculation.

Right, they asked for not only 100 qualified reviews but also any and all commentaries. It stands to reason we'll see all sorts of response; it's quite the claim, no? I look forward to more critical analysis from independent sources, if they take the time. I fear it will go ignored because of some bloggers' commentaries and Lana Tao's PR, or lack thereof, skills; defensive, rather CTish, words are easily ignored.

[A.DIM]

Anyway, I think that additional critiques for this article, if they have been done well, by someone who understands the field, really should be sent to JOC for publication. If they aren't published, that won't be terribly surprising, but it might be helpful information for people who don't understand the science, but do understand that ignoring criticism does mean something.

I agree.
I think they should be put to it by other scientists who challenge Hoover and Wichramasinghe (the primary editor on the paper), test their meddle, their science, even if it's death throes of their journal.

[JonClarke]

12. The Discovery of Fossil Evidence of Extraterrestrial LIfe in Meteors
Elena Pikuta, Ph.D.
Very supportive. Ph.D in what?

Formerly University of Alabama and also has been at Marshall. Has published extensively on microbiology in the peer reviewed literature. Presumably has a PhD in a relevant field (biochem, microbio, mol. bio etc.)

[JonClarke]

No.

Yes.

Does not neccessarily make them right though.

[slang]

[...]

Wow, whomever wrote that is insane.

Thanks, buddy!

Formerly University of Alabama and also has been at Marshall. Has published extensively on microbiology in the peer reviewed literature. Presumably has a PhD in a relevant field (biochem, microbio, mol. bio etc.)

Thanks. How weird that they'd leave that out.

[astromark]

Yes..At this point in this discussion I would agree with 'Transeality' Its a Big fat juicy NO.
and as long as it 'can' be described as something else its not setting the text books ablaze.
I enjoy thinking about the bigger questions while the more mundane tasks overwhelm me...
Escaping to the Observatory tonight and alone...great.

[tnjrp]

What constitutes a "specialist" in astrobiology, I must ask? In my experience, scientists who call themselves "astrobiologists" often have backgrounds from nearly every scientific field.
How do they "specialize" when it's most interdisciplinary?

This might help:
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/

The question may have been answered there or else you can try asking.

I know that the University of Turku also trains atrobiologists but you can't major in it, at least not yet. Subject to change I'm sure if compelling evidence of even former alien life is ever discovered.

[MaDeR]

...

Sorrry for that. Lets try to say it again properly.

ALH84001 fiasco casted light on what can be accepted as proof of extraterrestial life. It resulted in consensus that multiple line of evidence are required, in spirit of old saying "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".

Putative microfossils in meteorites are unacceptable as evidence of ET life.

For me, cited above sentence suggests that such microfossils would be ignored. This is wrong. I say differently: microfossils claimed to be in meteorite in itself and alone on its own cannot be accepted as evidence of extraterrestial life, period.

[slang]

Anyway, I think that additional critiques for this article, if they have been done well, by someone who understands the field, really should be sent to JOC for publication. If they aren't published, that won't be terribly surprising, but it might be helpful information for people who don't understand the science, but do understand that ignoring criticism does mean something.

Rosie Redfield says she sent her critique to the JoC a week ago, slightly edited. AFAIK it's not published by the JoC yet.

found here: Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims, which also has some things to say about JoC peer review...

[Ara Pacis]

I like to read long articles like this on paper. There does not seem to be a printer-friendly version of this paper available on the J of Cosmology site. Even copying and pasting it into Word does not help because the pages come out incomplete at one side. Can anyone give any guidance on how to achieve a printed version?

Try copy and paste special. (It's available in a drop down menu or in the right click menu)

[John Jaksich]

Rosie Redfield says she sent her critique to the JoC a week ago, slightly edited. AFAIK it's not published by the JoC yet.

found here: Microbes on a Moonbeam: Disentangling the Meteorite Microbe Claims, which also has some things to say about JoC peer review...

IMO---despite her scathing criticism---the subject and research will not necessarily go away. The work done by Dr. Hoover is not amateurish-and she probably knows it--

Enough doubt could be thrown on her own opinion just as is on Hoover's work . . .

[slang]

IMO---despite her scathing criticism---the subject and research will not necessarily go away.

And it shouldn't. But it should be done right.

The work done by Dr. Hoover is not amateurish-and she probably knows it--

Where did she say it was amateurish? All I get from the review is that the paper is not good enough. Which seems to be the common thread in all critical reviews. The opinions about JoC's review process are a different matter. Several reviews I've read note the IMHO rather embarrassing (amateurish?) peculiarities of the JoC, but none use that to discredit the paper itself, some even explicitly stating that it shouldn't.

[John Jaksich]

And it shouldn't. But it should be done right.



Where did she say it was amateurish? All I get from the review is that the paper is not good enough. Which seems to be the common thread in all critical reviews. The opinions about JoC's review process are a different matter. Several reviews I've read note the IMHO rather embarrassing (amateurish?) peculiarities of the JoC, but none use that to discredit the paper itself, some even explicitly stating that it shouldn't.

I agree that the journal--JoC has been subjected bad submissions--


Correct me if I am wrong---?

But, the preparation of samples for SEM is not an easy matter if the amount of "sample" is not well preserved nor if there is not "enough" of it. To me it seems as if her review of the so-called work should take into account the full body all research done by Hoover up to this point on the meteors in question. She does state that she seeems to not know much about the study of meteorites . . .

Her credentials are not in question; it is her manner of (possible) misinformation on the samples in question.


To me at least, research is an ongoing processs and rightly so

and her way of criticizing the paper (to me) is a way to sell herself to as broad an audience as possible

IMO --It is always easier to discredit a work ---but the manner in which the criticism is done shows the type of professionalism in which the scientist engages in . . .


To me it sounds like a case of "bad mud" ----if Dr. Redfield can do a better job then let her show us?

[Jamotron]

the manner in which the criticism is done shows the type of professionalism in which the scientist engages in . . .

As does the presentation of the paper in question.