Author
|
Topic: Paper: Fossils of cyanobacteria in meteorites
|
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 09:03 AM
A stunning paper in the forthcoming March Journal of Cosmology: Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites. Synopsis: Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 09:42 AM
As a planetary scientist friend of mine posed on Twitter today, "If you found microfossils in a meteorite, wouldn't you publish in more prestigious journal than "Journal of Cosmology"?"Not to mention, wouldn't you expect NASA to hold a press conference rather than the paper's author handing the story to FoxNews.com? |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 10:44 AM
A tinge of jealousy? His work is to receive broad peer review. I hope the scientific community will focus more directly on the validity of the data and conclusions rather then the messenger. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 11:00 AM
To the contrary, no jealousy, rather a strong desire for expanded peer review and independent verification. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 03:28 PM
Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog writes: I'll be honest: my own reaction is one of extreme skepticism. As it should be! All things being equal, I would take news like this with a very large grain of salt, and want a whole lot of outside expert analysis; I'd like to see other biologists examining the original meteorite, too. Interestingly, the editors for the journal in which this paper is published understand how controversial this claim is, so they have asked 100 expert scientists to review the work and critique it. Those reviews have not yet been published, so we'll see; the editors say the reviews will go online in a few days.Also, I feel I need to mention this as well: in my opinion, The Journal of Cosmology has published articles in the past that can charitably be called "shaky"... However, this does not necessarily mean that Hoover's work is any more suspect than any other scientific claim! But it does mean I will cast an especially-skeptical eye on claims made in papers published by them. Others agree as well. |
arjuna unregistered
|
posted 03-05-2011 04:45 PM
Robert is spot-on. Obviously this would be a finding of profound significance, and it's something that we would all love to see confirmed, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The process of peer-review and external testing to confirm this kind of published finding is how science moves forward with new knowledge, and so it's designed to factor out possible personal biases/jealousies. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3118 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-05-2011 08:15 PM
I hope this isn't cold fusion revisited. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-06-2011 06:22 AM
Alan Boyle on his MSNBC Cosmic Log blog reports on the reaction from the astrobiology community. More than one expert wondered why the research merited any news coverage at all."Many scientists have examined thousands of meteorites in detail over the past 50 years without finding any evidence of fossil life," David Morrison, senior scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute at Ames Research Center, told me in an e-mail. "Further, we know a great deal about the conditions on the parent objects of the meteorites, which (not counting the few meteorites from the moon and Mars) were rather small, not at all like planets. "I would therefore invoke Carl Sagan's famous advice that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At a bare minimum this would require publication in a prestigious peer-refereed scientific journal — which this is not. Cyanobacteria on a small airless world sounds like a joke. Perhaps the publication came out too soon; more appropriate would have been on April 1," Morrison said. Boyle presents additional critiques by Rocco Mancinelli, senior research scientist at the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, and Dale Andersen, principal investigator at the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute. The latter writes: "I hope the public does not assume that this story is a certainty — it clearly is not, at least not at this point. Mostly, I hope the general public is able to learn more about the scientific process and the use of critical thinking skills to arrive at the truth and are not confused by an endless parade of silly articles that neither enlighten nor inform. Let the debate begin." |
MCroft04 Member Posts: 1634 From: Smithfield, Me, USA Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-06-2011 01:41 PM
From what I've read the Journal of Cosmology is made up of a bunch of people seeking to prove life developed somewhere other than earth and subscribe to one of my favorite tenants of pathological science; "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it". We shall see but my money is on these features representing something other than ancient life.
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2011 03:43 PM
NASA statement NASA is a scientific and technical agency committed to a culture of openness with the media and public. While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication. Additional questions should be directed to the author of the paper. According to Rocco Mancinelli, editor of the International Journal of Astrobiology (via), the peer review process was completed and Hoover's paper was rejected. |
SkyMan1958 Member Posts: 867 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 03-07-2011 05:19 PM
Rocco is a friend of mine (I even submitted a proposal with him some years ago... unfortunately it was not funded, c'est la vie). He is extremely competent in the field of microbiology and his research for years has been in the field of "crude" life forms living in extreme environments. I note that his statement says, "...I see no convincing evidence that these particles are of biological origin". I hold Rocco's opinion in MUCH higher regard than Hoover's, who by the way, is Mr. Hoover NOT Dr. Hoover. |
MCroft04 Member Posts: 1634 From: Smithfield, Me, USA Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-07-2011 07:33 PM
I'm still skeptical of these features being fossils, but there are discrepancies in the report from NASA distancing themselves from Hoover. They claim that the meteorites fell to earth 100-200 years ago, and that the microbes found were due to contamination from humans handling the meteorites. Any reputable scientist should be able to distinguish between fossil and modern microbes, so I am skeptical of the explanation of contamination. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2011 09:01 PM
Commentaries on the merits of the paper are being posted here. Among the commentators is Harrison Schmitt. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 05:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by MCroft04: Any reputable scientist should be able to distinguish between fossil and modern microbes...
The Associated Press quotes NASA Astrobiology Institute Director Carl Pilcher and Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, about Hoover's qualifications as an astrobiologist. Other scientists say Hoover, who has worked for NASA in solar physics but now bills himself as an astrobiologist, doesn't have the proper expertise. "Anyone can call himself an astrobiologist. That doesn't make it so," said Pilcher, the astrobiology institute director...For biologist Redfield, it was just another case of a scientist who's not a biologist tinkering in a field he doesn't know. One of the first rules for biologists is just because one thing looks like another doesn't mean the two things are the same, she said. "These guys make some stupid announcement completely ignoring all the rules of biology and then get all the publicity," Redfield said. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 07:14 AM
Another attempt to take pot shots at the messenger but no direct analysis of the data presented in the paper. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 07:28 AM
Pointing out a researcher's lack of expertise in a scientific field is not a pot shot, but rather relevant to the validity (or lack thereof) of his ability to draw valid conclusions. That aside, it seems that those cited, who unlike Hoover do have expertise in this field, have read the paper (both the 1996 original version and the revised edition peer-reviewed and rejected by the Journal of Astrobiology, subsequently published by the Journal of Cosmology) and have found it to be without merit. |
onesmallstep Member Posts: 1310 From: Staten Island, New York USA Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 03-08-2011 04:52 PM
I guess NASA was 'gun-shy' for all the right reasons, what with the reaction to the last announcement (by then-Pres. Clinton, no less) to another claim to fossils being found in a meteorite in the '90s. Until there is peer review, absolute proof from more than one source and reliable evidence, one can't go about claiming 'we're not alone!' yet. I'm sure Carl Sagan and the Mars lander teams from Viking and Phoenix would agree, too.. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 05:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: ...it seems that those cited
Cited where? The preponderance of reviews (inclusive of those posted to the link I listed above have been neutral to positive.) |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 08:04 PM
Cited in the media. A word of caution: if you are relying only on the responses published by the Journal of Cosmology, be prepared for a biased selection. The Journal's editor has a history of rejecting solicited replies that do not agree with his perspective. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-08-2011 08:45 PM
Not all are glowing, there are several negative reviews posted to that site as well. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-10-2011 08:47 PM
The Controversy of the Hoover Meteorite Study (Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology) Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. His latest official statement is littered with falsehoods. This is the same man who approved the bogus "Arsenic-life" story which was published in Science magazine and immediately shown to be untrue. Science magazine with its 180 editors was accused by numerous scientists of failing to have the "arsenic" paper properly reviewed. NASA has no credibility on these issues. Tremendous efforts have been made to shout down the truth, and the same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate? Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid. |
Philip Member Posts: 5952 From: Brussels, Belgium Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-11-2011 07:46 AM
Earlier report by Mr. Richard Hoover on microfossils in the Orgueil meteorite. |
Glint Member Posts: 1040 From: New Windsor, Maryland USA Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-11-2011 11:35 AM
Late response, yet hopefully better than never... quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog writes: "I need to mention this as well: in my opinion, The Journal of Cosmology has published articles in the past that can charitably be called 'shaky...'"
With all due respect to Phil, I think he misses the real point. That being, a hypothesis shouldn't be judged by where it appears. It should be looked at scientifically to determine what merit it has based on testable items, such as any predictions that it makes. Then if it is found to be "shaky" so be it. But to say that it's so based on where it's published, is very unscientific indeed. Phil should know better than that. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-11-2011 11:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Glint: It should be looked at scientifically to determine what merit it has based on testable items, such as any predictions that it makes.
Which is why pre-publication peer review is so important, and why its absence in this situation has been criticized. The Journal of Cosmology published a paper knowing that it had previously failed peer review. That the Journal invited responses from the scientific community after the fact is not the same as a vetted peer review process. That the journal is now acting as an advocate for Mr. Hoover demonstrates a bias that is inappropriate for a scientific journal. |
Glint Member Posts: 1040 From: New Windsor, Maryland USA Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 03-11-2011 02:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: That the Journal invited responses from the scientific community after the fact is not the same as a vetted peer review process.
Peer review is a subset of scientific analysis, not the other way around. Although generally useful with positive results, peer review has at times served a negative role as well, stifling that which does not fit an accepted model held in high regard by said peers, who then because of vested self interests may reject out of hand innovative new ideas that could lead to major advances in their field, but which would be much to the detriment of the paradigm on which they have built their careers.Galileo published without peer review, as did Copernicus before him. I'm not equating their work with the ongoing analysis and discussion of these meteorites. I'm only saying that peer review, if given too much power to use in protecting its vested interests can stifle scientific advancement. Where would we be today if Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium had to pass peer review from a panel of astronomers and astrologers of the period prior to its publication? How long would the acceptance of the heliocentric theory have been delayed if it were repeatedly rejected by the peer review panel for being out of the main stream? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 42981 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-11-2011 03:47 PM
Your point would be stronger had Hoover not sought to have his paper published by a peer reviewed journal.You can choose to believe his paper failed peer review because it was too far outside the mainstream, but past related-topic studies have passed and been published. (If they hadn't, the Journal of Astrobiology would be rather challenged for content.) Rather, it seems a more likely scenario that his paper was earnestly judged to be scientifically unsound. |
David Bryant Member Posts: 986 From: Norfolk UK Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 03-11-2011 10:43 PM
As a meteoricist (IMCA 1898) and cellular biochemistry graduate, I generally agree with the consensus that caution is always advisable when considering radical claims. But I have to say, looking back at the way that the promising structures within Allan Hills 84001 are still widely discounted by many 'experts', I won't hold my breath for an announcement from the scientific community that evidence of life has been found in any meteorite. |
MCroft04 Member Posts: 1634 From: Smithfield, Me, USA Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-11-2011 11:01 PM
Peer reviews are not infallible. But if sufficient feedback is provided from the peer review team that clearly shows the hypothesis to be incorrect, then the author has little choice but to concede. Or if the peer review team determines that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis then the onus is on the author to address the shortcomings before claiming victory. But ignoring the peer review feedback is questionable scientific protocol, and in this case adds cause to suspect the conclusions. I have not read the paper (none of my scientific friends subscribe to Cosmology) so I cannot add my opinion as to whether I support the hypothesis, but given the way it has unrolled I would certainly approach the author's conclusions with suspicion. |
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 4437 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-12-2011 05:39 AM
No need to subscribe, the paper is accessible via the first link at the top of this thread. |
MCroft04 Member Posts: 1634 From: Smithfield, Me, USA Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-12-2011 08:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by SpaceAholic: No need to subscribe, the paper is accessible via the first link at the top of this thread.
Thanks. I kept looking for a link to the paper and didn't think to scroll down. Tough reading with some typos but I'll get through it. |
David Bryant Member Posts: 986 From: Norfolk UK Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 03-16-2011 01:58 AM
On the subject of scientists making statements outside their specialism: it's worth reflecting that two geologists (O'Keefe and Povenmire) were leading proponents of the theory that tektites have a lunar origin. This was very widely accepted until a NASA-retained biologist (Harold Urey) ridiculed their well-argued thesis! |
MCroft04 Member Posts: 1634 From: Smithfield, Me, USA Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 03-16-2011 03:03 PM
I finally waded through this paper. Let me state upfront that I am not an astrobiologist, so my opinions should be taken with that in mind. But I have a strong background in paleontology and have found, examined, and identified many fossils (from earth). So here are my thoughts, trying to be objective.My first observation is that the paper needs a good editor. There are many misspellings and grammatical mistakes. For example: However, it shoud be pointed out that there also exist groups of ensheathed filamentous anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria (photosynthetic flexibacteria) possess a thin sheath and are capable of gliding motility. There is a misspelled word (shoud) and presumably a word left out (I think it should read "bacteria (photosynthetic flexibacteria) that possess..."). There are many more examples. Anytime I read a paper with these type mistakes the credibility of the author goes down. Granted, his/her interpretations may still be correct, but I am suspicious. Second, there is no convincing evidence in the paper that these structures are fossils of any kind. The author consistently uses phrases like "consistent with" and "similar to" when comparing these structures to known forms of bacteria. He may be absolutely correct, but such phrases do not constitute scientific proof. On the other hand, I cannot prove they are not fossils. But the burden of proof is on the author to provide clear evidence before claiming victory. I've seen many curious looking structures under the microscope that I had no idea what I was looking at, except that they weren't known fossils. There is one argument that could fall in favor of the author regarding contamination. He claims that the bacteria have been permineralized. If these are fossils (see paragraph above) then I don't see how they could be from contamination. Permineralization occurs when organisms are buried (in an anoxic environment) and over time minerals are added to the organisms pore space by fluids moving through the sediment or rock it is buried in. However, this normally happens to hard bodied organisms (e.g. shells), not soft bodied ones. But these meteors are only a couple hundred years old; not enough time for that to happen (based on my experience working with earthly fossils). If the soft bodied bacteria were from contamination I would have expected them to have succumbed to air and simply rot away. Perhaps I'm missing something here; if so I hope someone can educate me. I'd love to see the existence of extraterrestrial life proven (if it exists) before I depart from this world, but in my opinion this paper does not provide the proof it claims. Sure hope I didn't misspell any words or make any grammatical mistakes! |
328KF Member Posts: 1234 From: Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-16-2011 10:27 PM
Mel, thanks for posting this very educated analysis of the reported claim. Obviously you have the background to comment with some objectivity on the likelihood that this is in fact a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.Like yourself, I would love for this to turn out to be true, but when peer interpretation of the available evidence does not live up to the hype, I would think that the author would think twice before making such extraordinary announcements. |
rycar60 New Member Posts: From: Registered:
|
posted 03-25-2011 01:53 PM
Does anyone know where I can find a copy of this paper? The JoC has taken it down from their site because of "cyber attacks." I'd like to give a journal club presentation on April 1st on this paper... the date seems appropriate. |