NASA in a sticky situation over meteorite alien life report

[JonLP24]

Source: International Business Times



NASA finds itself in a sticky situation over the meteorite alien life report from one of its own. The report that claims that alien life was detected in three meteorites has sent shock waves across the world. The US space agency, however, is not very keen on associating itself with the paper by Richard Hoover, an engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

NASA formally distanced itself from the paper published by the online Journal of Cosmology on Monday.

"NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts.... NASA was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication," Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's science mission directorate, said in a statement.

Various scientists have also dismissed Hoover's claim that fossils of alien microbes born in outer space had been found in meteorites on Earth, citing lack of evidence.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/120008/20110308/nasa-alien-life-meteor.htm#ixzz1Fwio1ULB


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/120008/20110308/nasa-alien-life-meteor.htm

[joshcryer]

1. This happens ocassionally, someone previously associated with NASA makes some claim...

...and that claim is reported as being a NASA publication. Hoover is a NASA engineer, and did not get grant money to do his publication, therefore his paper is not a "NASA release," in any way.

[vicarofrevelwood]

2. Frightened of the religous that can't accecpt that life here came from out their.

The multiverse is awash in life.

[joshcryer]

3. Frightened in unscientific garbage actually being reported as a NASA finding.

NASA was happy to report the young grantee's findings about the arsenic based life form. But she got paid by NASA to do her study. And then her study has been found to have flaws. Science isn't as cut and dry as Richard Hoover would wish it was.

[FLPanhandle]

13. +1

[ixion]

4. exactly...

And the fact that a few microbes can send a 'shock' through our collective consciousness shows just how dim-witted we really are, as a species.

[Kurmudgeon]

5. Well, life is kind of sticky...wash your hands!

[joshcryer]

7. C'mon, NASA is not against reporting on alien life. Don't buy this garbage man.

They reported on the Mars meteorites as possibly having life, and the other example I provided. They even opened an entire field of astrobiology!

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/

:puke:

NASA is not afraid of fundies.

[crikkett]

19. Um, what?

Credible scientists claiming proof of ET microbes is huge news. How does that make us dim-witted?

[whathehell]

11. I don't think you can just blame that on "the religious"....Most people, IMO,

are just afraid of the idea.

[nalnn]

15. This isn't abut fear of particular social groups

It's about supporting a publication that hasn't been properly reviewed.

[whathehell]

26. Then tell that to vicarofrevelwood, post. #2.

[realisticphish]

22. afraid of bad science? nt

[whathehell]

25. Um, no. n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

18. I'm frightened of whatever language you're speaking.

[groundloop]

6. So this paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet. I agree with NASA.

First off it sounded just a little strange that an engineer would be releasing a paper like this, and not a biologist or microbiologist. But whatever, I figured maybe that engineer has a lot of specialized knowledge in biology. (note - I'm an engineer and have no qualms about admitting where my expertise isn't.) Now to find out this paper hasn't even been peer reviewed, NASA's correct in withholding it's endorsement.

[joshcryer]

8. The journal Hoover submitted it to was some crackpot web-based journal.

It was easy enough to see it as bunk but the news websites reported it to get hits.

[groundloop]

9. What also sucks about this, more fuel for right wingers to denounce NASA's climate change findings

I can hear it now, Rush Limpballs spewing about "how can we trust NASA scientists about global warming now that they've made unsubstantiated claims about microbes in space rocks". I doubt that our news media will make any effort to clarify this situation, they got a bump in readership/viewership for a day or two, that's all they care about.

[joshcryer]

10. True enough. :/

[sofa king]

32. My first red flag was the commentary section.

It was put together to create the impression that peers had already been reviewing the article and posting comments about it. But when I went to read them, I quickly began to realize that many of them were emotive arguments in favor of the philosophies of life originating in space, not nuts-and-bolts critiques of methodology and sampling.

Having said that, I will point out that the backlash against this fellow was conducted in the usual conservative torch-and-pitchfork way, attempting to kill the messenger by undermining his credentials and affiliations while avoiding discussion of the results themselves.

That exposes a fundamental difference between scientists, who are supposed to judge a paper based upon the facts it contains and the methods it uses, and conservatives (which also include some scientists), who decide in advance based upon the character of the individuals involved and the authorities who support or detract from them. Pre-judging a paper creates unhealthy skepticism.

So go read it for yourselves!

[Bonhomme Richard]

12. LOL, they would only say that God planted them there to test our faith. n/t

[Celebration]

14. The journal is peer reviewed

And actually has people from NASA on its board. :shrug:

http://journalofcosmology.com/About.html

[joshcryer]

17. I know of no "peer reviewed journal" that has "submission processing fees."

:shrug:

[Celebration]

20. It's a new model

I don't know--the board looks okay.

There are lots of new peer reviewed online journals, for the reason that many people do not want to wait months or years for their studies to get published. They business model for this is such that nominal, or sometimes not nominal fees have to be charged to support the journal. I don't think anyone is making big bucks out of this, but if you have evidence to the contrary I would like to hear it. I think all the new Biomed journals act in this way. They emphasize quick publication, online, avoiding printing costs, but the subscription $$ still don't cover the costs. They do have to be creative in trying to raise income.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/

There is way more good medical research than can be published in NEJM and JAMA. Also they take ads from pharmaceutical companies so they are suspect. (To me, that is more suspect than submission processing fees.) So the online journals of all types have come in to fill the gaps.

[NoodleyAppendage]

24. Then you do not publish in scientific journals. MOST require payment of one sort or another.

Typically the fees are for color illustration reproductions or reprints, but there's a fair number of well respected and highly rated journals that require a fee for submission. This is done in response to a reduction in subscriptions of print materials and increased costs to produce the journals. Also, many research projects, if federally funded in any way, MUST be made available to the public fairly rapidly. So, the journals are also losing money over this open publication requirement imposed by the government.

How do I know? I have over 27 peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals.

'Nuff said.

J

[realisticphish]

21. hoo boy

that web design doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the legitimacy of the journal.

[Posteritatis]

28. Nor does the fact that the article title linked to an Amazon book. (nt)

[Celebration]

30. heh, I kinda like it

Colorful. But it could be a great web design and still be illegitimate. Best to look at the editors, who seem well credentialed.

[villager]

16. NASA says, "no, we only discovered weather balloons on that meteorite"

n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

23. The paper WAS PEER REVIEWED and had MANY EDITORIALS

This bullsh*t from NASA is in response to their worrying that the Repuke Xtian Conservatives will slash their budget for revealing that, "Yes, there is no magic wizard behind the curtain of life."

Typical.

J

[Posteritatis]

27. Yes, because the guys who age the universe really care what fundamentalists think. (nt)

[Celebration]

29. Well, the paper is apparently pretty good

I don't think NASA is dissing it because of fundamentalists..........it more likely has to do with internal politics at NASA. Just guessing...........

[realisticphish]

31. or

it may have something to do with the fact that many biologists are calling BS. They're saying he didn't control for the fact that this is a very soft, crumbly sample, which can easily be infiltrated by terrestrial microbes. Aside from other stuff (which I don't have the credentials to comment on). I don't think anyone is really saying it's a scam, or a lie, or a hoax. They're calling it bad science.

He's not a biologist. He's an engineer. Now, that's not to say that bio expertise suddenly makes you better than an engineer at science. Of course people have found important discoveries outside their specialties. But when scientists step out of their often very narrow niches, it raises red flags.