Slashdot Mirror


Study: Martian Soil Has Signs of Life

geoffrobinson writes "Reuters is reporting that a scientist from Germany believes Viking probe data shows signs of life. From the article: "Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany, said on Friday the spacecraft may in fact have found signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the subfreezing, arid Martian surface. His analysis of one of the experiments carried out by the Viking spacecraft suggests that 0.1 percent of the Martian soil could be of biological origin.""

30 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Alien! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who are we kidding, he's gotta have privileged information. With a name like Joop Houtkooper, he has *got* to be an alien. :-)

    (Just kidding there Joop)

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Alien! by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps he works for the Democratic Order Of Planets.

    2. Re:Alien! by BJD3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      1. Move to Earth
      2. 'Discover' Alien life.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!!

    3. Re:Alien! by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, how much hout would a houtkooper koop if a houtkooper could koop hout?

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  2. Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Viking probe data shows signs of life.

    So the Viking probe data is ALIVE?!!!

  3. A lot of scientists thought so at NASA, too by tgd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This isn't anything new... A lot of scientists at NASA thought the same thing 30 years ago.

    When one experiment says yes, and one says no and you can't run them again there will be a lot of debate about what it all means.

    1. Re:A lot of scientists thought so at NASA, too by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If I remember right, the one that said "no" was later re-run in an Antarctic dry valley. It said "no" there, too. Basically it's lower limit of detection was too high.

      Mind, my favorite way of describing the whole Viking experiment situation is:

      The Viking Lander experiments were designed to answer the question, "is there life on Mars?". They landed, performed their experiments, and beamed back: "could you repeat the question?"

      --
      -- Alastair
  4. Re:Well... by chromozone · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I for one welcome our hydrogen-peroxide breathing overlords" You live in LA?

  5. Data by jshriverWVU · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Didn't the viking probes reach Mars in the 70's/80's? I find it fascinating that we can still data mine and extract information from a probes dataset from 20-30 years ago. It would be interesting to see how much data (TB? EB?) that was recorded from the Viking mission.

    Imagine what people might learn from data we're getting now from the two rovers on mars.

    1. Re:Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're kidding right? The Viking data is often held up as a prime example of data loss through format and equiment obsolecense. I'm surprised you hadn't heard that one.

      Around 1999, Dr.J.Miller wanted to have a look through the data and found it couldn't be accessed anymore. Most of what he did get was reassembled from old paper printouts that other reseacher hadn't got around to throwing out yet.

      Coincidentally, his research was another case of finding signs of Martian life in the old data.

      Here's one version.
      http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/50/502.html

    2. Re:Data by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lander 1 was supposed to land on July 4, 1976, but was delayed a few weeks. Lander 2 was just a little later.

      The Viking lander bit rate was low, and there was only comminucation when the Earth was above the horizon, and the radio bandwidth was only 2 MHz, so the data return was pretty tiny by modern standards (from the Landers - the orbiter data rate was consderably larger). My back of the envelope calculations says that the total Lander data return was on the order of a few hundred GB. (Also, in the extended mission, the data collection was slowed, I believe to once per week.)

      Of course, these data are still being mined, and are absolutely crucial to our understanding of Mars dynamics, among other things.

  6. Tubular by Climate+Shill · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mars is one big beach, so peroxided organisms are to be expected.

    1. Re:Tubular by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, where are the silicone based life forms?

  7. IF its proven.. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is proven to be fact ( and i dont think this really *proves* anything. Its still theory ), how is this going to sit with the religions of the world that truly think we are the only ones 'god' created?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:IF its proven.. by shaitand · · Score: 5, Funny

      'The Bible doesn't say anything at all about life forms on other planets. Intelligent life I might have issues with, but microbes? No problem there.'

      No worries, if it were intelligent life it wouldn't believe in the bible either.

    2. Re:IF its proven.. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bible doesn't say anything at all about life forms on other planets. Intelligent life I might have issues with....

      I'm an atheist. A few weeks ago, a Christian friend asked me, "When you look out at the night sky, across billions of light-years of interstellar space filled with billions of worlds we haven't even imagined yet, aren't you a little afraid that you might be wrong?"

      Your idiotic post made me realize -- way too late, of course -- that I should've asked her the same question in reply.

    3. Re:IF its proven.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, 'the world' DOES mean 'the universe' in some languages. Greek happens to be one of them. The most common Greek word that is translated 'world' is kosmos, from which we get our English word cosmos which means the universe. It is translated world because that usually makes the most sense in context, and sounds the best when rendering a thought in English, but it is not necessarily restricted to 'planet earth'. I don't know about Hebrew, but I suspect it may be similar.

    4. Re:IF its proven.. by cmowire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read the Catechism of the Catholic church, it states that "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."

      A belief in a God does not require you to contradict the Big Bang or evolution or anything else. Unless, of course, you think that it is important for a god to lie.

      What this leads to is that some fairly savvy folks in the religious community primarily don't want you to try and argue that because we descended from the same stock as the Bonobo it's OK to fuck like Bonobos... but it's OK to say that we descended from the same stock as Bonobos. This, of course, gets turned by the far-less-savvy religious right into an excuse to attack evolution.

      I tend to think that the whackos on the religious right has pushed the thinking person towards aethism, when a thinking person might had been a member of a fairly liberal faith or agnostic before.

    5. Re:IF its proven.. by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree which you. In fact what you talk about is also true of the deistic "Dharma" philosophy.

      Dharma, is the diestic philosophy, of the thestic "religions" of Bhuddism, Jainism, Siehkism, and vedism (aka Hinduism).

      Dharma describes everything (of which the universe is a part of) as a single entity, that morphs and forms. This "entity" does not have a "known" personality nor anything that can be attributed to human factors, and nuances, and we are all part of it. The universe forms, disforms, destroys and rebuilds. its just a huge never ending cycle. Life cannot truely be defined, as we only can define life as what we "know".

      To take your "men in black principle", there is a more readily available description of describing it. Our bodies are made of millions of individual cells. Each of them have life on their own, as well as a purpose. Some die after 2 weeks and are replaced, some live much longer, and are not replaced when they die (eg brain cells). Each individual cell may not be "aware" of the implications on each other. However, formed together, they make us. Our lives, our emotions, our being, as a singular compounded organism. With this in mind, there is nothing to say that we are not part of a bigger so called organism, its just that we don't understand it if it does exist, and maybe its not even REQUIRED to understand it.

      I agree with your views of deism can itself support science. Dhramic philosophy has never discouraged the pursuit of science, unlike it appears of Abrahamic religions (such as Chistiantiy, Islam). Indeed, thousands of years ago Dharmic "scientists" (of all the main dharmic religions) worked out things such as the fact that Earth revolved around the sun, that there are other planets, and indeed other stars, and galaxys, etc, even as others still viewed the earth as flat, surrounded by a "dome". One particular assertion by Dharmism is that energy and matter are the same thing, in that energy "clumps" together to form matter. Recent works on quantum physics, have agreed somewhat to that idea, including a recent experiment at CERN, where "energy" were accelerated and then "smashed" together, and for a split second formed "matter".

      Frankly i find all this rather interesting, and somewhat overwhelming. What we have is such a large concept, that is difficult to sometimes comprehend with our limited minds, and consciences. However, i woudl rather not go back to the "safe cocoon" of thestic views.

      --
      Have a nice day!
  8. Take with a whole shaker-full of salt by dontthink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our friend Joop has also published a lot of work on ESP and paranormal activity: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Joop+Houtkoope r&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search.

    I call BS.

    1. Re:Take with a whole shaker-full of salt by dontthink · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah shit, now Joop's gonna strangle me all the way from Germany.

    2. Re:Take with a whole shaker-full of salt by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how would you go about disproving the existence of ESP? Studies have been done (I don't have references handy, but I could go find some if needed), and have failed to find evidence of ESP. These studies have been repeated. How many would you need to be convinced that ESP does not exist? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?

      ESP is about as likely as creationism, and the people believing in it are using the same thought processes as the made-in-seven-days crowd. Science can disprove nothing. What it can do is collect evidence and give us likelyhoods. With no reliable evidence supporting it, ESP is as likely as the tooth fairy. You can't believe something simply because you'd prefer it to be true.

  9. Space.com article offering counter-point by Mundocani · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an article with some counter-points to this theory.

  10. Re:Well... by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, I doubt that it's Kathy Ireland posting on Slashdot.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  11. Democratic Life? by HalimCMe · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is clear that we must promptly launch an investigation on whether this "life" believes in a democratic system of government. If not, we should immediately impose sanctions, inform the public their WMDs, and begin planning a military invasion to begin approximately 18 months from now. If the terrorists possess oil and make attempts to trade it under the Euro currency, we must accelerate this plan, using any means possible to defeat this threat to America. It is clear this life poses a terrorist threat to America. We must preemptively strike against us before they bring their War on Terror to our soil.

  12. I worked on the Viking Lander project... by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked on the Viking Lander project (but not on the biology side). Before the landing, NASA published and sent around little promo phamplets describing what a positive (biological) response would be from each of the 3 biological experiments. (Along the lines of, add nutrients to a soil sample, get CO2 out, sterilize the next soil sample, add nutrients, get no CO2, that is evidence for life. No CO2, or CO2 with a sterlized sample, not evidence for life.) I still have mine in my basement.

    Each of the two landers had 3 biological experiements. All six worked fine. All six had a positive response based on the criteria published before landing.

    However, because the mass spectrometer detected no organic molecules (not one of the pre-published tests), these results were ascribed to non-biological causes.

    I could never understand why one of the biological researchers didn't just say, "we have detected life, by our published criteria, but we don't understand it." However, none did.

    Science doesn't always move in the nice linear fashion described in the text books...

    1. Re:I worked on the Viking Lander project... by Chemicalscum · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes I am a analytical chemist who had just started working with GCMS systems then, at that time Professor Klaus Bieman was regarded as an almost god like figure by those of us involved in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, the hyphenated technique he founded and he was a figure of great stature in the chemistry community overall. Dr. Gilbert Levin on the other hand was a scientist/entrepreneur little known outside the specialist area of environmental engineering where he developed the labeled release technique.

      The chemists were determined to prove that if their experiment couldn't show the existence of life on Mars no-one else's experiment could and they used their considerable pull in the academic community to influence the outcome of the debate.

      Also I believe Levin has suggested that there may have been fundamentalist Christians in positions of influence in NASA at the time who held deep theological opinions against the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

      He certainly seemed to be fighting against heavy odds. It not only

      has to be viewed as a huge strategic failure of the US space effort but also as a failure of the science community to work in the objective manner it is supposed to.
  13. Unsung Hero by Chemicalscum · · Score: 4, Interesting
    For years Dr. Gilbert Levin, leader of the labeled release biology experiment of the Viking project. Has been arguing that the experiment produced strong evidence for life on Mars.

    http://mars.spherix.com/

    In 1997 he presented a paper showing that after 21 years of study of the data he felt that:

    Objective application of the scientific process to 21 years of continued research and to new developments on Mars and Earth forced this conclusion. Of all the many hypotheses offered over the years to explain the LR Mars results, the only possibility fitting all the relevant data is that microbial life exists in the top layer of the Martian surface.

    The main argument against Levin's conclusions was that the Viking lander's Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) experiment showed no evidence for the presence of organic compounds in the Martian soil. As an analytical chemist who has worked in the field of GCMS since before the time of the Viking probes, I have my doubts about the Viking GCMS experiment having enough sensitivity and reliability to exclude the low level presence of organic material in the Martian soil.

    In 2000, Dr. Steven A. Benner published a paper concluding that the Viking GCMS was insensitive to certain organic molecules including those left behind by any microbial life that might have been on Mars. At the same time Dr Joseph Miller reanalyzed the original Viking labelled release experiment data and concluded that it showed circadian rhythms thus supporting the case for Martian life.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-life-00g.html

    Now Joop Houtkooper proposes further evidence that Levin was right. I think Levin will go down in scientific history like Wigner the proposer of the continental drift theory in the 1920's, as a researcher whose ideas were scorned by large sections of the scientific community at the time, but that were eventually proved right.

  14. Define "credible" by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So long as there are millions of credible reports in the field no failure to replicate the condition in a lab would prove to me that the condition can not exist


    So, you think science is something like democracy, if enough people believe in something then it must be true?


    To me, credibility is pretty much linked to repeatability. In order for something to be credible it must be either replicated or shown by a well-reasoned chain of evidence to be possible. If you report a phenomenon that (a) no one can repeat and (b) negates facts that we know both from the labs and from day-to-day experience, then you are in trouble.


    Reliability of evidence does not determine likelyhood


    Yes, it does. Ask any judge, any lawyer, any juror. Would you like to be convicted of a crime based solely on unreliable evidence presented by the DA?


    There is no evidence of a tooth fairy credible or otherwise


    Yes, there is. Millions of children have put a tooth under their pillows and found a bicycle in the porch next morning. What more evidence do you need? There's *more* evidence for the tooth fairy than for any other ESP phenomena.

  15. The Same Only Different by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Subject applies to both the analysis and the conclusion.

    Analysis at the time for one test showed negative, the other was inconclusive (not "yes").
    At that point (as Sagan announced) they were cautiously hopeful, since the tests looked at different things, and some forms of life could appear negative to one and not the other. The negative test was replicated in Antarctica and showed negative there too, making that Mars analysis also inconclusive. No idea what Sagan had to say about it then.

    It's unlikely life as we know it could be "based on" H2O2. It'd be far more likely to be based on water and highly tolerant of H2O2. The peroxide would come from ultraviolet from the sun hitting exposed water. I expect pretty much any exposed water (even ice, though the reaction would be slow) would have a fairly high percentage. But the water wouldn't be pure and so the peroxide would break down, keeping it at a low equilibrium. Life as we don't know it might use H2O2 for energy catalyzing it to break it down, pulling in more selectively from the environment or creating its own via an ultraviolet driven photosynthesis-like process.

    To exist in H2O2 living things have to be able to break it down, such as we do using superoxide dismutase. If we didn't, the peroxide would eat (among other things) the walls off our cells because it destroys the lipids that the walls are made of. Germs don't have this mechanism, and that's why peroxide is a good antiseptic. However, with nothing like lipids or their precursors to work with, any Martian life is not likely to have lipid shells. That makes it unlikely the have any similarity to Earth life. Even the (theoretically) first living things on Earth, cyanobacteria, have lipid-based shells.

    So, the news here is that someone's projecting a specific form Martian life might take based on the Viking data. The implication is that if correct, the Panspermia hypothesis probably doesn't hold. On the other hand, there can be a highly complex collection of compounds collecting ultraviolet, making and/or using H2O2, and developing more of itself via an endothremic self-organization process. Life as we don't know it might not be confined to a small, protected, self-contained module, but might be spread over large areas. It stretches the definition of life, but it's about time we do so, so we know it when we find it because "The thing about aliens is, they're alien".

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B