Slashdot Mirror
"Water Bears" First Animals to Survive Trip Into Space Naked
Adam Korbitz writes "New Scientist and Science Daily are reporting the results of an intriguing experiment in which scientists launched tardigrades or 'water bears' — tiny invertebrates about one millimeter long — into space onboard the European Space Agency's FOTON-M3 spacecraft. After 10 days in the vacuum of space, the satellite returned to Earth and the tardigrades were recovered. The tardigrades survived the vacuum just fine, but exposure to the Sun's ultraviolet radiation proved deadly for most of the water bears. However, some did survive. The tardigrades are the first animals to have survived such an experiment, a feat previously achieved only by lichens and bacteria."
After RTFA /shock, the focus seems to be not on the fact they survived in space but more the fact that they survived being dosed repeteadly with huge amounts of radiation, without any apparent damage to the DNA structure.
I don't see any reason why a lifeform that has evolved to survive in space should necessarily be better equipped to then survive elsewhere - any species that suddenly transitions from one environment to a vastly different one is going to have a hard time surviving. When a species adapts it doesn't necessarily keep all of its old abilities as well as the new ones, otherwise we'd all be able to breathe underwater!
which is totally what she said
For most species survival of extreme conditions is not the same thing as flourishing. This is a very interesting experiment and does open up quite a few possibilities for future research.
If scientists were attempting to encourage beneficial mutations to make it more likely to survive a space environment this can be done on the ground, in a laboratory. It is not difficult to create a vacuum environment, bathe it with UV light and high energy particle and put a petri dish in the middle of this environment.
To me it all smacks of the comic book and recent movies of "The Fantastic Four". Superior powers and prowess does not appear suddenly when exposed to some variant of radiation from space. In most cases, biological life-forms either 1). Die, 99.999% the time 2). Mutate, leaving a sickly, short-lived organism 3). Mutate but in an unexpected manner.
Scientists have been doing this sort of research of a century. It is the basis of many vaccines. (live-attenuated).
From this we could end up with a bacteria that would tolerate a near-space environment like mars with it's much diminished atmosphere and non-existent geomagnetic field. But what have we accomplished in the end?
Can we say that we created a bacteria that contaminated... err, colonized a different planet? I wonder if the same thought was in the head of primitive man when he threw the first coconut stuffed with a note in it, into the Pacific ocean.
Tisha Hayes
Suggested list of headlines that do not suck:
"Tardigrades First Animals to Survive the Vacuum of Space"
"'Water Bears" First Animals to Withstand Exposure to Naked Space"
"First Animal to Survive the Vacuum of Space"
Come on, Timothy -- Naked tardigrades? I trust you can do better than that...
It isn't just selecting those that can survive in outer-space but those that are more able to adapt to changing conditions.
You do raise a valid point about panspermia theory, oddly enough: escaping life from an extraterrestrial source could actually evolve (or at least perform selection) en route to its final destination.
Evolution requires reproduction. It's hard enough for organisms to merely survive in space, let alone reproduce.
One serious question to consider is: should we attempt to trigger artificial panspermia? Is it unethical?
Isn't artificial panspermia the entire point of the space program?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Riiiiiight. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
I wasn't thinking of simple things like moving to a different island, I was thinking more of moving to a completely different planet, with different atmosphere, pressures and gravitational pull. Since this organism can survive in a vacuum that suggests that it may not matter if you put it in an atmosphere that we would find poisonous, but then again who's to say that? What if it doesn't stand up well in a highly acidic atmosphere? What if during its trip to space it changes composition in such a way that it is crushed under its own weight when it is re-introduced to a planet with significant gravity? I don't know what these water bears need to survive, but perhaps if they need sunlight, so landing for example on the dark side of a planet that doesn't change its rotation with respect to its current star would kill them off? etc.
Was just trying to point out that natural selection tends to make a creature better for a single environment, not all environments. I am not a biologist though, so meh.
which is totally what she said
It should be noted that just becuase this species can SURVIVE exposure to space doesn't mean they can THRIVE in it.
This species is capable of entering a state of suspended animation that renders it rather resistant to extreme heat and cold, dehydration and hard radiation.
It's been a long time.
Good point,
Evolution is not the process of becoming 'better,' 'stronger,' or more able. It's the process of being
more likely to reproduce in the current environment and is dictated by randomness. Any changes that have no
effect on an entity's ability to reproduce (especially indirectly) may or may not survive. Truly junk DNA
will change in a completely arbitrary fashion until it generates a phenotype that actually does matter to
whether a creature can reproduce (or in other means ensure the propagation of their genes).
It's important to realize that almost ANYTHING can contribute to the fitness function that determines whether
something's genes will propagate. If people think having four fingers is gross, people with four fingers will
have a disadvantage and be less likely to reproduce. No offense to people with four fingers. It's just an
example. The same would apply to any trait. For the same reason, if an ability was useful at one point, and
it no longer affects the fitness function for reproducability any more, it may evolve out. It may only evolve
out of some of the species.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
Not that amazing, it is a hardy species that can survive most anything... So if they are a successful species then why wouldn't they be common in your back yard.
Well, I think you could be legitimately amazed. Being able to deal with extreme conditions imposes a cost on a species in terms of the biological machinery necessary to survive those conditions. Under mild conditions, such species are often out-competed by less hardy species, which may be more focused on more efficient feeding rather than surviving hard radiation, for example.
In other words, specializing for the worst case often leaves you at a disadvantage in the common case.