Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swiss Scientists Discover DNA Remains Active After Space Journey and Re-entry

Posted by Soulskill on from the when-you-land-on-a-planet,-you're-landing-on-every-other-planet-it's-been-with dept.

Zothecula writes: It may sound like the first chapter of a Quatermass thriller, but scientists from the University of Zurich have discovered that DNA can survive not only a flight through space, but also re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere and still remain active. The findings are based on suborbital rocket flights and could have considerable impact on questions about the origins of life on Earth and the problems of terrestrial space probes contaminating other planets.

67 comments

  1. Our astronauts will be relieved! by Steve1952 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, after 50+ years of sending astronauts into space, proof that when they return, they will still have their DNA. Send the news to John Glen!

    1. Re: Our astronauts will be relieved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha... It means that neil Armstrong's DNA didn't mutate

  2. Protected by thickness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not surprising that DNA at the bottom of a dried DNA drop survived. Now if instead they spread a single layer of it on the rocket, then the results would be more interesting.

  3. Contamination? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    [...] the problems of terrestrial space probes contaminating other planets.

    It's not contaminating, it's colonizing.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, though, what can DNA all by itself do? Several comments mention panspermia, but DNA doesn't reproduce.
      A virus needs a protein coat to get its genetic material to where a cell will reproduce it.

    2. Re:Contamination? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Your point, while partially valid, is nevertheless misguided. ALL viruses are specialist parasites. What you need to "infect" a planet with life is something like a lichen, bacteria, or plant.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And none of those things is DNA. They're all living cells, which this research was not about.

  4. Contamination by MagickalMyst · · Score: 0, Troll

    "...problems of terrestrial space probes contaminating other planets"

    The billions of dollars spent on the space program should be spent feeding starving people and cleaning up the environment.

    If we can achieve that, then perhaps we would be responsible enough as a race to reach out to other planets in our solar system.

    As it stands, we have absolutely no business occupying other planets until we learn to take care of our own.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re:Contamination by Ignacio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, but then we'd never get to space at all.

    2. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The billions of dollars spent on the space program should be spent feeding starving people and cleaning up the environment.

      Non-stick pans sure are handy for feeding starving people, aren't they?

    3. Re:Contamination by Punko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The billions of dollars spent on the space program should be spent feeding starving people and cleaning up the environment.

      Firstly, prove to me that any money diverted from the space program will be 100% spend on your items AND prove that spending this money improves the condition for the entire human race, and we'll consider it.

      Historically, we never divert to humanitarian aid at 100%, plus most times when money is earmarked for such programs, the money is siphoned off to feed pork-barrel local constituency programs.

      Secondly, why can't the two programs coexist ? The paltry percentages of the US GDP spent on space exploration won't make a difference if the will to do such work isn't already there.

      And finally, while I agree entirely that we need to be better stewards of this planet, it does not preclude us for investigation other locations, whether for scientific curiosity or for future human occupation.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    4. Re:Contamination by Njovich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what are you doing on Slashdot then? How can you spend time on this while people are starving?

      Shouldn't you be feeding people?

    5. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already enough to feed the starving people you mention. It isn't lack of money keeping that food from them. It is the people doing it. In some places it is strong arm warlords. In others, it is the "1%" you hear about. Either way, there would have to be a collective will to reorganize economies and kill certain individuals. That will currently does not exist so we are left with donations - many of which do not reach the intended targets do to either siphoning or direct theft.

    6. Re:Contamination by beltsbear · · Score: 2

      The war machine actually kills people, destroys food and crops and wrecksthe environment actively. Why not start cutting there before you think about cutting space program money. Oh, and the war machine takes 100 times the funding, so it is much easier to cut there then from the space programs of various nations.

    7. Re:Contamination by amias · · Score: 0

      hey punko,

      why don't you prove the money spent on the space program is 100% spent on the space program and prove that spending this money improves the condition for the ENTIRE human race ?

      what you don't like facetious questions ?

      --
      [site]
    8. Re:Contamination by Punko · · Score: 2

      I fully appreciate and expected the argument. I have no doubt in my mind that the human race collectively has been improved by the space program. I have no doubt as well that the money that was spent on humanitarian social programs also improved the human race. What I strongly oppose is the presumption that the elimination of the space program is required to increase funding for social programs. I know that the quest for knowledge has helped mankind (hell, just consider GPS alone). I also know that humanitarian aid has also helped humanity.

      the incremental budgetary gain on these humanitarian programs will not benefit the human race more than the loss of the space program. Increase the budget for humanitarian programs by as much as you like, but don't do it at the expense of the space program.

      Oh, and in regards to the where the space program money goes? The vast majority goes to salaries. For NASA, that would mean US based salaries spent in the US, which adds to GDP via the velocity of money. For "starving millions" I presume this would mean off-shore spending, and thus out of US GPD. How much of this money actually gets to food on the ground is a sad proportion, which makes thing even worse.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    9. Re:Contamination by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Try this one on for size: The money spent on space programs is 100% spent on earth.

      People see the headline "$800 million spent on Mars probe" and somehow feel that that's $800 million that was packed in a suitcase and blasted into space. That's $800 million that was spent on jobs, either directly or indirectly. In comparison, keeping the money in a suitcase or a safety deposit box is ineffective.

      And some of that $800 million gets returned in taxes on wages, and some of THAT tax money goes to aid programs. Putting the money in a suitcase would generate zero dollars for aid programs.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Contamination by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The problem with starving people isn't a problem of needing to throw more money at the situation as much as it is a problem of politics or power (e.g. local warlords preventing food shipments from reaching starving people so that the warlords can show how powerful they are). Even if you diverted 100% of NASA's budget to feeding starving people, you wouldn't solve the problem.

      When it comes to the amount of money NASA spends, the 2013 US Budget shows that NASA is only 1.4% of the national budget. The biggest portions of the budget is defense at 52.7%. This blows away the second biggest portion, Department of Health and Human Services, which stands at 6.4%, If we cut defense to 50% of the budget, we would save 34 billion dollars. That money could be split between NASA, feeding the hungry, and improving the environment and everyone would win. (I don't think a 5% cut in the Department of Defense's budget would hurt them much.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:Contamination by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Oh, and the war machine takes 100 times the funding,

      Hmm, NASA budget is ~$18B. Are you really suggesting the military budget is $1.8T???

      If so, you might want to reread the budget sometime. Hint: it's actually about 1/3 that.

      If you want to see where the real money is going, try looking to the mandatory outlays (SSA, Welfare, that sort of thing). Hint: Mandatory outlays are about 2/3 of the total budget (130x NASA's budget).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Contamination by gtall · · Score: 1

      Please explain you philosophy to Putin and ISIS. I'm sure they'll listen to you.

    13. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should privileged countries like USA, Canada, Russia, UK feed the starving (specifically Africa)? As if the people of Africa can live there for 2.5 million years and still not figure out basics like obtaining water, or that they should stop f@#king to prevent unnecessary population explosion... They brought it on themselves... in the same 2.5 million years, the rest of the world has developed space flight and these useless people are still chucking spears and murdering each other in genocide...

      f@ck them... Let God sort them out...

    14. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's $800 million that was spent on jobs

      Then it would follow that building refrigerators by the millions and dropping them into the sea would increase the economy, too. It will not.

    15. Re:Contamination by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's $800 million that was spent on jobs

      Then it would follow that building refrigerators by the millions and dropping them into the sea would increase the economy, too. It will not.

      1850 called and would like it's broken window fallacy back.

      Unlike building and junking fridges, going into space increases both our scientific and our technical abilities. You probably wouldn't have a PC today if the race to the moon hadn't happened.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:Contamination by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Another problem is that it's based on the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game. And that physical money is a good analog of financial money. Both are false.

      Another assumption is that feeding the starving is a reasonable approach. But population growth is exponential until a limiting factor is reached, and exponential growth cannot be sustained. Ever. So if you plan to "feed the starving multitude" you'd better have some plan in mind to feed twice that number of people in 20 years.

      Personally, I think we are already beyond the sustainable capacity of the planet. We're emptying the seas of fish and the land of anything we can't eat. At some point we're going to crash, and crash badly. It would be highly deisreable if at that point there were some self-sufficient colonies elsewhere. But we are, to be optomistic, decades away from being able to do that.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You probably wouldn't have a PC today if the race to the moon hadn't happened."

      Citation needed.

      It seems to me UNIVAC preceded the U.S. space program. Both Soviet and US military had quite a lot to do with computer development for defense reasons, and IBM had non-military uses mapped out. Yes, that was big iron. But the space probes were in no way of PC form; they were more like thin clients run from Houston.

    18. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your figure leaves out a bug part of the military budget including benefits for veterans, some medical funding and some funding for engagement that is not considered part of the main military budget. Although less than $1.8T it is certainly more than 600 Billion.

    19. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until you stop personally killing starving children yourself. Fucking hypocrite.

      The money you are right now wasting on internet access and electricity is evidence enough of that, thats a few hundred children per year you personally have killed by starvation

      How can we do anything BUT follow your own example?

      You feed the starving kids first, and stop being a hypocrite, and maybe - MAYBE - others will follow.
      Until then you are no better than a murderer.

    20. Re:Contamination by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think we are already beyond the sustainable capacity of the planet.

      Agreed. I think we passed it a long time ago, just like the point of no return on the federal deficit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re: Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Your comment might make sense to you but it is actually really pointless.

    22. Re: Contamination by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I suppose that communications satellites, GPS and terrestrial mapping don't feed a lot of people either.

    23. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternately, the billions could be spend on completely eliminating those who disagree with the notion that man doesn't belong in space. While you was whining about feeding starving people without understanding human culture and geopolitics you forget that authoritarian regimes like China are doing this. Those that dissent are silenced. So no you will never get your wish. You will either get to continue to make uniformed comments or you will be silenced by death or hard labor should we turn into a China. So do yourself a favor and find something more productive to do than worry about the space program. It isn't going away. You will.

    24. Re:Contamination by thunderclap · · Score: 2

      Your ignorance IS astounding. You do understand that darpanet was also involved in the building of computers.
      Integrated Circuits (ICs) were made possible by experimental discoveries showing that semiconductor devices could perform the functions of vacuum tubes and by mid-20th-century technology advancements in semiconductor device fabrication. The integration of large numbers of tiny transistors into a small chip was an enormous improvement over the manual assembly of circuits using discrete electronic components. The integrated circuit's mass production capability, reliability and building-block approach to circuit design ensured the rapid adoption of standardized integrated circuits in place of designs using discrete transistors.
      A precursor idea to the IC was to create small ceramic squares (wafers), each containing a single miniaturized component. Components could then be integrated and wired into a bidimensional or tridimensional compact grid. This idea, which seemed very promising in 1957, was proposed to the US Army by Jack Kilby and led to the short-lived Micromodule Program (similar to 1951's Project Tinkertoy). However, as the project was gaining momentum, Kilby came up with a new, revolutionary design: the IC.
      Newly employed by Texas Instruments, Kilby recorded his initial ideas concerning the integrated circuit in July 1958, successfully demonstrating the first working integrated example on 12 September 1958. In his patent application of 6 February 1959, Kilby described his new device as “a body of semiconductor material wherein all the components of the electronic circuit are completely integrated.” The first customer for the new invention was the US Air Force. The same US Air force that was involved with NASA in space missions.
      When NASA was created in 1958, the Air Force program was transferred to it and renamed Project Mercury. The first seven astronauts were selected among candidates from the Navy, Air Force and Marine test pilot programs. On May 5, 1961, astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space aboard Freedom 7, launched by a Redstone booster on a 15-minute ballistic (suborbital) flight. John Glenn became the first American to be launched into orbit by an Atlas launch vehicle on February 20, 1962 aboard Friendship 7. Glenn completed three orbits, after which three more orbital flights were made, culminating in L. Gordon Cooper's 22-orbit flight Faith 7, May 15–16, 1963.
      TLDR; the first use of Integrated circuits otherwise known as microchips WAS the space race.

    25. Re:Contamination by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Also, quit supporting laws that ban Homelessness and ban the feeding of the homeless. Finally, how much are you donating to the local homeless shelter? Not the Salvation army but the other shelter that doesn't have a corporation behind it. And How about that local food bank? Are you donating to that?

    26. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sesame Street called and wants its extra apostrophe back.

    27. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." ...Unless you were trying to be funny, in which case, you failed.

    28. Re:Contamination by amias · · Score: 1

      so NASA doesn't buy rockets from russia ? components from the far east ? raw materials from africa ?

      and all of them ethically sourced you say and all taxes paid with none of it going into tax havens ?

      and some completely unqualified assertions with no working , why you are spoiling us.

      --
      [site]
  5. When the rocket is standing on the pad by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may have been sterilized but a seagull can just fly over and poop on it.

    As the rocket speeds out the atmosphere, it must initially flatten lots of bugs against itself.

    How did anyone think we could send anything into space that wasn't crawling with earth-bacteria and other stuff, exactly?

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by fullmetal55 · · Score: 2

      in a word... Fairings - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      The seagull poops on the fairings (if it's even able to get that far, i'm sure they have cannons, falcons, and a lot of other usual bird removal methods at a launchpad, probably more than your average airport), the bugs splatter against the fairings, the actual probe/vessel that was sterilized before putting it into the sealed fairing, will remain sterilized as long as the seals hold. they are removed long before they get to the destination and become space junk...

    2. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can keep birds away, but frogs, not so much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by AikonMGB · · Score: 2

      Addendum: I don't know if this was mentioned in the article (yay laziness!), but most spacecraft are merely cleaned, not sterilized. Avoiding contamination is important for interplanetary missions, but not so much for something that's going to stay in Earth orbit or burn up in its atmosphere.

    4. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      It may have been sterilized but a seagull can just fly over and poop on it. As the rocket speeds out the atmosphere, it must initially flatten lots of bugs against itself.

      If you actually read the links, you'll find they applied DNA samples with specific and known markers to the exterior of the vehicle and then tested for DNA with those specific and known markers after it was recovered. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, once again actual scientists actually do know what they're doing, unlike random Slashdot commenters and mods.

    5. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did anyone think we could send anything into space that wasn't crawling with earth-bacteria and other stuff, exactly?

      I don't think anyone was under the impression that rockets wouldn't take material up with them, it was more the assumption that the 1000-degree C re-entry fireball would do a decent job of scrubbing the material on the way down. You don't really need to worry so much about what contaminants depart with your rocket if that material doesn't make it to the destination.

      This is apparently not the case, and that is why people are raising eyebrows.

    6. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Because it goes into a hard vaccum, and is fully exposed to the solar wind, ionizing radiation, and all sorts of other radical environmental effects that do a great job at denaturing life?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:When the rocket is standing on the pad by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that, fullmetal! I always appreciate it when someone lights the way in front of me!

      In restrospect, I didn't really think about my question because of course, engineers and scientists take multiple precautions. Those precautions may not always be 100% effective but they ARE there.

      Thanks again!

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  6. Quick by korbulon · · Score: 1

    Somebody make a shitty about it that's like a prequel to Aliens but most certainly is not a prequel to Aliens! [a-WINK!]

    Also: mother-fucking space cobras [80s metal guitar riff]!!!

    1. Re:Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There already is a prequel to Aliens, it's called Alien... and it was good, Ian Holm was in it, Sigourney Weaver, and like all good prequels, it came before the sequel!

  7. Junk science/reporting by phayes · · Score: 2

    So they use a sounding rocket and paint it with a substance including DNA.

    Launch the sounding rocket into a brief experience of no atmosphere & where some parts (but not all) of the rocket are heated to 1000 degrees.

    Then, after recovery, they scrape the paint out of recesses like the screw heads.

    Oh, gee so a brief exposure to no atmosphere, Zero G & no extreme temperatures doesn't destroy DNA? Who'd a thunk it?

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    1. Re:Junk science/reporting by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, lots of people since DNA is pretty easy to destroy using a bunsen burner. That said, this isn't all that impressive. Lots of handwaving and little actual instrumentation (did the temperature actually get to 1000 degrees near that screw head or was it protected). It does point out that even naked DNA on something like a meteorite could well survive the entire trip down in a viable conformation.

      That opens lots of possibilities such as panspermia.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Junk science/reporting by phayes · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Nothing in their test is new or surprising. We've known for decades that DNA can survive the environment in space and sheltered nooks on a sounding rocket gives no info on how meteorites moving much faster prove anything about panspermia.

      Junk science/reporting...

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  8. Very limited test by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Surviving the estimated 1000 degree centigrade reentry temperature is impressive. The rest of the test - a suborbital flight of 780 seconds - is less so. But I would have expected the seconds of heat to be more deadly to the DNA than light years of cold, so it's still interesting.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Very limited test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I would have expected the seconds of heat to be more deadly to the DNA than light years of cold, so it's still interesting.

      A light year is a measurement of distance, not time.

  9. Re:Rock-a-cock by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    This news story is as boring as the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey..

    I believe you are on the wrong web site for your personal proclivities. I suggest, perhaps, e! (or maybe Vogue, Elle or just the National Enquirer).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Chatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this chatter about how life here originated in space, and how all the water came her from comets, etc. But the elephant in the room is, if it can start out there, then why couldn't have just as easily started here?

    Hydrogen and Oxygen pulled by Earths gravity to form the oceans, and the elements and soup mixture to create life here.

  11. Radiation? by fullmetal55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    since it's a suborbital flight, that doesn't say much about deep space. sending it on a trip around the moon would be a better test. at least get out of the Van Allen belts and get into the cosmic radiation, before you can see if it actually does survive a trip through space.

    1. Re:Radiation? by Striktarn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This rocket was protected by earths magnetosphere which shields against charged particles and cosmic rays (known to damage DNA).

  12. Hominid Aliens? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    One day we'll find the answer...

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  13. Old news by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    DNA can survive not only a flight through space, but also re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere and still remain active.

    We've known this since 1961! Okay, it was well wrapped in meat and metal, but still.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, making the same joke an hour and a half later. You are on the ball today.

  14. Duh by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    How do you think it got here?

  15. Panspermia by realilskater · · Score: 1

    Yet another fact to support panspermia.

    1. Re:Panspermia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, because rogue DNA magically reproduces by itself.

  16. so to colonize other planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All we need to do is shoot our semen at all the planets.

    Now I want to be an astronaut.

  17. Not really relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing the efforts some scientists will make to bring early life to earth from space. Mere suborbital flights proved nothing. That's the equivalent of "proving" humans can live underwater by showing they can survive a couple of minutes submerged and holding their breaths.

    Surviving long enough to make it between planets in our solar system is another story, particularly when you must consider how fast they enter our atmosphere. There's also the solar flares during their long wandering. A sub-orbital flight is not only brief, it's heavily protected from those flares by the earth's magnetic field.

    And as for life arriving from another star system, there's the near impossibility of a life-laden body escaping one, the enormous time spent in route, and a catch-22. Move the object fast enough to get between stars in anything like a reasonable time, and it'll arrive, accelerated by the sun's gravity, so fast that not a fragment of it will reach the surface.

    There's actual a message in this madness. Science has never found conditions on the current surface of the earth that are friendly to the highly improbable creation of the first living creatures. Early on, scientists like Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, attempted to solve that problem by pushing the event into the ocean depths, conveniently removed from scientific scrutiny. More recently, they've attempt to project that first life upward into space, an equally untestable hypothesis.

    Perhaps they should just give up and concede that there's at least some validity to the Intelligent Design hypothesis. If they don't want to let God into the picture, they could pretend some really smart space aliens did it.

    http://www.intelligentdesign.org

    But then how do you explain the origins of those really smart space aliens?

  18. fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    life had to start somewhere
    we got actual evidence all way back to 1st 100 million years after earth crust cooled

    why are these nut jobs doing anything they can to say otherwise....

    ask your self that

    fact is so what , it may have mingled a tiny bit here but so ....it prolly has other places too...like space seeds...fact is it had to evolve somewhere
    and so far all we can say is at some point billions of years ago it did just that

  19. Less Atmosphere on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reentry into Earth's atmosphere produces high temperature.
    I don't think that entry into Mars' meager atmosphere would make so much heat.
    Ditto for the Moon.