LIKE most of us, William Schopf was flabbergasted when he heard in August
1996 that NASA scientists claimed to have found evidence for ancient life on
Mars in an obscure meteorite.
But it was not merely the magnitude of the claim that amazed Schopf, a
palaeobiologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. When he was
let in on the secret several weeks before the news broke, it was a case of
d茅j脿 vu. More than a year earlier, a NASA team led by David
McKay of the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown Schopf over to look at
some strange orange and black blobs in a chunk of rock chipped from the surface
of Mars.
鈥淭hey thought that these might be shells of Martian protozoa,鈥� Schopf
recalls. 鈥淏ut the size range was wrong, and some discs merged together. You
never find that on true fossils.鈥� Eventually, he convinced McKay that the blobs
were not ancient microorganisms.
Advertisement
So when he received a draft paper from McKay鈥檚 team, due to be published in
Science, Schopf was surprised to see that the blobs had turned up
again. 鈥淏ut instead of being fossil protozoan shells, they were bacterially
precipitated minerals,鈥� he says. 鈥淚t always sort of troubled me. They really had
decided, one way or the other, that there was life.鈥�
Schopf remains troubled, and he is not alone. 快猫短视频s now working on
meteorites, prospective missions to Mars and the possibility of extraterrestrial
life are funded at levels that two years ago would have been unimaginable. Had
NASA鈥檚 publicity machine not turned McKay鈥檚 paper into a global media event,
this largesse would never have been granted. Some researchers see it as a
victory of hype over science. They see a tale of a government agency that took
inconclusive evidence and used the media to help it win public funds. And some
feel uncomfortable about the Faustian bargain they have made by accepting their
share of the proceeds.
The source of all the fuss is a lump of rock called ALH84001 that was found
in Antarctica. McKay and his team looked at carbonate deposits in its fissures.
Employing the chemical expertise of Richard Zare of Stanford
University鈥攚ho was initially unaware that the rock was from
Mars鈥擬cKay鈥檚 team concluded that it contained organic chemicals and
magnetite crystals that were consistent with their formation by bacteria. The
researchers even thought they saw tiny 鈥渘anofossils鈥�. Science
eventually agreed to publish their paper in its 16 August 1996 issue (vol 273, p
924).
McKay鈥檚 work then fired the enthusiasm of Dan Goldin, the head of NASA.
鈥淕oldin had been a huge proponent of the search for life elsewhere in the
Universe,鈥� says Ralph Harvey, a geologist at Case Western Reserve University in
Cleveland, Ohio. When Goldin was briefed about the research, he was delighted.
鈥淗e gave me a big bear hug,鈥� says McKay.
But turning science into headlines that might boost funding for Goldin鈥檚 pet
projects was never going to be easy. The first obstacle came from the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes
Science. Documents obtained by 快猫短视频 show that NASA wanted
to bring forward the publication date by a week, to 9 August 1996, to enhance
media coverage. 鈥淵ou mentioned that the Republican National Convention will be
occurring during the week of August 12 and could have an impact on coverage of
the Mars story,鈥� reads a letter from the AAAS press office to its NASA
counterpart, dated 31 July. But Science stuck to its schedule.
In the end, NASA got what it wanted by another route. Leonard David, a
correspondent for Space News who had been picking up rumours about
ALH84001, received a telephone call from an unnamed source who dropped vague
hints. David revealed what he knew about the meteorite in the 5 August edition
of Space News. Within hours of the story appearing, other news
organisations had picked up on it. The next day McKay鈥檚 team, together with
Schopf鈥攊ncluded as a sceptic鈥攚ere asked by NASA to fly to Washington
DC for a press conference.
In their Science paper, McKay and his colleagues were careful not to
claim to have found definitive evidence of Martian life. They were equally
cautious at a trial run of the press conference, held on 7 August. But others
present say NASA officials wanted the scientists to be more enthusiastic.
McKay insists that he was merely told to 鈥渟peak up, speak clearly, and put
projection into it鈥�. But Schopf recalls Laurie Boeder, then a NASA spokesman,
asking for the tone to be much more positive. Boeder denies trying to influence
the scientists鈥� tone. 鈥淚 recall what I did say was if you feel enthusiastic
about something, you should communicate it.鈥� Zare, however, says that Goldin
himself tried to strengthen McKay鈥檚 language. According to one source, the NASA
chief told McKay not to 鈥渨imp out鈥濃�攁 phrase 快猫短视频 asked
Zare to confirm: 鈥淚鈥檓 not denying [that], but I鈥檓 not confirming it either.鈥�
NASA officials deny the allegation.
When the press conference got under way later that day, the researchers did
not wimp out. 鈥淭he evidence is pointing toward biologic activity in early Mars,鈥�
McKay declared. While Schopf was included as a sceptic, he believes his views
were never likely to get across. For instance, he had not been shown two of the
photographs produced at the conference. 鈥淭hey sandbagged me,鈥� he says. He also
resents the fact that there was no scale on the photographs. This would have
told reporters that the 鈥渂acteria鈥� were much smaller than any known living
organism, indicating that some of the evidence for life was not clear-cut.
Reporters might have explored this issue鈥攇iven enough time. If the AAAS
had been allowed to follow its normal procedure, reporters would have received a
copy of the paper one week before the agreed date at which media coverage could
start. But in the rush to meet their deadlines after NASA鈥檚 press conference,
reporters had little time to study the evidence. Even as he spoke to the
assembled media, Zare was worried about his results being hyped. 鈥淚 was against
the press conference,鈥� he says. Boeder says that NASA did not try to hide
anything. 鈥淲hether there was a political or strategic importance was beside the
point. We were concerned with the presentation of the paper in a credible,
responsible way.鈥�
Since then, a succession of analyses has undermined the case for life in
ALH84001. The scientific consensus now is that the meteorite provides no
convincing evidence for life on Mars. But the possibility of extraterrestrial
life still lingers in the public consciousness, and cash has flowed into NASA鈥檚
astrobiology programme鈥攊ts annual budget is set to grow from $9
million this year to between $15 and $20 million next year, and
possibly as high as $100 million after that. According to Wes Huntress,
NASA鈥檚 associate administrator for space science: 鈥淚鈥檝e never done the
accounting, but if you integrate over ten years, it increased funding probably
by 50 per cent.鈥� Harvey says: 鈥淲hether or not it turns out to be bunk, it鈥檚 done
its job.鈥�
Ironically, many of the most vocal critics of the life on Mars hypothesis
have benefited from the funding. That leaves them torn between their natural
inclination to support any action that boosts their area of research, and their
distaste at the way NASA achieved this end. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a smouldering, angry spot in
scientists鈥� minds,鈥� says John Bradley, a meteorite expert at the Georgia
Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
Bradley has been left wondering whether scientific integrity is an inevitable
casualty of the need to attract funding for space research. 鈥淗ow do we convince
the public that it鈥檚 important? I don鈥檛 have the answer.鈥�