NASA Astrobiologist claims non earth bacteria

[ShadowSot]

Please do use the Google people.

Of course he's an Astrobiologist, just like the two scientists from Ames that are on his case

Check here please:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2009/09-059.html

He's in fact an award winning AstroBiologist.

And by the by, Google David Morrison, Ames, and you'll get his full bio (and lack of biology training) straight from NASA's Ames website here:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/morrison.html

He has a doctorate in Astronomy. And he's studied the orbital tracks of Asteroids...

This does not a Biologist make...

He won his award for engineering work in the field. The statement he not a biologist was made by Lynn Rothschild from the NASA astrobiology department.

I'm asking her to qualify the statement via email.

From what I've read, it seems he works in the astrobiology department as an engineer.

link

Edited March 8, 2011 by ShadowSot

[Kali74]

My link

WTF...NASA does not support the claim.

[ShadowSot]

My link

WTF...NASA does not support the claim.

Yup, the fellow posted this unrelated to his work for NASA. He just happens to be a guy who made this claim who works for NASA. He didn't submit this paper through his positiion at NASA.

Even the NASA scientists I've read over so far seem divided on the topic.

This seems to be the operative bit:

"NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication."

He noted that the paper did not complete the peer-review process after being submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology.

Keep in mind, the pop media has been directly linking Dr. Hoover's paper to NASA since they got wind of it.

[DONTEATUS]

Oh ! Come on people ! Its a Alien Worm from Alpha-cencesulas and thats That ! Were all going to start to die now from some unknown Alien outbreak! Better start to Drink all the Whiskey you can get your hands on!

Or they are going to Blow up th ePlanet to try and Save it? Hum ? Sounds like an old movie to me eah?

[Kali74]

So what now? Nothing?

[arenee]

So what now? Nothing?

I wish I knew...

[+susieice]

Me too. This is the second time a claim like this has been made apparently and it's not an easy sell. This is something that needs absolute proof and/or many more possible findings before anyone will really consider it. The implications are just too serious to be taken lightly. Think back to the time of Copernicus. It took many what are now called great men decades of being charged with heresy before people believed the known universe didn't revolve around the Earth. Now that's a known fact that we can't imagine why it was so shocking. Finding life not of an Earthly origin will make that look small. This needs to be researched and debated until the claim is shown to be a reasonable one. Then, it probably won't be considered a certainty. Most people do think the possibility for life in the universe is high, but proof is another story.

[lost_shaman]

Keep in mind, the pop media has been directly linking Dr. Hoover's paper to NASA since they got wind of it.

Looks like this was first suggested in the 1960's.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/Orgueil.html

At a meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences in March 1961, Bartholomew Nagy and Douglas J. Hennessy of the Department of Chemistry at Fordham University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in the Bronx, and Warren G. Meinschein, a petroleum chemist at the Esso Research and Engineering Company in Linden, New Jersey, announced that they had found in a sample of the meteorite "paraffinoid hydrocarbons," similar in type and distribution to those occurring in animal products such as butter.1 From this, they concluded that "biogenic processes occur and that living forms exist in regions of the universe beyond the earth." More remarkably, Nagy and George Claus, a microbiologist at New York University Medical Center, claimed shortly after that samples from the Orgueil and Ivuna meteorites contained "organized elements" including structures "resembling fossil algae."2 A controversy ensued in which a minority of scientists, including J. D. Bernal, supported the microfossil theory, while most, including Philip Morrison and Harold Urey were skeptical. Urey did, however, concede that it was possible the Orgueil and Ivuna microstructures were evidence for biogenic activity and that, if so, these meteorites may have come from the Moon which "became contaminated temporarily with water and life-forms from Earth early in its history."3 By 1975, Nagy himself had come to regard the biological interpretation as a "remote possibility."

[lost_shaman]

Agreed, it needs to be proved these are fossils, and not, for example, a case of paradeiloa whats it. (I can never remember how to properly spell that word.)

Hey ShadowSot,

I don't see this as pareidolia. To me pareidolia means the ability of the Human mind to see 'faces' in 'white noise', etc. On the other hand some things just look similar and this is not itself pareidolia. For example a poisonous Mushroom might look almost exactly like an eatable Mushroom, or a Red apple looks a lot like a Green Apple. This isn't a matter of pareidolia the two just look very similar in the first place. This is what IMO is taking place here, these structures look a lot like the first organisms on Earth. Even if these are abiotic structures they still deserve an explanation, but saying they look very much like primitive prokayotes is somewhat obvious and I just disagree that this is a case of pareidolia.

Edit: Another thing to consider is that this hypothesis makes some sense when one objection to an Earthly primordial soup is that there would not reasonably be enough complex molecules involved, it was too diluted, these chondrites by contrast are rich in complex organic matter and are known to contain water. When these pass near the Sun some subcutaneous water must exist and this would be a real primordial soup.

Edited March 8, 2011 by lost_shaman

[DONTEATUS]

We should all know that Life is out there in massive quanties, We made it to where we are today.

Lots of space to make soup in out there.

Well the real science may now begin? After the microbe only had about four years already on the books,and 100 to 200 years on the Planet to mold up really good,Not even my B.B.Q could hang around that long B-4

getting a Little Green.

But now its seems that NASA wants to distance its self from Good Ole

Max Brazzle the Meteorite man.

I bet by end week there will be all sorts of Cover-up storys?

Edited March 8, 2011 by DONTEATUS

[ROGER]

Update: Dr. Hoover is not a Dr. & has NO PH.D. :

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36316

NASA Science Mission Directorate Response to Questions about Richard Hoover and His Astrobiology Paper

Source: NASA Science Mission DirectoratePosted Monday, March 7, 2011

Keith's 7:00 pm EST update: The following response from Dwayne Brown NASA SMD PAO was received by NASA Watch in quick response to questions asked this afternoon:

"1. How long has he worked at NASA, and at Marshall? Answer: 45 years, he started in February 28, 1966

2. Which division does he work for now? Answer: Hoover works in the Space Science Office at Marshall Space Flight Center

3. What is his title? Answer: NASA Scientist. He does not have a Ph.D.

4. Who funds him? Answer: Richard Hoover's salary is funded out of the Marshall Space Science Office and the Center Management and Operations budget. While the funding was not based on a proposal, the Marshall folks tell me they need more time to research funding specifics. Current management was not in place at the time. NASA's Astrobiology Program provided NO support for this work.

Keith's 7:00 pm EST update: How is it that NASA MSFC continued to refer to Hoover as "Dr." Hoover for decades when in fact Hoover does not have a Ph.D.? Curiously, Hoover overtly claims to have a Ph.D. in the article in the Journal of Cosmology.

[quillius]

Update: Dr. Hoover is not a Dr. & has NO PH.D. :

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36316

NASA Science Mission Directorate Response to Questions about Richard Hoover and His Astrobiology Paper

Source: NASA Science Mission DirectoratePosted Monday, March 7, 2011

Keith's 7:00 pm EST update: The following response from Dwayne Brown NASA SMD PAO was received by NASA Watch in quick response to questions asked this afternoon:

"1. How long has he worked at NASA, and at Marshall? Answer: 45 years, he started in February 28, 1966

2. Which division does he work for now? Answer: Hoover works in the Space Science Office at Marshall Space Flight Center

3. What is his title? Answer: NASA Scientist. He does not have a Ph.D.

4. Who funds him? Answer: Richard Hoover's salary is funded out of the Marshall Space Science Office and the Center Management and Operations budget. While the funding was not based on a proposal, the Marshall folks tell me they need more time to research funding specifics. Current management was not in place at the time. NASA's Astrobiology Program provided NO support for this work.

Keith's 7:00 pm EST update: How is it that NASA MSFC continued to refer to Hoover as "Dr." Hoover for decades when in fact Hoover does not have a Ph.D.? Curiously, Hoover overtly claims to have a Ph.D. in the article in the Journal of Cosmology.

hello ROGER, do you know how the Q&A took place? i.e. over email, phone, face to face?

[Space Commander Travis]

I haven't been following this in detail, but what difference does it make if he does NOT have a PHd? is this the old Appeal to Authority again? Look how often people say that whether or not someone has a phD is irrelevant because that makes no difference at all as to whether or not they may be a nut? But if someone is making some sort of claim, then all of a sudden it's crucial that he has a PhD because if he doesn't, then he's obviously a loon or a charlatan?

[Kali74]

Next NASA will say the only position he ever held was a janitor and that the bio on the NASA site was a typo.

[DONTEATUS]

Next NASA will say the only position he ever held was a janitor and that the bio on the NASA site was a typo.

I`ll stand behind this man If He can make that worm do a trick!

But then again there are lots of brilliant men and women that have no stinkin phd`s!

Can anyone say otherwise?

[lost_shaman]

I`ll stand behind this man If He can make that worm do a trick!

But then again there are lots of brilliant men and women that have no stinkin phd`s!

Can anyone say otherwise?

Clearly 'worms' can do some serious 'tricks'. The question is do they need a 'Planet' like the young Earth or does a Comet or pre-cometary matter suffice? If both or just the latter then the Comet's are older. The heavy elements we find on Earth are certainly billions of years older than the solar system itself. The Organic matter must also be very old considering we see it present throughout the Universe.

[Paxus]

Well I think it's exciting!

If we can happen upon bacteria from 'off-world' the implication is there that life maybe well be very frequent in the universe.

[Karlis]

Dr. Richard B. Hoover cracked open a CI1 meteorite a carbonaceous chondrite which is one of only nine believed to have ever been found on earth and discovered fossils he claims are of bacteria not found on earth. His research is published in this months (March, 2011) edition of the Journal of Cosmolgy. The journal has invited 100 experts and has issued a general invitation to over 5000 in the scientific community to review the paper.

foxnews.com (I know fox news )

It's a really interesting article, scientists are very hesitant to get excited about it, which is understandable we've had similar things happen before only to learn we jumped the gun. Still, I can't help but think panspermia.

Whoops! Scientists left red-faced as oldest 'evidence of life' turns out to be iron deposits.

It was a discovery that scientists proclaimed was the oldest evidence of life on our planet.

But researchers who thought they had found 3.5 billion-year-old bacteria fossils in Australian rock have been left red-faced after U.S geologists debunked their findings.

A team from the University of Kansas said the microscopic structures are nothing more than tiny gaps in the rock that are packed with lifeless minerals. Source

[ShadowSot]

Whoops! Scientists left red-faced as oldest 'evidence of life' turns out to be iron deposits.

Not scientists, technically Dr. Hoover is an engineer.

We've already gone through the evidence as related to his research, the faultiness of it and the poor quality of the journal he published in.

Edit:

Wait, the article doesn't bear much relation to this thread.

Edited March 20, 2011 by ShadowSot

[Kali74]

Not scientists, technically Dr. Hoover is an engineer.

We've already gone through the evidence as related to his research, the faultiness of it and the poor quality of the journal he published in.

Edit:

Wait, the article doesn't bear much relation to this thread.

Hey there, I'm still not sure I've seen good support of the claim in faultiness of this research or poor quality of the journal. I realize the journal is a supporter of panspermia therefor bias may come into play but what else is there? Is there something that I have missed? Thanks

Edit to add: Also I found it interesting that NASA, last week, appointed a "Planetary Protection Officer" who's job it is to ensure that alien microbes do not contaminate earth nor earth microbes contaminate other planets...after firmly dismissing Dr. Hoover's claim.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Kali74

[ShadowSot]

Hey there, I'm still not sure I've seen good support of the claim in faultiness of this research or poor quality of the journal. I realize the journal is a supporter of panspermia therefor bias may come into play but what else is there? Is there something that I have missed? Thanks

I'd recommend reading the reports I posted.

Chiefly, there's a couple of main critiques: The extreme likelihood, even if there is evidence of bacteria, of contamination.

Second, the scale we're looking at is much above the level of bacteria, and is instead looking at a level where things like tin whiskers are common.

Third, the journal is not under attack because of it's support of panspermia, a theory that still gets tossed around in scientific discourse fairly often, but instead that the journal is the singular work of it's editor, with very poor quality controls for their articles, and outright attacks on members of the scientific community.

What seems evidenced by the article, is instead of evidence of fossils, we are instead looking at evidence of seeing what you want to see, something indicated in the article Karlis linked. (I still think that deserves it's own thread though.)

Edit to add: Also I found it interesting that NASA, last week, appointed a "Planetary Protection Officer" who's job it is to ensure that alien microbes do not contaminate earth nor earth microbes contaminate other planets...after firmly dismissing Dr. Hoover's claim.

Well... the issues about contamination both ways has been a constant in space exploration since the Moon landings, though it was more at that time in contamination of space rocks with earth contaminants.

Currently, with the plans moving forward to explore locations like Europa where there's a good possibility of life the fear of contamination is becoming more intense.

I also want to stress that Mr. Hoover did not ear the title of Doctor, and has been pushing himself as a astrobiologist when he isn't, claiming false credentials for himself, apparently.

Something NASA didn't seem to mind to much when it stayed more or less in house, but had troubles with when he moved out with this paper, which itself didn't go through a proper peer review process.

Peer review occurs before a paper is submitted to a paper, and is done by peers, not random people who want to offer their own opinions on the paper.

[Kali74]

I'd recommend reading the reports I posted.

Chiefly, there's a couple of main critiques: The extreme likelihood, even if there is evidence of bacteria, of contamination.

Second, the scale we're looking at is much above the level of bacteria, and is instead looking at a level where things like tin whiskers are common.

Third, the journal is not under attack because of it's support of panspermia, a theory that still gets tossed around in scientific discourse fairly often, but instead that the journal is the singular work of it's editor, with very poor quality controls for their articles, and outright attacks on members of the scientific community.

What seems evidenced by the article, is instead of evidence of fossils, we are instead looking at evidence of seeing what you want to see, something indicated in the article Karlis linked. (I still think that deserves it's own thread though.)

Well... the issues about contamination both ways has been a constant in space exploration since the Moon landings, though it was more at that time in contamination of space rocks with earth contaminants.

Currently, with the plans moving forward to explore locations like Europa where there's a good possibility of life the fear of contamination is becoming more intense.

I also want to stress that Mr. Hoover did not ear the title of Doctor, and has been pushing himself as a astrobiologist when he isn't, claiming false credentials for himself, apparently.

Something NASA didn't seem to mind to much when it stayed more or less in house, but had troubles with when he moved out with this paper, which itself didn't go through a proper peer review process.

Peer review occurs before a paper is submitted to a paper, and is done by peers, not random people who want to offer their own opinions on the paper.

Thanks for the clarification, sometimes thing just need to be said a certain way for light to dawn lol.

[27vet]

Maybe they were bionic bacteria?