Evidence of Life on Mars Does Not Portend Space Science Funding Windfall
“Thirteen thousand years ago a messenger in the form of a meteorite arrived on this planet.... We found it, we brought it back, we opened it up, and if we are reading the message correctly it may say: you are not alone.’” -- Wesley Huntress, NASA
A hearing entitled “Life on Mars” might be expected to generate a lot of enthusiasm, but at the House Space Subcommittee’s September 12 hearing of that name, the excitement was somewhat dampened by the reality of a declining NASA budget. Much of the discussion revolved around what immediate steps could be taken in labs on Earth to support the evidence for past life on Mars before implementing costly space missions. Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) announced that, “instead of debating the implications of the discovery, we’re going to discuss the science behind it..... What is NASA planning to study on Mars? Is it appropriate to view this discovery as a reason to change public policy? What do we do now, and where do we go from here?” Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall (D-TX) made a plea for stabilizing space funding, saying Congress can’t keep giving NASA “challenging new assignments, and at the same time continuing to cut their budget.”
Richard Zare of Stanford University and David McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center, two of the principal investigators of the Martian meteorite, turned the hearing into a lesson on scientific methodology. They described the chain of reasoning leading to the inference that the meteorite contains microfossils, but admitted the evidence is not conclusive. McKay noted that “skeptics don’t question our data; they question our interpretation.” Zare explained that the research teams have “put forward the best interpretation we can think of,” but added that they “reserve the right” to change their conclusions in the face of conflicting evidence. Zare used the discovery of the Martian meteorite in an Antarctic ice field to stress the “inherent unpredictability of fundamental research.” He urged consistent, long-term support across the full spectrum of science, saying the analysis of the meteorite could not have been performed without contributions from many fields of science and technology.
Both Zare and McKay agreed that further and more detailed analysis could be done on this meteorite and 11 others determined to be of Martian origin, for what McKay said was “a small amount of money” compared to Mars missions. NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science, Wesley Huntress, agreed that the first step was more research here on Earth to replicate the researchers’ findings and affirm their validity. At the same time, NASA would continue to plan for robotic missions to return additional samples from Mars: “It will take at least another year to better understand the approach needed and what level of resources are required and available.”
Huntress reported that the agency has for several years been planning a series of Mars exploration missions, with a goal of returning the first samples by 2008. In light of this new data, he said, NASA would be likely to put more emphasis on surveying and mapping the Martian surface to maximize the possibility that any samples returned might provide clues to early life on the planet. If a scientific consensus develops for evidence of past life within the meteorite, Huntress said, “I suspect we may have to accelerate” the planned exploratory missions. He reported that a Mars Science Working Group is currently developing strategies for three different rates of progress for Mars exploration, with a final report expected within the next month.
Asked by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) if a human expedition to Mars would be needed, Huntress said, “It depends on how difficult it is to find evidence of life. If we have to look for the minutest of evidence, it will probably take humans to do it.” He agreed that research to be performed on the space station would be a necessity before sending humans to Mars. Lieutenant General Thomas Stafford, who had chaired a 1991 NASA report on a strategy for Moon and Mars exploration, encouraged pursuit of technologies to enable human missions, and added that “if we wait until we have a budgetary surplus, we’ll never start.” He urged an incremental program to protect against future cost growth, and advocated international cooperation to minimize costs.
Hall commented that “the number of years involved” in explaining the meteorite’s history was hard for people to reconcile with the biblical account of Genesis. He asked whether life might have developed independently on the Earth and Mars or spread from one to the other. Huntress responded, “that’s one of the things we would like to find out.... These are all speculations that drive much of the science community...”
The Martian meteorite has generated enough interest that the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee has scheduled a similar hearing for September 25. However, based on feedback from this hearing, even the possibility of other life in the universe does not seem sufficient inducement right now for Congress to ramp up NASA’s space science funding. Even NASA officials took a “wait-and-see” approach. Huntress testified that the agency’s reaction is one of “careful fascination,” and added that while NASA is reviewing various strategies for Mars exploration, “the resources needed for these activities must be carefully weighed against all of the Administration’s priorities.”
