Skip to main content

Independent Review of the Community Report from the Biosignature Standards of Evidence Workshop Report Series—Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

4 Relationship to the Scientific Process
Pages 17-26

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 17...
... Experiment results from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Viking1 missions, the Allan Hills meteorite ALH840012 claim of Martian life, and most recently the community debate regarding the claimed detection of phosphine on Venus.3 The Community Workshop Report sets aside the healthy scientific debate that these discoveries generated within the astrobiology community and argues that these examples illustrate a need for systematically increasing the robustness of claims and improving communication both within and outside the field.
Read the entire page →
From page 18...
... Proposals that would reduce flexibility in the scientific process should be subject to strict scrutiny. One potential impact that the assessment framework and reporting protocol as proposed by the Community Workshop Report may have is that confining the search for life and biosignature analysis to a defined structure could inadvertently stifle innovation and debate, especially at the science-development (i.e., proposal)
Read the entire page →
From page 19...
... This begins in pre-Phase A, where mission designers would consider which of the proposed assessment framework questions the mission would address. Also proposed is the creation of a biosignature verification plan, which would outline potential parallel lines of investigation that can be used to assess a potential life detection claim.
Read the entire page →
From page 20...
... However, there are unintended consequences to the specific verification and reporting protocol as proposed by the Community Workshop Report. Parallel Validation Tracks to Publications and Funding Sources The Community Workshop Report asserts "Life detection will … not be an instantaneous process, and it is unlikely to be unambiguous -- yet it is a high-stakes scientific achievement that will garner an enormous amount of public interest"14 and promulgates the idea that life detection requires a special level of verification treatment.
Read the entire page →
From page 21...
... The idea of a "Scientific Process + Validation Track" could be perceived as a logical and measured response given the maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."15 The committee agrees wholeheartedly with the Community Workshop Report that life detection is not likely to be instantaneous, not likely to be unambiguous, and will garner substantial public attention. These circumstances may even merit a particular level of caution within the scientific community in dealing with a potential life detection claim.
Read the entire page →
From page 22...
... The Community Workshop Report also recommends that publication disparities between discovery papers and those that provide follow-up research, verification results, and null hypothesis testing contribute to a culture in which verification efforts are not as highly valued. The authors suggest collaboration between the scientific community and publishers to accommodate publication of the caveats and nuances of life detection claims, elevating follow-on publications to the level of the initial publication, and the addition of new publication types that allow for interim progress publications and null hypothesis results.
Read the entire page →
From page 23...
... The same concerns are held for the proposal for a slate of "specialized subject-matter experts for peer review." This seems in contrast to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas and an inclusive and equitable scientific environment as well as the fundamental tenets of the peer-review process. It raises questions of how such a committee or reviewers could be composed in a way that ensures diversity of thought and of demographics and of how it could be free of biases where, since life detection claims are at the moment quite rare events, anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
Read the entire page →
From page 24...
... The establishment of a new external verification entity to oversee assessment and publication of life detection claims could have unintended negative consequences for open science and for fairness. CONCLUDING REMARKS The committee does consider the assessment framework an excellent first step and a foundation on which future community discussions can build, this Community Workshop Report included.
Read the entire page →
From page 25...
... Appendixes
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • workshop report
  • life detection
  • scientific process
  • assessment framework
  • reporting protocol

  • detection claim
  • proposed framework
  • potential life
  • potential biosignature
  • biosignature detection

  • standard scientific
  • biosignature verification
  • detection claims
  • astrobiology community
  • community discussions

  • scientific method
  • scientific debate
  • proposed assessment
  • report argues
  • detection techniques

  • proposed process
  • committee agrees
  • biosignature claim
  • proposal review
  • committee concurs

  • initial publication
  • single publication
  • null hypothesis
  • framework questions
  • sensational claims


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.