Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 The Biosignature Standards of Evidence Workshop
Pages 6-11

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 6...
... As astrobiologists increase their theoretical and experimental understanding of astrobiology, the capabilities of life detection technologies, and the cadence of missions utilizing these advances, the likelihood of a positive detection of extraterrestrial life grows every year. It is therefore timely to consider how NASA and the scientific community would react to and manage such a discovery.
From page 7...
... Victoria Meadows, and with several participants for their perspective on the recommendations of the Community Workshop Report. The white paper authors edited the workshop report incorporating comments, releasing to CAPS a second draft of the report now titled "Community Report from the Biosignature Standards of Evidence Workshop" on February 18, 2022, which has served as the basis of this review.
From page 8...
... This is laid out by Sections 4 and 5 of the Community Workshop Report. The Assessment Framework The Community Workshop Report proposes a generalized assessment framework, composed of five separate questions, by which the scientific community can assess and accurately communicate progress and credibility in a life detection claim.
From page 9...
... This is based on the understanding that statistical inferences and inductive reasoning will likely be the core of a biosignature detection, and thus be uncertain; a statistics specialist would be able to prevent faulty statistical reasoning prior to making a life detection claim. The Community Workshop Report suggests that a Bayesian statistical methodology can be advantageous in biosignature assessment to make more robust statistical inferences.
From page 10...
... The right panel illustrates a new ‘validation track' workshop participants discussed whereby with initial pools of traditional funding, researchers will progress and iterate with increased data, leading to the testing of more precise hypotheses." SOURCE: Community Workshop Report. In either case, the Community Workshop Report posited that significant obstacles exist within current reporting protocols and the modern research climate, including the nature of discovery embargoes and other similar agreements, and the fear of someone publishing a result unrightfully and gaining scientific priority.
From page 11...
... The third and final piece of this incentivization would be in encouraging more venues for communicating results to the scientific community and to the media and general public. The former would require efforts centralized within academic journals, including proposed mechanisms such as publishing reviewer reports, interim update papers on progress on the assessment framework, and null results and negative data.

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.