
Doubt Cast on Claim of ‘Hints' of Life on Faraway Planet
When astronomers announced last month they might have discovered the most promising hints of alien life yet on a distant planet, the rare good news raised hopes humanity could soon learn we are not alone in the universe.
But several recent studies looking into the same data have found that there is not enough evidence to support such lofty claims, with one scientist accusing the astronomers of "jumping the gun".
The debate revolves around the planet K2-18b, which is 124 light years away in the Leo constellation.
The planet is thought to be the right distance from its star to have liquid water, making it a prime suspect in the search for extraterrestrial life.
Last month, astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope made headlines by announcing they had detected hints of the chemicals dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) on the planet.
These chemicals are only produced by life such as marine algae on Earth, meaning they are considered potential "biosignatures" indicating life.
The astronomers, led by Cambridge University's Nikku Madhusudhan, expressed caution about the "hints" of a biosignature, emphasizing they were not claiming a definitive discovery.
Their detection had reached a three-sigma level of statistical significance "which means there is still a three in 1,000 chance of this being a fluke," Madhusudhan said at the time.
Two of Madhusudhan's former students, Luis Welbanks of Arizona State University and Matthew Nixon of Maryland University, were among the researchers who have since re-analyzed the data behind the announcement.
When deploying other statistical models, "claims of a potential biosignature detection vanish", according to their preprint study published online late last month.
Like the other papers since the April announcement, it has not been peer-reviewed.
In one model, Welbanks and colleagues expanded the number of possible chemicals that could explain the signals detected by Webb to 90 from the original 20.
More than 50 received a "hit", Welbanks told AFP.
"When you detect everything, did you really detect anything?" he asked.
They are not saying the planet definitely does not have DMS -- just that more observations are needed, Welbanks added.
Madhusudhan welcomed the robust debate, saying that remaining open to all possibilities is an essential part of the scientific method.
"These sort of arguments are healthy," he told AFP.
His team even went further, releasing their own preprint study last week that expanded the number of chemicals even further to 650.
The three most "promising" chemicals they found included DMS but not DMDS -- a major part of the team's announcement in April.
The other two chemicals were diethyl sulfide and methyl acrylonitrile, the latter of which is toxic.
Madhusudhan admitted that these little-known chemicals are likely not "realistic molecules" for a planet like K2-18b.
Welbanks pointed out that "in the span of a month -- with no new data, with no new models, with no new laboratory data -- their entire analysis changed".
Telescopes observe such far-off exoplanets when they cross in front of their star, allowing astronomers to analyze how molecules block different wavelengths of light streaming through their atmosphere.
Earlier this week, a paper led by Rafael Luque at the University of Chicago combined Webb's observations of K2-18b in both the near-infrared and mid-infrared wavelengths of light.
It also found "no statistical significance for DMS or DMDS", the paper said.
An earlier paper by Oxford astrophysicist Jake Taylor using a basic statistical test also found no strong evidence for any biosignatures.
Madhusudhan dismissed the latter paper, saying the simple exercise did not account for observing physical phenomena.
He also stood by his research, saying he was "just as confident" in the work as he was a month ago.
More data about K2-18b will come in over the next year which should offer a much clearer picture, Madhusudhan added.
Even if the planet does have DMS, it is not a guarantee of life -- the chemical has been detected on a lifeless asteroid.
However, many researchers do believe that space telescopes could one day collect enough evidence to identify alien life from afar.
"We are the closest we have ever been" to such a moment, Welbanks said.
"But we have to use the frameworks that are in place and build up (evidence) in a reliable method, rather than using non-standard practices and jumping the gun -- as has been done in this particular case," Nixon added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Al Arabiya
2 days ago
- Al Arabiya
White House says Trump withdrawing Musk ally as nominee to head NASA
US President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw his nomination of tech billionaire Jared Isaacman, a close ally of Elon Musk, to lead space agency NASA, the White House said Saturday. 'It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump's America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon,' the White House said, confirming a report by The New York Times that Isaacman's nomination was being withdrawn.


Arab News
2 days ago
- Arab News
Trump pulls Musk ally's NASA nomination, will announce replacement
WASHINGTON: The White House on Saturday withdrew its nominee for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, abruptly yanking a close ally of Elon Musk from consideration to lead the space agency. President Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social site. 'I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space.' Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut who had been Musk's pick to lead NASA, was due next week for a much-delayed confirmation vote before the US Senate. His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision. Isaacman, whose removal was earlier reported by Semafor, did not respond to a request for comment. Isaacman's removal comes just days after Musk's official departure from the White House, where the SpaceX CEO's role as a 'special government employee' leading the Department of Government Efficiency created turbulence for the administration and frustrated some of Trump's aides. Musk, according to a person familiar with his reaction, was disappointed by Isaacman's removal. 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk wrote of Isaacman on X, responding to the news of the White House's decision. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Despite Trump's decision, Isaacman thanked the president for considering him for the job. 'The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry," he wrote on X. "It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission. That was on full display during my hearing, where leaders on both sides of the aisle made clear they're willing to fight for the world's most accomplished space agency," he said. So not having @rookisaacman as boss of NASA is bad news for the agency. Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being NASA head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario — Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) May 31, 2025 It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman. One name being floated is retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US Space Force and Trump supporter, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Isaacman, the former CEO of payment processor company Shift4, had broad space industry support but drew concerns from lawmakers over his ties to Musk and SpaceX, where he spent hundreds of millions of dollars as an early private spaceflight customer. The former nominee had donated to Democrats in prior elections. In his confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance NASA's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of NASA's some 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that NASA has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon. On Friday, the space agency released new details of the Trump administration's 2026 budget plan that proposed killing dozens of space science programs and laying off thousands of employees, a controversial overhaul that space advocates and lawmakers described as devastating for the agency. Montana Republican Tim Sheehy, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, wrote on X that Isaacman 'was a strong choice by President Trump to lead NASA' in response to reports of his departure. 'I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination,' Sheehy said. Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to NASA as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce. 'So not having (Isaacman) as boss of NASA is bad news for the agency,' Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer Jonathan McDowell said on X. So not having @rookisaacman as boss of NASA is bad news for the agency. Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being NASA head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario — Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) May 31, 2025 'Maybe a good thing for Jared himself though, since being NASA head right now is a bit of a Kobayashi Maru scenario,' McDowell added, referring to an exercise in the science fiction franchise Star Trek where cadets are placed in a no-win scenario.


Asharq Al-Awsat
3 days ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Diplomats: West Plans to Push IAEA Board to Find Iran in Breach of Duties
Western powers are preparing to push the UN nuclear watchdog's board at its next quarterly meeting to declare Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years, a move bound to enrage Tehran, diplomats said. The step is likely to further complicate talks between the United States and Iran aimed at imposing fresh restrictions on Iran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. Washington and its European allies Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, proposed past resolutions adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation Board of Governors calling on Iran to quickly take steps such as explain uranium traces the IAEA found at undeclared sites. The IAEA is preparing to send member states its quarterly reports on Iran before the next board meeting, which begins on June 9. One of those will be a longer, "comprehensive" account of issues including Iran's cooperation, as demanded by a board resolution in November, and diplomats expect it to be damning. "We expect the comprehensive report to be tough, but there were already no doubts over Iran not keeping its non-proliferation commitments," one European official told Reuters. Once that report is issued, the United States will draft a proposed resolution text declaring Iran in breach of its so-called safeguards obligations, three diplomats said. A fourth said the Western powers were preparing a draft resolution without going into specifics. The text will be discussed with countries on the board in coming days before being formally submitted to the board by the four Western powers during the quarterly meeting as has happened with previous resolutions, diplomats said. SECURITY COUNCIL The last time the board took the step of formally declaring Iran in breach of its safeguards obligations was in September 2005 as part of a diplomatic standoff that stemmed from the discovery of clandestine nuclear activities in Iran. The United States and IAEA now believe Iran had a secret, coordinated nuclear weapons program that it halted in 2003. Iran denies ever having had a weapons program and says it is only using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. A separate IAEA board resolution passed in February 2006 referred Iran's non-compliance to the UN Security Council, which later imposed sanctions on Iran. The diplomats said it had not yet been determined at what point the Western powers would seek to have the matter referred to the Security Council, and it is unclear what action if any the Security Council would then take against Iran. The most immediate effect of a resolution is likely to be on Tehran's talks with the United States and any further nuclear steps Iran decides to take on the ground. The board has passed all recent resolutions proposed by the Western powers on Iran, and there is little doubt that this one would go through as well. The only question is how large the majority would be. Russia and China have been the only countries to consistently oppose such resolutions. Iran bristles at resolutions and other criticism of it at the IAEA board, taking steps such as accelerating and expanding its uranium enrichment program or barring top IAEA inspectors. It is already enriching uranium to up to 60% purity, which can easily be further enriched to the roughly 90% of weapons grade. It has enough material at that level, if enriched further, for six nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.