Proof of life on K2-18b ‘not at all obvious': Harvard professor
Although scientists at the University of Cambridge suggest they have detected chemical signs of life on a planet 124 light years from Earth, a Harvard professor says there are problems with that theory.
Avi Loeb, a Harvard professor of science and theoretical physicist, told NewsNation that while dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide appear to be present in the atmosphere of the planet K2-18b, that isn't necessarily proof of extraterrestrial life existing on the planet.
Loeb said the molecule is produced by microorganisms in the Earth's oceans. However, K2-18b has a 1,000 times greater abundance of the molecule, which is also produced in comets, where no life exists, so far as is known.
'So, it is not at all obvious that if you find such a molecule in the atmosphere of a planet, it is indicative of life,' the professor said.
K2-18b is an exoplanet that is nearly nine times the size of Earth, according to NASA. The Hycean exoplanet, which has the potential of possessing a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and an ocean-covered surface, was discovered in 2015, according to USA TODAY.
While theories about whether life exists on K2-18b, Loeb said that the fundamental question becomes, just because the molecule exists in the atmosphere, does it guarantee that life is also present?
Loeb noted to NewsNation he is much less excited about the discovery made by the Cambridge researchers than he would be about finding intelligent beings in the cosmos.
'An advanced civilization is someone that we can learn from,' Loeb continued, adding, 'It will be very likely that anywhere where you have liquid water, you also have the chemistry of life as we know it.'
He said, 'I think we should hedge our bets and search for primitive forms of life and intelligent forms of life, because the evidence could be far more convincing if we find a gadget in our backyard that was produced by another civilization.'
NewsNation's Michael Ramsey contributed reporting to this story
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 hours ago
Pentagon official: Cutting off Harvard project endangers national security
A Pentagon official begged her bosses not to cancel a Harvard University grant aimed at curtailing biological threats, arguing that pulling it would pose 'grave and immediate harm to national security.' The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) director of contracting said the grant funded a Harvard research team that had reached a 'pivotal juncture' in a project addressing the 'biological threat landscape,' according to Monday court filings in the university's lawsuit against the Trump administration, first reported by The Boston Globe. The official was unnamed in the filings. Harvard, which is suing the administration over roughly $2.5 billion in frozen funding, has declared the cuts to be illegal and haphazard and obtained government records to prove their case. In the filing, the lawyers detail the risk of cutting off funding to projects related to public health and national security concerns. In one instance, Harvard researchers were working on a military project known as the AMPHORA program, aimed at increasing awareness of emerging biological threats, when the Department of Defense (DOD) on May 12 informed the university it had terminated the grant funding the effort, according to a memorandum filed by Harvard's lawyers in federal court. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the cancellation of that military grant, as well as others, the filing notes. After learning the DOD grant was terminated by senior officials, the DARPA contracting official 'pleaded to save it, noting that Harvard was the 'critical' and 'top performing team' on the program, and that '[i]nadequate knowledge of the biological threat landscape poses grave and immediate harm to national security' and threatens military servicemember safety,' the memo states. 'The Government's thoughtless and retaliatory strategy meant that contracting officers and policy experts took a back seat in deciding whether to terminate grants that continued to benefit the public.' The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill as to whether the Harvard grant for the AMPHORA program remains terminated. The White House has frozen the funding after Harvard would not acquiesce to demands such as changing its hiring and admissions process and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Trump administration accuses the university of being 'deliberately indifferent' to antisemitic harassment on campus, favoring others over white people and men in its hiring and admissions processes and creating a culture intolerant of conservative viewpoints. Harvard's lawyers, meanwhile, say the administration has failed to acknowledge 'the dozens of steps Harvard has taken and committed to take to address antisemitism and bias.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
12 hours ago
Pentagon official: Cutting off Harvard project endangers national security
A Pentagon official begged her bosses not to cancel a Harvard University grant aimed at curtailing biological threats, arguing that pulling it would pose 'grave and immediate harm to national security.' The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) director of contracting said the grant funded a Harvard research team that had reached a 'pivotal juncture' in a project addressing the 'biological threat landscape,' according to Monday court filings in the university's lawsuit against the Trump administration, first reported by The Boston Globe. The official was unnamed in the filings. Harvard, which is suing the administration over roughly $2.5 billion in frozen funding, has declared the cuts to be illegal and haphazard and obtained government records to prove their case. In the filing, the lawyers detail the risk of cutting off funding to projects related to public health and national security concerns. In one instance, Harvard researchers were working on a military project known as the AMPHORA program, aimed at increasing awareness of emerging biological threats, when the Department of Defense (DOD) on May 12 informed the university it had terminated the grant funding the effort, according to a memorandum filed by Harvard's lawyers in federal court. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the cancellation of that military grant, as well as others, the filing notes. After learning the DOD grant was terminated by senior officials, the DARPA contracting official 'pleaded to save it, noting that Harvard was the 'critical' and 'top performing team' on the program, and that '[i]nadequate knowledge of the biological threat landscape poses grave and immediate harm to national security' and threatens military servicemember safety,' the memo states. 'The Government's thoughtless and retaliatory strategy meant that contracting officers and policy experts took a back seat in deciding whether to terminate grants that continued to benefit the public.' The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill as to whether the Harvard grant for the AMPHORA program remains terminated. The White House has frozen the funding after Harvard would not acquiesce to demands such as changing its hiring and admissions process and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Trump administration accuses the university of being 'deliberately indifferent' to antisemitic harassment on campus, favoring others over white people and men in its hiring and admissions processes and creating a culture intolerant of conservative viewpoints. Harvard's lawyers, meanwhile, say the administration has failed to acknowledge 'the dozens of steps Harvard has taken and committed to take to address antisemitism and bias.'
