Wikipedia

Talk:Viking lander biological experiments

Latest comment: 3 years ago by 2600:4040:116A:FE00:F925:3E6B:C4E0:8671 in topic Citations
Learn more about this page

POV article

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The edits made on August 4th make it sound like life was conclusively detected by the experiment and omit some counter-arguments from the previous edits. A link to a commercial website was also added by the contributer (which I later removed). Something seems fishy. KBi 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I gave the article a buzz cut. Much of the info that wasn't POV was redundant; it's better just simply removed. What was below the header was already a nice summary of the experiments, so I left it intact. -- Rei 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Citations

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I placed a {Refimprove} because I could not find the one that requests "in text citations." The list at the end looks nice but it is imposible to know which statement in the text are they are sourcing. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's mention several places in the article of an "astrobiology textbook". Does anyone know why the title isn't given? What's the rationale behind this? --2600:4040:116A:FE00:F925:3E6B:C4E0:8671 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Little_Dog_StarReply

Label Release experiment

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I am opening a discussion on the term 'Label Release', as it is being written here as 'labeled release'. Note that this assay is not "labeling the release" of anything but measures the release of an already labeled compound. Big difference.

The label is any traceable compound, in this case, the label is radioactive 14C, a radioactive tracer. This traceable label is incorporated in a nutritive substance. In this case, the label is radioactive atoms of 14C; if a living organism takes up the laced nutrient it will metabolize and transform the compound and release some of the 14C label as waste in the form of 14CO2 gas. The assay does not "label the release", but 'measures the 14C label release (the release of the 14C label)

Therefore, a description of the observation would be described as "....the 14C label was released". Another example is: ".....activity, as measured by the release of 14C". Regardless of the popular press headlines, the correct scientific term for this assay is Label Release. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

-Edited to include examples and scientific references to the term "label release". I do not expect anybody to actually read these papers, but only corroborate the use of the scientific term: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I also noticed that the principal investigator of the Viking's LR, Levin, refers to it as 'Labeled Release'. Is it a commercial name given by him or the scientific assay name?

'Labeled Release' was the official name of the experiment. Semantics may be interesting but they are not definitive. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Cool. I have no strong bias on one name or the other, I just wanted to make sure the LR name being used here is the appropriate one. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That seems sourced mostly to Levin & co. which is rather fringey. The journal is pretty obscure, being published by the The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences. I think it needs more mainstream sources for balance. I've added the CNN observation, but there are probably peer reviewed papers and/or books contradicting Levin & co. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Compare to how a textbook presents this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
observation

recent observations of the curiosity Mars rover have confirmed the presence of organics in martian soil (https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-organic-matter/) as well as the presence of fixed nitrogen (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mars-nitrogen/)

conclusion: the GC-MS was NOT working, partly because of the presence of perchlorate in martian soil, which destroys organic compounds whilst heated. There is no evidence of a "superoxidizer" and as quoted from the GC-MS paragraph it makes a poor oxidizer to explain the experimental results, quote:

"while perchlorate is too poor an oxidizer to reproduce the LR results (under the conditions of that experiment perchlorate does not oxidize organics), it does oxidize, and thus destroy, organics at the higher temperatures used in the Viking GCMS experiment. NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay has estimated, in fact, that if Phoenix-like levels of perchlorates were present in the Viking samples, the organic content of the Martian soil could have been as high as 0.1% and still would have produced the (false) negative result that the GCMS returned. Thus, while conventional wisdom regarding the Viking biology experiments still points to "no evidence of life", recent years have seen at least a small shift toward "inconclusive evidence"."

quote ends

Any perchlorate salts in the heated sample decompose as the temperature goes above 200 degrees Celsius (392 degrees Fahrenheit) and release pure oxygen. Organic molecules in the sample exposed to this oxygen will then combust into carbon dioxide, destroying the molecular evidence of their presence.

conclusion: GC-MS results have now been verified as erroneous because of the presence of perchlorate. The labeled release results were discounted on that basis, namely the absence of organics in martian soil, which is no longer correct and should be reflected as such in the article. Even worse the perchlorate is not enough to explain experimental results as chemical reactions.

This is it gentlemen.

217.89.117.154 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

No. The rover detected organic compounds, not microorganisms. And it has not been ruled out its meteoric origin, which is most likely. My money is in methanogens underground. BatteryIncluded (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Organics do not equal to organisms and the rover is not equipped to detect microorganisms. However, one can argue for the presence of organics through meteoroids but one can no longer conclusively dismiss LR results on the basis of the absence of organics regardless of origin. Also, without the elusive superoxidant (not perchlorate), which may or may not exist, there is no explanation for the (non-)behavior of the control samples after sterilization. Yes, live, nitrogen fixing methanogens most likely. There was some fuss about a "possible" ammonia detection by the Mars Express orbiter (which is a byproduct of methanogenic nitrogen fixation), but nothing conclusive and a lot of back-paddling (http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/01554/COSPAR04-A-01554.pdf). I am not insisting on any changes to the Wiki, for i understand there is a lot of heat in this kind of debate, but it has some quite interesting implications.

217.89.117.154 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Crocco's hypothesis

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I strongly support the edit performed by 193.10.57.10 (editor from Uppsala, .se) today, and also his or her suggestion that the section be deleted entirely. --El Ingles (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the recent edit. Note that the hypothesis is not by Crocco but by Levin; Crocco only proposed a nomen nudum. Because of the noise they have made I think Levin and Crocco deserve a short mention as a fringe theory only. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Scientific results - needs additional references

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've added the refimprove-section template to the section 'Scientific results', as I'm not sure that the scientific consensus regarding the matter is correctly described in the section, especially after the results published in December 2010 in the JGR.[5] --Eleassar my talk 13:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mean "update". Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Looks OK from a preliminary skim to me. Null hypothesis remains unfalsified - you can do this abiotically/without organics, and so most retain that null hypothesis. I'd say most Mars scientists have open minds on presence of organics (as distinct from "life"), though. "Wide open" is a good description for me. DanHobley (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Viking lander biological experiments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viking lander biological experiments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Viking lander biological experiments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Journal of Cosmology

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How accurate is the following account:

[The Religious War Against Extraterrestrial Life] 

In 1976, NASA stated that the Mars Viking life detection experiments might be "perhaps the most important experiment in the history of science." Dr. Levin's Viking Labeled Release (LR) experiment, one of three included on Viking, was designed to detect biological activity on Mars.

In the course of developing the Viking Labeled Release (LR) experiment, and prior to transport to Mars, thousands of laboratory and field tests were performed and the LR experiment proved capable of detecting a very wide range of microorganisms including bacteria, algae and fungi.

The Viking LR experiment was elegant and straight-forward. It took a sample of Martian soil and added a nutrient containing radioactive carbon. The presence of radioactivity in the gasses released was evidence of active metabolism. A control experiment treated a second sample that had been heat-treated to kill microorganisms. In every experiment conducted, the control (heat treated) sample yielded negative results whereas positive results were obtained from the raw sample, including evidence of biological reproduction. Both Viking landing sites, some 4,000 miles apart, produced strong responses and met the pre-mission criteria for the detection of biological activity, and life on Mars.

Days after the positive findings of life on Mars were announced to the world, the results were rejected by administrators and NASA scientists who were shocked and upset by the findings (29). Many believed and argued the results were contrary to Torah and the Bible and NASA shouldn't be doing these studies (20,32). 
As summed up by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, Arthur Lafleur, who helped design the Viking Mission GC-MS: NASA administrators wanted the Viking life detection experiment to fail and so they rejected the LR results, because: "There were a lot of people at the time who couldn't handle the discovery of life on Mars... It was a philosophical thing; they just didn't want that result. And those prejudices" resulted in a rejection of the data (29). 
NASA administrators then discredited the evidence for life on Mars, and issued a statement that "the LR had not detected life on Mars, but had detected a chemical or physical agent that had produced false positive results" (1).

As first detailed by Dr. Levin in the 1970s: when he met with NASA administrators Dr. John Olive (and 20 others), Dean Cowie of the Carnegie Institute, and the editor of the journal Science (Dr. Phil Abelson yet another Jewish religious zealot), some of these "scientists" began evoking the Bible as proof against life on Mars (32). As related by Dr Levin: "Abelson became angry and began shouting: "The Bible tells us there cannot be any life on other planets." Abelson and Dean Cowie then walked out of the meeting, arm-in-arm, as Abelson continued to rant and rave about the Bible.

Dr. Levin's findings were repeatedly rejected by those in positions of authority and who claimed the "Bible" and "Torah" proves there is no life on Mars. There were hundreds of religiously devout, high ranking scientists working at NASA, including, Dr. Abe Silverstein who founded a religious Temple in Cleveland Ohio and who appointed nearly half the male congregation to positions at NASA (33); and Dr. Velvl Greene who admitted that he was warned by religious zealots that searching for life on Mars was "contrary to Torah," and he "shouldn't be doing this kind of work...because it goes contrary to Torah...It's forbidden by Jewish law." (30). Dr. Greene states he felt confused and so sought a "religious dialogue" with his Rabbi to whom he explained "what we're doing is just normal bacteriology; it's not very exciting..."    His Rabbi responded: "Let me decide that." As stated by Dr. Greene: "I... assembled a pile of unclassified documents--three or four thick folders--and I sent them all to the Rebbe" who then reviewed this evidence and may have contributed to the decision that there is no life on Mars--as this evidence is against Jewish law.

Subsequently, despite claims that detecting life on Mars might constitute one of the most important experiments in history, NASA refused to equip any subsequent mission with life detection experiments, and has harassed and threatened those who've continued the search (31).

To be precise, accurate and truthful, that account is false and absolute BS. All raw data was -and still is- available to the scientific community to analyze and interpret. As "elegant" as the experiment was, it did not contemplate the presence of oxidants in the regolith, which rendered the tests invalid and therefore, were inconclusive. I am aware that Levin still cries foul, but his grievance is on the interpretation of the chemistry and methodology of other tests, not on religious censure imposed on him by NASA. By the way, the Journal of Cosmology has zero credibility in the scientific community, and has been characterized as a predatory journal. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viking_lander_biological_experiments&oldid=1205932352"