NASA Is Incapable Of Explaining How It Does Astrobiology
Sugar is Sweet, Essential to Life – and It’s Probably in Deep Space, NASA
“New research suggests that the sugar molecule that puts the “D” in DNA – 2-deoxyribose – could exist in the far reaches of space. A team of NASA astrophysicists were able to create DNA’s sugar in laboratory conditions that mimic interstellar space. The researchers believe their results, published on Tuesday in Nature Communications, show that yet another of life’s critical chemical building blocks could be widespread in the universe and potentially seed other planets as well.”
Keith’s note: This article is about a topic at the core of Astrobiology – the origin and distribution of biogenic compounds and precursors. The only place that “astrobiology” appears on this web page is a tag at the end. The article is featured on the NASA home page but there is no mention of this article at the NASA Astrobiology web page or at the NASA Astrobiology Institute webpage It is just baffling that NASA puts things like this out which feature what NASA’s Astrobiology Program does – without ever mentioning it.
The article originates from NASA Ames – the home of the NASA Astrobiology Institute – and the origin of NASA’s Astrobiology program in the late 1990s. You’d think that Ames would want to plug their role in supporting NAI – they have a link to the article but no mention of the NAI. Yes, yes, I know that different funding streams fund different things but in the end its all part of NASA’s Astrobiology efforts.
– NASA’s Semi-Stealth Astrobiology Mission, earlier post
– NASA’s Astrobiology Programs Ignore One Another, earlier post
– NASA Making Changes to its Astrobiology Program, earlier post
– Real Time Astrobiology Expedition News That NASA Ignores, earlier post
– Revious Astrobiology postings
I wonder if some of the problem—and not just with astrobiology but NASA’s PR fumblings in general—stems from a disease common to many, many organizations at all levels: the Presumption of Infinitely Distributed Knowledge (PoIDK). Many folks seem to live inside the almost subtle delusion that what THEY know everybody else knows…and so (they subconsciously presume) most things don’t have to be added, said, or acted upon since ‘it’ is implicitly understood or presumed taken care of. It’s almost like a dark back alley behind the building that is ‘Not Invented Here’.
‘Tis a habit quite common to humans; I’ve seen it at work in every single place or community in which I’ve ever worked or volunteered. And it has a very simple solution: think about your audience AND the bigger picture. But so many too often stumble over (or opt to ignore) that ‘thinking’ part…
I’ve taught horticulture classes to the general public and have committed this a lot and it always results in a million questions at the end covering basic things I glossed over thinking it was common knowledge. I never knew it was a defined concept but it is easy to assume what others know. Especially in niche fields like space sciences.
I don’t know if it’s formerly defined anywhere but my experiences inside my kids’ grade school parent-teacher organization (and editing the school’s newsletter) prompted me to give it a label because it was seemingly a very universal habit. That was after having experienced it more than a few times as a government agency contractor inside the shell of the larger federal government. [Just write software requirements once and stick around to test the delivered product…Boy do you get sensitive to describing & defining EVERYTHING.]
We even (well, not me of course…mmm-hmm) commit it in the simplest of actions such as giving folks driving directions (at least back when we still did such a thing for people). But the simple example highlights the simple solution: Before instruction, put yourself into the mind & circumstance of the recipient of the directions or information. THEN remember to insert, define, and orient all the things that they wouldn’t necessarily already know in the places where such information would provide the most help/guidance.
Someone I’m very close to often speaks in pronouns, without their antecedents always being clearly assigned. Same basic problem: THEY know what they’re talking about, why don’t you?
Let’s cut to the chase. At the end of your report, you mention different funding streams. That’s actually the key issue. Despite having names like “Public Information Office,” the people writing press releases and updating web pages are not hired or paid to inform the public. They are expected to make someone look good, by publisizing those people’s results and accomplishments in a favorable light. And that also means _not_ publicizing results of other people in the field who do closely related work. And this us-versus-them approach does go down to the level of different parts of the same institution. I’ve even seen PIO fights between science teams working on different instruments on the same spacecraft. I completely agree that this is a problem. But let’s state it clearly. Public information and media relations for NASA projects should be about informing the public about the subject, regardless of which team or institution did the work. It should not be about promoting and marketing the team or institution who did the work.
Recent appointments at NASA, reported here by Keith, exemplify the general view taken on the issue of public information.