NASA's Astrobiology Program Works Hard To Ignore Itself
Keith’s 23 February note: Last thursday NASA HQ issued a press release “NASA-Funded Research Creates DNA-like Molecule to Aid Search for Alien Life“ which notes that “this new molecular system, which is not a new life form, suggests scientists looking for life beyond Earth may need to rethink what they are looking for. The research appears in Thursday’s edition of Science Magazine.” Mary Voytek, senior scientist for Astrobiology at NASA Headquarters is even quoted.
Readers of the press release are told “To learn more about NASA’s Astrobiology Program, visit https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/“. If you go to that link you will see that there is no mention of this press release or the research cited by the release. Nor is there any mention at the NASA Astrobiology Institute website or the NASA Science Mission Directorate website (which does not even mention the word “Astrobiology”). NASA’s Astrobiology account on Twitter @NASAastrobio makes no mention of this press release or its research either. None of these locations bother to link to the actual research either (“Hachimoji DNA and RNA: A genetic system with eight building blocks“).
Keith’s 25 Feb update: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ Just did an update. No mention of last week’s release has been added. Meanwhile there are dozens of news stories that have been written about the importance of this research – and NASA’s sponsorship of it. NASA’s Astrobiology folks seem to be uninterested in being relevant. Oh yes: NASA JPL posted this Astrobiology release today: “ NASA Study Reproduces Origins of Life on Ocean Floor“. No mention is made at https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ even though this release also says “To learn more about NASA’s Astrobiology Program, visit https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/“. This happens since one part of NASA that does Astrobiology does not talk – or listen to – other parts of NASA that also do Astrobiology.
Keith’s 26 Feb update: Finally. Someone in the NASA Astrobiology program noticed the dozens or articles in prominent publications about the DNA research announced last week. There’s another important NASA Astrobiology story coming out in several days. Lets see if the Astrobiology folks are paying attention.
Meanwhile, NASA Administrator Bridenstine is making prominent mention of NASA’s search for life elsewhere (see “We’re ‘Well On Our Way’ to Discovering Alien Life, NASA Chief Says“). Multiple news outlets have picked up on his comments. You’d think that the Astrobiology folks at NASA would want to be talking up what they do. Guess again.
The National Academy of Sciences recently took note of how NASA runs its Astrobiology programs: New Report Calls For NASA To Expand Astrobiology Research “To advance the search for life in the universe, NASA should support research on a broader range of biosignatures and environments, and incorporate the field of astrobiology into all stages of future exploratory missions … Astrobiology, the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe, is a rapidly changing field, especially in the years since the publication of NASA’s Astrobiology Strategy 2015. Recent scientific advances in the field now provide many opportunities to strengthen the role of astrobiology in NASA missions and to increase collaboration with other scientific fields and organizations. The report finds that these changes necessitate an updated science strategy for astrobiology.”
NASA replied to this report: NASA Making Changes to its Astrobiology Program “By the end of 2019, the Astrobiology Program will establish several virtual collaboration structures called “research coordination networks” (RCNs) that will replace the Program’s virtual institute, the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI). With this shift, NASA’s overall investment in the Astrobiology Program is not changing. Astrobiology is an important part of NASA’s portfolio and Congress formally added Astrobiology as one of NASA’s ten objectives in 2017. This will only change how this interdisciplinary research is coordinated between researchers.”
Alas, while the agency looks at how to reorganize the way it conducts Astrobiology it still lacks the basic ability to do simple website updates to reflect its own good news. One would think that some focus on basic principles is in order before all of the deck chairs get rearranged. Oh yes, FWIW Google the term “Astrobiology”. Look where my Astrobiology.com website ranks. Its not that hard to do the Internet stuff, NASA. Just sayin’
– NASA Leads In Astrobiology. It Needs To Act That Way., earlier post
– NASA Is Incapable Of Explaining How It Does Astrobiology, earlier post
– 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
The significance of this work has yet to filter out, even to the scientific community. Others will see the implications and develop these preliminary findings.
To understand the impact this work will have, I see an analog in CRISPR, first reported in 2012-3; I wrote about it in 2015, and the technique took a huge, controversial step with the arrival of twins Luna and Nana last year. Yep. I predict that this work will be as influential as CISPR.
Or, I could be wrong 🙂
“Look where my Astrobiology.com website ranks”
And it doesn’t hurt when our host had the foresight to nab the URL – wait for it …in 1996!
This isn’t unique to NASA astrobiology program. Astrobiology.com has a huge advantage because it’s small (in terms of the number of people involved), has editorial policy set by a single person (I assume) and isn’t part of the government.
We had problems with Cassini press releases and web page updates because they might involve multiple web sites, with different people responsible for updating them, web pages subject to approval by someone else, and different people for different sites, and at some point, press material had to be cleared at a relatively high level at headquarters if it was going on a NASA web page (or, if not, that NASA was passing on it and it could go on the JPL web page or a web page at a PI or co-I institution.)
Given all that, I’m not shocked they have trouble keeping multiple web sites in synch. And one of the reasons for multiple sites is that the system is so cumbersome that everyone wants their own, since it will be faster and easier to update.
I really appreciated the weekly Cassini email updates; they were incredibly detailed. No pizzaz, just the facts.
I have wondered if you personally had anything to do with that email effort?
Only indirectly. I think most of the information in those updates was based on schedules of planed activities, and the people who put the updates together just asked the sequence leads if everything went as planned. I was pretty deeply involved in making those schedules of what observations would happen when.
Is there a biologist around? I’m not one, so I can’t tell from the paper how life-like (for want of a better word) this hachimoji DNA is. I got stable and able to make copies of itself. But can it also code for amino acids? If so, the coding table would be interesting. (By the way, I hate the modern use of supplemental material in scientific papers. It’s fine for many things, but shoving all the details in something most people never read is going too far. The body of the paper itself ought to have enough details to reproduce the results.)
As far as the web pages go, this also found its way to the main page for Wikipedia (English language.) In any case, does anyone know how well NASA web developers are paid? If they’re using high school interns and paying them GS-1 rates, they’re getting what they pay for. Those jobs are pretty lucrative in the real world, and this may be another case where NASA isn’t paying competitive salaries.
As far as I know, it’s the closest analog seen to date – that is, using the principles of DNA but with different blocks, and that is the significance.Agree that a coding table would be interesting, but not necessary. The simple existence of hDNA says enough.
It’s significant, but I’m not sure how applicable to astrobiology. Unless those extra four “letters” code for amino acids, then hachimoji DNA is storing reproducible information, but not information that could be used used in the same way by cells and organisms. I guess I see that as the difference between the text of Shakespeare’s plays and the blueprints of a Falcon 9. Both are stored information, but not information that can be used to build something. If that was in the article, I didn’t understand it. But, in any case, the hachimoji DNA is proof that more than one DNA-like molecule are possible, and probably means there are many other DNA-like molecules.