Is there a way to speed up the search for life on Mars? It’s been nearly half a century since the Viking landers gave an obscure answer to this ancient scientific question, and it often seems—at least to the general public—that we’ve made little progress since then. Advanced rovers have found this out conditions for Martian life, as well Building blocks of Life, but never life itself.
Life or no life?
A new article has now been published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences It provides a possible means of increasing speed. A research team led by James Cleaves of Howard University applied artificial intelligence (AI) to the challenging science of life detection to see if a machine learning program could tell the difference between non-biological samples containing carbon and samples of living organisms. to give or not They tested 134 carbon-containing samples, including coal, rice grains, human hair, and amino acids (both synthesized and from meteorites), and the AI voted yes or no on the presence of life. AI got it right about 90% of the time.
This paper raises the hope that artificial intelligence may revolutionize life detection, but several challenges must be overcome first. The AI algorithm works by identifying functional groups in chemical compounds that are biologically relevant. However, alien life may use very different functional groups. And the more alien it is, the less certain the detection will be because the AI is only trained on life As we know it On Earth.
The error rate in Cleves’ study was about 10%. Although it is expected to improve with more sampling data for AI training, in science we often need at least three standard deviations for proof – i.e. 99.7%. So, as impressive as AI is, it’s still not accurate enough to clearly identify life. And of course, until we have such examples, none of the examples in its training set will be alien life forms.
Make no mistake, artificial intelligence can and will play an important role in diagnosing life. My own research group uses it to detect specific movement patterns (“motility”) of microbial life and compare it to non-living sediment particles. Another great application of the Cleaves approach would be to identify ancient life on Earth. An important question is when did life first appear on our planet, and Clio’s AI could be used to screen samples that are suspected of having fossilized life. The more samples the better. This alone represents a huge improvement.
Dates of Mars
In the case of Mars, Cleaves’ paper shows that artificial intelligence can be used to analyze molecules detected by a gas chromatography-mass spectrometer on a planetary lander. both Curiosity And Endurance Mars rovers carry such instruments, so some data analysis can be done on Mars, although not with the precision you can achieve in a laboratory on Earth. Personally, I would like to see an AI analysis of the thiophene (sulfur-rich organic compounds) samples previously reported by Curiosity. Or we could examine the Martian meteorite ALH 84001, which was claimed in the 1990s to contain fossilized Martian life. While this claim remains controversial, with most scientists in the “non-believer” camp, I’m still curious to see what Cleave’s algorithm says. Life on Mars could be related to life on Earth due to the exchange of meteoric material, so artificial intelligence may have a better chance of success.
How does all this affect the long-standing question of whether we need a sample return mission to detect life on Mars, or whether the detection can be done on the planet itself? Each approach has its own unique selling points. If the samples are returned to Earth, you can now and in the future apply the full power and scope of advanced analyzes in advanced laboratories. On the other hand, in location Life detection has the advantage that you may be able to detect active life. If you box your sample for a long return to Earth—as is planned for the Mars sample return—you are likely limited to studying dead and possibly decaying remains. Considering only astrobiology, in location Vital diagnosis is preferred. But a return mission is exemplary for fulfilling other planetary science goals, including the study of Martian geology, geophysics, climate science, and atmospheric science.
The best of all is a combination of both methods – in location And sample returns, but this is not the best time for such a discussion. Despite decades of planning, there is a real risk that none of these missions will be accomplished anytime soon. An independent review board examining NASA’s Mars sample return plans recently found that the mission faces major challenges. In fact, it’s basically impossible given the timelines and costs currently projected. NASA formed its own review team in response, which is expected to issue a report next spring. While the Foreign Affairs Committee emphasized the importance of sample returns, the US Senate could still decide to repeal the program.
In any case, launch 2028 (to collect and return samples collected by Endurance) now seems more than unlikely. This negative review has rattled the Mars scientific community, and even if my preference as an astrobiologist is for a life-discovery mission, canceling the sample return mission would be a huge loss to science. It could even derail or at least damage NASA’s entire planetary exploration program. Hopefully there will only be a delay rather than a complete cancellation.
#artificial #intelligence #hunt #life #Mars
Image Source : bigthink.com