A deeper layer of science reporting

One of the biggest stories in the planetary science community continues to be the discovery of water and methane in the atmosphere of a planet far, far away, as detailed in the previous post. But as I read through many of the stories, I'm struck once again by a case of over-simplification (I was guilty of this myself I must admit) and, I think, general misinterpretation of what's really going on.

Let's take methane. In article after article, the mention of methane is followed by two facts.
1, it's an organic molecule and
2, on earth, it's commonly associated with life.

Seems pretty easy to conclude that methane is a pretty good indicator of life, right? Not so fast. Let's look as these facts one more time.

1. Methane is an organic molecule. True, but what does that really mean? Your initial reaction is to associate "organic" with "life", but the term "organic" merely refers to any compound with a carbon-hydrogen bond. This title dates back to the 1800s, when chemists assumed that carbon-hydrogen bonds could only be formed by living things. Not so: we've since discovered that many organic compounds can be created synthetically (think plastics) or by normal, abiotic chemical reactions (like the famous Miller-Urey experiments in which amino acids were made by simulated lightning). True, organic molecules are, for the most part, "associated" with life, but that doesn't mean that they were created by living things.

2. Methane is associated with life on Earth. That's true, with "on Earth" being the crucial words. Methane gas isn't stable in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (like Earth's, thankfully), so it's persistence means that something is producing it as fast or faster than it is destroyed by oxygen. That something is life: some microbes, called methanogens, produce methane as a by-product of their metabolism. On other planets where oxygen isn't as prevalent, i.e. everywhere else we know of, methane is generally more stable. So methane doesn't need to be continually produced, and abiotic production (via atmospheric chemistry or volcanism) could easily account for the molecule's presence.

The study certainly wasn't claiming to have discovered signs of life, but through the repetition of buzzwords and inferences, that came to be the resulting message. It's a little depressing, but I really don't see a way around this general problem. It's wonderful and remarkable that people are reading these stories, and to ask them to devote even more time and brainpower to the nuances of the underlying science is probably being unrealistic. Perhaps we need to have another layer of coverage. I think it's fine if AP stories skim the surface and report the most flashy parts of a science story - it is these pieces that spread the word and generate enthusiasm. But for those who want to learn more, accurate information is in short supply and/or difficult to access. Science-specific outlets should feel obligated to get down to the meat of a story, because that's where the real science is going on.

And with that, I leave you with a completely unrelated, yet nonetheless beautiful, picture from my weekend wanderings to Cornwall. Don't be deceived by the gorgeous blue water and sunny beach: a swim could not have been less appealing with the sub-zero (celcius) windchills!