Homemade 'Mars In a Bottle' Tortures Bacteria 154
astroengine writes "The only time we've ever directly looked for life on Mars was during the 1970s, when NASA's Viking landers attempted to make direct measurements of Martian microbes metabolizing. Even today, the results of these groundbreaking experiments are hotly debated. Although the Viking experiments were often considered premature, a team of scientists hope to refine the next life-searching experiment to be sent to the Red Planet by building a Mars habitat on Earth. Imagine a Mars environment 'goldfish bowl' complete with UV radiation, dust, chilly temperatures, and an extremely low atmospheric pressure. So what have they done with this micro-Mars environment? They've been torturing various terrestrial microbes to see how they enjoy stints on the Martian surface. Their results have shown that even Earth microorganisms have a trick or two up their sleeves to survive in this alien environment."
Re:Contamination (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Viking probes and all that other shit we threw at the planet already did. You can't get them microbe-less once the components are exposed to air, some spores will survive.
There was some controversy that the activity seen in the Martian soil by the Vikings was due to terrestrial contamination (or the chemical activity of the soil), so the soil tests were deemed inconclusive (Gas Release was negative, along with Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer readings, and pyrolitic release. The only positive was labeled release, which may have been due to inorganic reactions), and most scientists do not accept them as proof of life.
Re:Animal torture (Score:5, Insightful)
The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
"There's no divine right of kings." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Blacks are people too." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Class isn't a birthright." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Chimpanzees have behaviour suggesting very human-like emotion and intelligence." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Dogs may not be as bright as humans, but they have capacity for pain and suffering which must be taken into account." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Or should we judge a species' worthiness to life by its intelligence rather than its perceived pain responses? If so, why shouldn't we judge humans similarly?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm allowed to think about the questions. I'm not imposing any conclusion on anyone - I haven't even made one yet. Maybe I never shall, but in the meanwhile I retain an open mind. Does this worry you? Do you want me to angrily tell you that you're a murderer if you swat flies? Are you simply annoyed that I think about these sorts of things rather than whatever you like to think about?
What stereotype would you like me to conform to in order to reinforce your beliefs about those who disagree with you?
(in b4 ybht)