Frigid Lake May Hold Keys To The Origins Of Life

small_dick writes: "I ran across this article at the LA Times. It's about a fresh water lake, protected by the Antarctic ice cap for millions of years. Lake Vostok was first discovered in 1996, but scientists still struggle over the best methodology to probe, yet not contaminate, this historic find."

Saw a show about this.....

[NetJunkie]

I think it was on Discovery channel. Very interesting. They covered some of the ideas to get samples out of the lake, including some robots that melt their way down inside of a shell...and then come out a few meters from the lake. That way it isn't contaminated.

The interesting thing about this is that this is a great exercise in what it will take to explore some of the oceans on other planets and moons. The same rules about not contaminating apply.

i feel their pain...

[Anonymous Coward]

"struggle over the best methodology to probe, yet not contaminate, this historic find."

Sadly, this is often my dilemma with my dates on friday nights.

They should've named it "Lake Yug"

[Chuck Flynn]

Anyone who knows Russian will instantly recognize the inanity of naming an antarctic lake "East".

What?!? Fresh water?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to tell me they found a new, completely untapped, quantity of fresh water?

We must build a pipeline and route it to California, immediately!

The answer? Don't.

[perdida]

There is a notion called the precautionary principle. It means that, since we know comparatively little about our environment, we should err on the side of caution.

Don't open a possibly unique environmental record until we are close to 100 percent sure that we won't contaminate it.

Or maybe some corporations involved in genetic research want to get access to these prehistoric genesets... in which case we should question our motivations in opening the sealed lake.

Sampling something...

[Will The Real Bruce]

I'm sure that as long as the techniques used are less invasive than the environment for the past million years, there shouldn't be a problem.

Therefore, even monitoring with radar and sonar would be a good start, but I'd definitely wait before introducing anything into a possible lake ecosystem. However, if it already has some interaction with the rest of the environment, it can be studied indirectly at those points.

In any case, I hope that in their eagerness, the scientists involved don't kill the goose that laid the golden eggs...

Article on Wired..

[Rahoule]

Here is an article from Wired magazine [wired.com] on Lake Vostok.

There are a few x-ray-like pictures of Antarctica I've seen here and there on the Net which show the position and size of the subglacial lake, including a small movie clip which even shows the lake's depth and dimensions.

A Futile Search

[Ryan Koppenhaver]

It is absurd to expect to find the origins of life in a frozen lake in Antarctica. While science is a useful tool, there are questions that are outside of its bounds, and this is one of them.

Fundamentally, science is carefully considered observations. Thus, anything that cannot be observed cannot be addressed by science. This is why attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God through science is an absurdity. Finding the origins of life is a similarly un-addressable question.

Any truly enlightened person will realize that life could only have occurred because of a Divine Touch, but I won't expect scientists to realize this. However, they should realize that there is insufficient evidence to theorize regarding an event that remote. There simply isn't enough empirical evidence to scientifically theorize about the question -- not in that lake, and not anywhere.

Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.

Lake Vostok

[SmellMyTeenSpirit]

Actually, they've been there for a long time. They have a drill set up bring up tubes of ice, I think they have about 2 km of it. They haven't broken through yet, obviously. The meathod the scientists are thinking of is using a remote controled robot, sterilized, that would melt it's way down, the water refreezing behind it, the heated water constantly sterilizing it. If I reme,ber, the lake was formed when a glacier moved in, the glacer was about 3 km thick, and it acted as an isulator for the Earth's heat, which melted the bottom and is compleatly sterle from the outside world, or it has been for a few million years. I posted awile ago on this during some discussion, I dont remeber. Facinating really.

There are smaller lakes to experiment on first

[Radical Rad]

I read something about this a while back. I think it was in Scientific American. There are other lakes sealed in the ice in Antarctica as well and I think the concensus was that they should try out their techniques on the small ones before possibly contaminating Lake Vostok.

Re:What?!? Fresh water?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the water would have some ancient virus that we've not been immune to for thousands of years. Then it would kill all those damn californians and we wouldn't have to hear them whining about there electricity and earthquakes.

Re:A Futile Search

[jellisky]

Just a few things about your comment:

Fundamentally, science is carefully considered observations. Thus, anything that cannot be observed cannot be addressed by science.
You're somewhat right in this, and somewhat wrong. Much of science, especially biology and the non-mathematical ones, are based on observations. However, in some of the more mathematically based sciences, logic and equations dominate, up to the point that without mathematics, there would be no way to explain any of the observable and non-observable phenomena. As an atmospheric scientist myself, I know this first-hand. I'm doing research essentially on a mathematical construct which describes some very difficult to observe structures inside a hurricane. These structures have never truly been observed, and even their existence is in doubt, but the mathematics behind it is solid and shows that they have to exist. So, my point is that not all science deals with observation then theory. Sometimes, the theory outruns the observational techniques.

Any truly enlightened person will realize that life could only have occurred because of a Divine Touch, but I won't expect scientists to realize this.
While this opens a can of worms, the real problem comes down to semantics. You said it yourself, really, when you said, "...an event that remote.". Whether life occured due to random chance or divine intervention of your favorite deity is a fun debate, but you're totally right: it's such a remote event, and totally irreproducable, that neither side can truly support its claim without invoking something that runs contrary to someone's beliefs. Essentially, the basic axioms everyone takes for granted don't help us out here.
So, what to do about the question? Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not the best option. Best option is to keep all options open, no matter how warped or strange they may seem. Just don't say that any evidence is bad, because there is some truth in all "evidence".

Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.
Again, there's some truth and half-truth in that first statement. Some areas of the sciences are standing still, and shouldn't be, IMO. But the general scientific method is an excellent tool for figuring out many problems. Yes, you're right that it's not appropiate for all problems, and yes, some scientists are not aware of that fact. But the problem is that it's one of the best tools we have for dealing with many problems, so it's only natural to use it for problems that it might not work on. If anything, it gives some interesting results that may or may not lead to the solution to the problem. Does this mean that science should stop poking its nose into these problems? No! Many important advances were accidentally figured out when a person looked into a problem, and figured out the answer to a mostly unrelated problem in the process. It's this accidental nature of the scientific method that is the main reason that science shouldn't stop poking it's nose into other groups' business, or as you say, "those who can best understand them".
I'd like to address that last sentence also. Knowledge is not only advanced by the experts in a field, but also by those only loosely associated and interested in it. The history of mathematics is a great example. Many of the important theories in mathematics were not figured out by lifetime mathematicians, but by people who were interested in other disciplines that used math and needed a solution to a problem. Much of differential equations was worked out by engineers and physicists, for example. To deny a person who's interested in a subject, no matter what their background or approach is, is just a bad idea. (I'm not claiming that science has been perfect in this respect either.) Knowledge is gained by all those interested in a subject contributing, discussing and critiquing. That's what many disciplines strive for, and why segregating disciplines is a bad idea all around. It's not an ego problem of science or of any other discipline or even an educational problem. There's little problem there at all.
So what if there ends up to be too little evidence to theorize about the origin question? If something is learned about any question, even if it wasn't initially strived for, it's a success in my book. But it's nice having a big goal to shoot for, right?

-Jellisky

In case this story doesn't get back to main page

[unitron]

I'm just posting this so I can find the story again.

History and genetics

[Mossfoot]

What will be interesting is to find a lifeform here that has been separated from the rest of the world for untold millions of years, with no contamination, and compare its genetic structure with our own. To see how much "junk" genes there are compared with the rest of us (many of the genes in our body are concidered to be useless, their only purpose to fill the right amount of space between useful sequences.

Assuming what we find there has not significantly evolved in untold millions of years (or, better yet, evolved in a distinctly different way than the rest of us!), the possibilities are quite fascinating.

Re:A Futile Search=Ignorance is a bliss (for some)

[Teun]

Wow!, if your reasoning were true, how come you've got a computer? Surely that is the result of basic research, albeit not biological.....

Wake up! That some of science is sometimes at a (seeming) stand still is another reason to find more funding for interresting projects.

And IF life found it's origin in a Divine Action, what is so wrong in striving to understand as much as possible about what happened since?

Re:look at that

[MrPeach]

I believe that was the fjords, not antarctica.

Re:A Futile Search

[Gyl]

Fundamentally, science is carefully considered observations. Thus, anything that cannot be observed cannot be attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God through science is an absurdity. Finding the origins of life is a similarly un-addressable question.

I say, anything that cannot be observed has no influence on this universe. If it has influence, that influence can be observed. If miralcles happen, then they have influence, they will be VERY difficult to study, because of rare occurence, but they are observable and studyable. God may not be directly observable, buy neither are black holes, yet we have good reason to believe they exist. It may be that some day we see good reason to believe God exists, maybe life itself is this good reason. I believe we don't know enough about it to make that leap. The point is, if it is not observable, than it doesn't affect anything, and is basically not of this universe, if it were, it would affect something, and be observable in some way that we can theroize about, it may not be that we can figure out exactly what it is, but we can try to explain the effects it has.

When you try figure out the origins of life, you are exploring the past, a very difficult endevour, you go and observe it, just it's effects, and try to reproduce what might have happened. Fine, so there isn't much evidence, but what if we can make a pool of slime that produces life, what if we can show that it is likely that that sort of pool existed in the early stages of earth's life? That's not absolute proof, but it's a good theory to work with, just like all science.

Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.

Alright, I know I'm going to sound a bit harsh. Science studies what can be observed, if something cannot be observed, nor can it's effects so that it can be theorized about, than it doesn't affect this universe, and isn't a part of it. Ego, I suppose for some it is (me included). I believe what I see, I theorize about reasons, and keep an open mind to new explanations, and I'm skeptical about everything. I believe that is the best way to go about life.

And about who best understands life. I think, Biologists best understand the physical aspect, Sociologist the social (in humans) etc. Priests, Ministers, the religious. The origin of life, can ask, "why did it come" - a religious question. or "how did it come" - a scientific. Of these though, only the scientific seems to make any progress, and it influences how the "why" is debated.

I'm going to quite rambling now and go for lunch.

Re:There are smaller lakes to experiment on first

[Royster]

The article [sciam.com] is in the March '01 issue of Scientific American.

Frigid lake?

[Vuarnet]

Scientist: Today, I'm gonna penetrate you and try to find out the origins of life itself!
Frigid Lake: Not tonight, dear, I have a headache...

Re:A Futile Search

[Rogerborg]

Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.

By which you mean people who cheerfully torture each other to death over the most pedantic aspects of the interpretation of a theory derived by the "I fear the alternative" process, unsupported by evidence and validated only by repeated assertion, intimidation and brutal censorship? Those gals^H^H^H^H guys?

Re:Keys to the origins of life?

[Yazeran]

The slashdot title is a bit enthousiastic. Lake Vostok is about 1 million years old, but life on earth appeared some 3.5 billion years ago. It's not like we're talking about frozen primordial life, we're talking about life evolved at 99.93%. Still, it could be interest

Nice to finally see someone who has some sense of perspective. The lake is only insulated for the last one milion years, and perhaps not even that.
Glacial ice moves, so does the antarctic ice sheet. Even though the lake has been covered by ice for over one milion yours, the just ice above the lake is most likely much yonger, and has thus contaminated the lake and 'reset' the lake at a later date.
The exact age of the ice obove the lake should be determinde as the drilling core reaches these parts of the ice, as one can count the years backwards from the surface (like counting year-rings in old trees)
The real interesting part from a geological and biological point of view (yep i'm a geologist) is if life exsists in the lake. Life can exsist at the bottom of the oceans (at the black smoker vents on East Pacific Rise at least) but if it can exsist in a almost frosen lake that has been isolated for 100.000+ years would be interresting to see.

plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer..

Yazeran

Re:The answer? Don't.

[unitron]

"If you're going to counter my vague rantings, you should be willing to refer to specific studies."

Now *that* would be a great sig!

Re:In case this story doesn't get back to main pag

[unitron]

Here's another one for you to moderate as off-topic. Idiot.

Re:There are smaller lakes to experiment on first

[CSG_SurferDude]

Oh NOOOO!!!!!

The article states there is a "Big Magnetic Anomaly" in the lake. That can mean only one thing...

The UFO from the X-Files Movie

(OR is it the lost StarGate?)

Re:History and genetics

[e_plurbius_oblivious]

"offering scientists a unique test tube of life from a primordial era." "What will be interesting is to find a lifeform here that has been separated from the rest of the world for untold millions of years, with no contamination, and compare its genetic structure with our own." I can understand the scientific industry's excitement over this discovery, however i think it bears mentioning that this is a unique discovery in more than it's possible benifits to science or the "human race". Here we have a place on our beloved planet Earth that has evolved completely independantly (or as close as possible) of our carbon monoxide poisoning, green-house gases, acid rain, ebola virus, traffic violations, power lunches, corporate mergers, and not to mention the carnal clutches of the naked-wife e-mail virus. This equals VALUE to me and i suspect a great many other post-industrial thinkers out there who no longer have faith that scientists even understand the meaning of "ethical responsability and expirimentation" and would sleep just fine knowing the cure for cancer is being left untouched by man out of respect. I may be wrong but i suspect the reason for this is the lack of ethics in todays Institutions/Industry. When Copernicus, Galileo, and all the ancient Chinese who knew all about the universe three thousand years before it was determined that white men cannot jump, submitted their work to the public it was usually published in books with their names clearly stated inside. they knew they had an ethical responsibility and PERSONALLY risked life and limb against church and state with the knowledge that their unveiling may mean execution or banishment -- as it indeed did for some. In other words thay had a personal stake in their work. Nowadays with the corporate/academic stamp science puts on it's work the fault/responsiblity issues become a matter for lawyers and bean counters to determine and if you'd like to think lawyers are expected to have morals then i have a couple of acres in Iraq i think you could turn a profit on. How can science be expected to slow down and consider ethics when it's backed by corporate/academic funding and a justice system that subconsciously supports it? This is in know way a personal attack on any one person, and a considerable attack on the ethics of the corporate/academic machines hiding behind the excuse of scientific integrity and discovery. Hopefully Shawn Fanning and his little middle finger will demonstrate Paul Bunyon is alive and well and can still beat the machine. Isn't that what this whole idea of freedom is all about? Oh yeah, and Fuck the police.

Re:In case this story doesn't get back to main pag

[cribcage]

...says the genius who apparently can't work slashdot's ultra-complex "older articles" search function.

crib