Customer Reviews

Mars: The Living Planet

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

In this book DiGregorio admirably discusses evidence for the conclusion that the Viking missions did in fact discover life on Mars. This is the view of Drs. Gilbert Levin and Patricia Ann Straat, who developed one of the instruments, the Labeled Release experiment, that flew on Viking. The book presents very exciting up to date information on exotic organisms, extremophiles, that might be found on other planets. NASA itself is investigating such possibilities with its Astrobiology program. Finally, the book argues that since some experiments on Viking gave very definite life signs, missions such as Mars Sample Return should not be undertaken until the issue is resolved conclusively.

For the last twenty years, Dr. Levin has consistently argued that no non-biological explanation faithfully reproduces the results seen in his experiment. Dr. Levin has shown great insight in regards to the life on Mars issue. As discussed in DiGregorio's book, he suggested to the imaging team that there were other colors on Mars than just dull browns and reds. This was verified by members of the Viking imaging team who confirmed there were blue and green patches on rocks that changed seasonally. Levin argued that the dry conditions and (apparent) low organic content in the Mars soil did not preclude the existence of life. Since the Viking missions, it has been confirmed that certain organisms can live within igneous rock surving on non-organic chemicals for nutrients and on water that trickles through cracks in the rock. Levin argued in a paper on liquid water on Mars that a widely cited paper concluding that liquid water could not exist on the Martian surface was based on a faulty assumption that water vapor was evenly distributed through the Martian atmospheric column. The Pathfinder mission confirmed that water vapor was restricted to the bottom 1 to 3km above the Martian surface.

Another factor that Digregorio discusses in his book is the evidence that there may be active volcanism on Mars. This is important to the life issue since this indicates heat and or hydrothemal systems on the Martian surface. And the National Science Foundation's report on the Mars Sample Return mission admits that such would increase the chance for life on Mars. Recently from Mars Global Surveyor images it has been concluded that Mars lava flows could be as young as 200 thousand years, which would make it virtually certain that volcanism continues today.

In reading over the history of the controversy over the conflicting results from the Vking missions, it occurs to me there is a basic flaw in subsequent investigations to resolve the issue. They all assume there was something wrong with Levin's Labeled Release experiment and the GCMS, which indicated no organics on Mars, was right. DiGregorio discusses the fact that it was first believed there was a problem in the LRx when it gave positive responses. But the engineering team confirmed it was operating properly. In contrast, there was one important factor with the GCMS that was definitely wrong, and two others that possibly were "wrong". As DiGregorio mentions, the Viking GCMS NEVER GOT AN INDICATION THAT SAMPLES WERE ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE CHAMBER. This indicates that either there was a flaw in the mechanism detecting sample delivery or the GCMS never got a large enough sample to register. If the second is true then that has clear implications for its failure to detect organics on Mars. Two other failings of the Viking GCMS is that it could be "poisoned" by soil with high sulfur content, known to be true of Mars, and the fact that it could not detect the organic equivalent of fewer than a million cells per gram.

Given these facts you would think that at least some research would have gone into showing how the GCMS could have given a wrong result. Yet all the research (other than Levin's) went to showing why the LRx was wrong. Why? Scientists are a conservative bunch. Rather than making the truly revolutionary claim that life had been discovered on Mars, they simply preferred to make the safe assumption that the instruments indicating life present were flawed. However, the history of science shows that great discoveries are made when scientists with insight go beyond the safe assumptions, and view the evidence dispassionately and go wherever it leads. What should have given scientists pause is the fact that the conclusion that the GCMS was right and the LRx wrong was based not on scientific factors but solely on the assumption that that is the way things should be.

So how can we determine whether it was the LRx or the GCMS that was flawed? A recent paper by Yen, Murray, and Rossman may give a clue: Water content of the Martian soil: Laboratory simulations of reflectance spectra Authors: YEN, A. S.; MURRAY, B. C.; ROSSMAN, G. R. Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 103, No. E5, p. 11,125 (1998).

This paper shows there is a discepancy between the water content of the Martian soil as determined by the GCMS and determined by all other Earth-based and orbiter observations, perhaps by a factor of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude. The upcoming Mars Polar Lander due to land on Mars in December will test the water content of the Martian soil. If it confirms the high water content of all the observations other than the GCMS, then that would indicate a gross error in the GCMS water analysis and by extension in the organic analysis as well.

Bob Clark

Reading this book took me back over the years to the 1976 viking lander life detection experiments. I have a doctorate in cell biology and have worked extensively with cells in culture. Thus, the label release experiments seemed pretty indicative of metabolism in the martian soil sample, hence life. The fact that the uptake of labeled nutrients was prevented if the soil was pre-heated (steralization) was also consistent with life which could be destroyed by heat. These results seemed to be pretty strong indicators of some sort of microbiol presence in the soil. At this point everyone seemed excited. Then came the gas chromatography which failed to detect organic material. The conclusion was immediately reached that the martian soiled contain no life but had an "interesting chemistry". Howver, what we had was conflicting results which usually calls for further experimentation rather than dismissing one set of data out of hand.

Thus I was delighted to see Digregorio et al's book on the library shelves. The authors argue convincingly that the label release experiments were properly done and also points out potential problems with the chromatography experiments which should have been examined more closely. He also discusses other intrigueing observations, such as the presence of green hues on the martian rocks suggesting photosynthetic organisms. Perhaps one of his most telling arguments concerns the use of the word "evidence." Evidence is a set of one one or more observations which support a given hypothesis. Certainly the label release experiments would fall into the category of evidence for life. Furthermore, no one seems to have shown that the experiments leading to these results were flawed. Thus the statement made again and again that the viking lander experiments failed to show evidence of life is wrong. While the authors can't prove conclusively that there is life on Mars, they certainly make a strong case for examining the question further. I would recommend this book strongly to anyone interested in exobiology.

Review from Sky & Telescope magazine page 69 - April 1998:"Space writer Barry DiGregorio's tome centers on the notion that the Viking landers discovered evidence for biological activity on Mars, but this evidence was misinterpreted or intentionally suppessed.DiGregorio's book tells the story of Gilbert Levin, Pricipal Investigator of the Labeled Release (LR) experiments aboard the two Viking probes that landed on Mars a generation ago. On both landings, the LR raised eyebrows when it "fed" carbon 14-laced nutrients to samles of Martian soil: unaltered soil quickly gave off carbon dioxide containing the radioactive tracer, whle a "sterilized (heated) sample did not.The nine LR results have been widely attributed to still-unidentified oxidants, but Levin and LR coinvestigator Patricia Ann Straat still maintain that microorganisms of some kind had metabolized the labeled food. While sounding at times like a conspiracy tract, DiGregorio's thoroughly documented narrative challenges Levin's critics to pen a popular level rebuttal".--Review by Joshua Roth

If the discovery of life on other planets would rank as one of the greatest events in human history, then "Mars: The Living Planet" by Middleport science writer Barry E. DiGregorio should be hailed as one of the most important books of the modern era...

Dale Anderson - Buffalo News book reviewer Sunday May 10, 1998 Buffalo News review

The August 1997 NASA announcement of the discovery of possible fossilized bacteria in meteorite ALH 84001 of Martian origin grabbed the attention of millions of people across the world. Cover stories of science and general interest newsmagazines, front-page coverage from the world's leading international newspapers and extensive coverage on the nightly news renewed centuries-old interest in Earth's neighbor, Mars. The speculation of life on Mars stirred debates in scientific and technical circles, as well as raising philosophical and theological questions. However, this was not the first time in the second half of this century that the scientific community has had to struggle with the possible fact that there is life on Mars.

The quest for determining if there is life on Mars has its origins in fundamental research about Earth's environment. Sophisticated scientific experiments were part of the 1976 Viking Mission to Mars. The Viking Lander 1 and Lander 2 were carrying cargo for three biological experiments designed to determine if life forms were found on the surface of Mars, which was the primary objective of the Viking Mission. The Gas Exchange experiment (Gex), the Pyrolytic Release experiment (PR), and the Labeled Release experiment (LR) were selected from the 164 original proposals to develop automated, life-detection experiments to test Martian soil. A fourth test to measure the presence of organicmatter only, the Gas-Chromatograph Mass Spectrophotometer (GCMS) test, was onboard the Viking Mission. This chemical test would discount the findings of the biological tests and play a pivotal role in the conclusions of the existence of life on Mars -- conclusions staunchly defended by NASA.

The first two chapters of DiGregorio's book provide a rather interesting history of the study of Mars. The story traces the planet's role from the ancient religions to the source of intensive scientific scrutiny. Subsequent chapters provide detailed explanations of the scientific research that paved the way for the experiments carried on the Viking Landers. These sections describe not only the scientific research but also the researchers who were engaged in some of the most cutting edge scientific study in microbiology - the study of microbial life in Earth's most extreme, desolate, and hostile environments - searing hot deserts and the frigid ice fields of the Antarctic. This research would pave the way for the development and maturation of anew branch of microbiology examining extremophile bacteria (bacteria that can withstand the extreme environmental conditions of extremely low or extremely high temperatures, excessively salty, or other chemically challenged environments, including cryptoendolithic forms that live inside rocks!).

Wolf Vladimir Vishniac studied algae, molds, and bacteria. His research areas included the origins of life and exobiology (the study of life beyond the boundaries of Earth). Vishniac's development of an in situ test (done in real time -- on the spot), the Wolf Trap, would provide important insights for the concurrent tests by Gilbert V. Levin, whose LR design would be on the Viking Landers. Vishniac and University of Rochester graduate assistant, Stanley Mainzer, developed a series of tests to test for the evidence of microbial life in previously thought sterile ice fields of the Antarctic. It was Vishniac's belief that if life could exist and reproduce in the ice-cemented soils of the Antarctic, life could survive in the harsh environments of Mars.

Vishniac's work also describes the rigors and dangers of such research. On a December summer day in a valley between the Antarctic's Mount Baldr and Mount Thor, Vishniac set to explore a new area to place equipment to continue his studies. Tragically, Vishniac slipped and slid off the edge of a one thousand foot cliff in the Asgard Mountains. The second rigor of research at these levels deals with the acceptance and support of research, especially by NASA and NASA-supported scientists. Vishniac's Wolf Trap and life-testing experimentswere not included in the Viking Landers. The official reason given by NASA for the exclusion was the "weight" of the equipment needed, and that Vishniac's experiments required water, which NASA scientists had already concluded would not be found on Mars.

DiGregorio outlines in the remainder of his book the mounting evidence that Levin's LR experiments did indeed discover life on Mars and how Levin endured the scorn, humiliation, and wrath of the scientific community. The major thrust of the remainder of MARS: THE LIVING PLANET is the decades-long cover up of scientific evidence of life on Mars. DiGregorio describes, in chilling fashion, the role NASA has played in altering, concealing, and distorting data from the Viking Mission. He also describes NASA's attempts to tarnish the careers of research scientists who dare to challenge prevailing NASA thoughts about life on Mars. DiGregorio establishes the premise that NASA has turned its back on settling this incredibly important issue, and then sets forth to answer his own question, "Why?"

MARS: THE LIVING PLANET is, as described on the book's jacket, "a highly readable science story." While some readers might get a little bogged-down in the scientific and technical aspects described in the book's middle chapters, it is this very essence of thoroughness that adds to the compelling story that DiGregorio unfolds. While reading this book, I was compelled to think of three other authors and their subject matter and manner of delivery: Carl Sagan's CONTACT, Kurt Vonnegut's concept of Ice Nine, and Michael Crichton's microbial thriller, ANDROMEDA STRAIN. The difference between these classics and DiGregorio is that Sagan, Vonnegut, and Crichton were writing fiction.

As a life member of the Mars society and an amateur astronomer of 40 years I've read dozens of Mars books, and papers on the pros and cons of life on Mars.

Barry E. Digregorio ( wrote 90% of the book), a chapter by Dr Gilbert V. Levin, and a chapter by 10 year helper Dr. Patricia Ann Straat have wrote a great book. The book reads well and is not bogged down with too much technical PHD terms.OK for the average layman and scientists to read.

I'm not saying the opinions and "facts" documented by the group are gospel but the book certainly opened my mind to the possibilities that life MAY have been found on Mars via the 2 Viking landings and "evidence" given by the Mars meteor ALH 84001 and another younger one found in Antarctica.

"Evidence" is given of the results of Dr Levin's LR data. Charts show there was indeed arising of the very slightly radioactive tracer gas that may have come from life processes but then a dropping off as more nutrient was was added. Did the gas go back into the soil? Organisms killed because of excess? Also there was a number of times it was not clear if they actually got a sample into the chamber for testing as there was glitches.

What I was impressed was the way Barry E. Digregorio systematically laid out a very good case for life on Mars but INMO there was NOT a definite answer either no life or life.

Also there is a good history about the "wolf trap" and Dr.Wolf Vishniac not being able to get his experiment on Viking after years of work with NASA and then having to go to Antarctica to try to prove the capabilities of the "Wolf trap" against a supposedly sterile Antarctic environment (NOT). Sadly Dr. Vishniac perished falling down a thousand foot gorge.

Also references to many other scientists including Carl Sagan. Also other Mars flights are shown and there results and disappointment failures. Much is said about possible underground water on Mars and fog and frost to sustain life. Also UV radiation and radiation from soil elements on Mars as it would effect life is mention as well as the low Mars atmospheric pressure and high CO2 content.

Also lots of controversy on the color of Mars sky. Why was it blue in the original image and why did the NASA administer force a technician to make it more red? Also it seems to me there was some blue green color on the rocks? Life? Was NASA trying to hide something to allow a future take home sample of Martian soil? Adjustment so the US flag on Viking was red and not purple? It was shown as dust particles settle down from the Martian atmosphere the sky color goes from slightly red, to salmon, to blue to purple. Again why did NASA fool around with the color and not leave it alone. Original image looked like Arizona sky and brownish rock to me...not red, and there was some blue green tint to some of the rocks. A diode color controlled system. INMO not the best but probably they best NASA could do at the time.

Much "evidence" and deep concern is written about the possible contamination of Mars without expensive sterilization methods and the Russians may have crashed non sterilized spacecraft into Mars already. The greater potential importance of not allowing a possible deadly organism from Mars to be brought back on Earth is shown and that testing should be on Mars, the Moon or the ISS. Unnecessary worry of an "Andromeda Strain" ? I don't know but INMO some precautions should be taken.

Also lots of information of oxidizers in the Martian soil and the search for hydrogen peroxide. Also shown was Digregorio's failed quest to have the Hubble telescope search for hydrogen peroxide in the Martian atmosphere.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with any of this but it does open ones mind to the possibilities and that life MAY have been found and NASA may have had an alternate reason to publicly say life was not found. If you are interested in the possibility of life on Mars you one it to yourself to try this book. Hear the other story and pros and cons about the possibility of Martian life. 5 stars

Excellent, well researched book. The case is convincingly made that the Viking LR experiments did indeed detect life in 1976. During the intervening years, mainstream science has dismissed these results as a hypothetical(and never explained/ replicated!)exotic chemical reaction. New data distilled from the original Viking records have even revealed a circadian rythym(independent of thermal effects)to the LR's measured results. Rather than recite a long list of pertinent facts however, let me say this: follow the data. Ignore, discard and reject input from people(even the experts!) who clearly, for whatever reason will not publicly face the facts revealed by the data. If Mars and the possibility of exobiology interests you at all, do your homework, search out the facts..... you will eventually discover a very noticeable..er, dichotomy(to put it politely) between what data is coming in - and the interpreted results anounced by NASA. Why this is - I do not know. It is not conspiracy theorizing to see the obvious; hopefully this book will spur more people to ask hard questions - and at least, eventually settle this debate at some point in time - once and for all.

You included my review of Barry's book Mars: The Living Planet under the following ANONYMOUS listing (there are some comments following:

"A reader from SUNY Buffalo , February 8, 1999 ... The August 1997 NASA announcement of the discovery of possible fossilized bacteria in meteorite ALH 84001 of Martian origin grabbed the attention of millions of people across the world. Cover stories ... "

There is no need to keep it a secret that I, Frederick W. Stoss (Editorial Advisory Board for the Electronic Green Journal, Associate Editor of Counterpoise (ALA Alternatives in Print Task Force), Editor of GreeNotes (ALA Task Force on the Environment) - ALA, American Library Association)reviewed this book. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LIST MY NAME AND AFFILIATIONS. Thanks!!!

Fred Stoss Biological Sciences Librarian SUNY University at Buffalo

Simply put, one of the most important science books of our modern era. Levin and Straat will go down in history as the discoverers of life on Mars and herald a new era that the universe is filled with life. This will in turn, create the opportunity for biologists the world over to describe a new general theory of biology.

Gerry Clancy

Barry DiGregorio's new book about the discovery of microbial life on the surface of Mars only has re-inforced what I have suspected all along --that if NASA ever did find life on the other planets they would contain the information to themselves fearing funding cuts by those that would protest "the truth about nature" because it interfers with their religious cosmologies. Former NASA scientist Gilbert Levin presents a good argument (Levin guest writes chapter 9) and gives readers an inside look at what it is like to work as a NASA exobiologist and the political obstacles he has had to endure. All in all, Mars The Living Planet is one of the best books on Mars I have ever read (and I have read most of them) and highly recomended it to anyone that is curious about how NASA conducts its research in this area. Though the search for life is one of NASA's top three stated goals for Mars, DiGregorio points out that no microbiologists are being included on any of the NASA science teams and that biological testing experiments are being rejected by the agency. --John Miller, Amherst, N