http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/a-good-clean-hunt-for-life-on-mars.html
As a child, space has mystified everyone about the mysteries it holds. There have been many theories about how there is life on other planets, shown in fictional movies and real life. This mystery of alien life is a blur to everyone and many people are dying to learn the answer to the question "Does life exist outside Earth?".
In this article, we learn about the hygiene problems of two rovers, Opportunity and Curiosity. They do not get dirty; they just don't get cleaned enough. These rovers were repeatedly wiped with an alcohol solution and some parts were even heated to at least two hundred and thirty degrees to avoid contaminating Mars with bacteria from Earth. This cleaning process, however, is very expensive and has very little purpose. Alberto Fairén, the author of Nature Geoscience , claims this cleansing as "a waste of time and money". Fairén and his co-author Dirk Schulze-Makuch argue that the bacteria transferred from Earth could not survive in Mars. They claim that even if the bacteria could survive at Mars, it would have been living there for millions of years. This belief stems from the knowledge about what we know about how chunks of Earth have been blasted by asteroids to Mars and vice versa. The possibility of bacteria from Earth existing in Mars leads to the possible clause that life might have not started in Earth. there is no concrete evidence but planetary scientists theorized how the organisms that evolved into humans may have lived in Mars. This brings the ironic sense of how since we are searching for martians, we are looking for us.
Alberto Fairén and Dirk Schulze-Makuch were able to create a chain of theories by arguing against the sterilization of Opportunity and Curiosity. However, their argument does not negate the fact that the rovers must be cleaned. Newly evolved bacteria from Earth may transfer through the Curiosity and adapt in Mars' hostile land. Just because previous bacteria could not survive does not mean new, different bacteria could not be able to survive on Mars. Alberto Fairén and Dirk Schulze-Makuch also bring up the point of how bacteria from Mars could be Earth's ancestor. I believe, however, that humans could not have survived on Mars; we would only be able to stay as bacteria. The scorching lifestyle on Mars would not be able to sustain the life Earth can. No animal , ranging from mice to elephants could live on Mars due to its hostile climate.
This topic is very intriguing. I believe that we should still sterilize the equipment we expose to Mars, although scientists claim that new bacteria would have no effect on the planet. Fairen says that the Earth has a high probability of exposing bacteria to Mars and vice-versa. However, that was billions of years ago. Even if bacteria was introduced, let's say 100 years ago, bacteria reproduce quickly, constantly mutating and propagating variations of genes. We do not know if the bacteria will affect Mars today the same way it affected it in the past. Although we might be the Martians we ourselves are looking for, Mars and Earth are completely different from how it was when the first bacteria were introduced to the other. No one is certain about the consequences that may possibly occur as a result; hence, it is still imperative that sterilization takes place.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to see you comment more about your opinion on the matter, as I have above. Your commentary was still more or less a summary, and it would have been more insightful if you told the viewers how you felt about whether sterilization should continue to occur or not.
Lastly, thank you for sharing such information that I would not have known otherwise :)
I really like your choice of news article! Exploring different planets for evidence of life is so interesting. I did not know that the rovers had to be so thoroughly cleaned and that it would cost so much to clean them (I thought bacteria could not survive hot temperatures. With that in mind, I thought the high temperature on Mars would get rid of the bacteria). It makes sense that we do not want to contaminate Mars with materials from Earth, but that is also extremely ironic. We send MACHINES to explore Mars and wander around, but we are afraid of bacteria that might contaminate Mars.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the structure of your blog, it seems more summary than analysis. Maybe you could include your stance on the issue of the money used in the process of cleaning the rovers. Overall, it was a really interesting topic, I just wish you had your stance on it. If you did, I could either support your opinion or argue against it (which is always fun). :)
I believe that the whole theory that life on Earth originated in Mars is ludicrous. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article, there is no concrete evidence that supports the theory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that your commentary was mainly a summary. It would be better if you talk more about your opinion on the topic or the article itself. Otherwise, your commentary is well written.
Hi Matthew!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your choice in article; it's interesting that scientists have come up with yet another theory on both life outside of Earth and the creation of life on Earth.
Your analysis contained too much summary, though in a few places your diction helped reveal your own personal thoughts on this issue, which was good.
I enjoyed reading your last paragraph, which would be your commentary. Your stance on this topic was interesting and you should definitely expand on it.
I find your article very interesting! I find it interesting in how scientists are continuously exploring the possibility of there being life on Mars and the theories associated with it. Your article was mostly summary but the last part where you put your input on the matter at hand is very well done. I think you should put more input on what your opinion is otherwise I enjoyed reading your article.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I found your summary somewhat difficult to follow. Thinking that the fault lay in your summary, I read through the original article. Alas, I found myself still confused. So my apologies for prematurely assigning blame. I can imagine you may have been hard-pressed to insert your own observations or thoughts with respect to this rather scientific article. If this is indeed the case, rather than commenting on the content of the article, I would recommend focusing on the rhetoric of the article, that is, the way it was written. Some considerations worth pursuing might include asking yourself include the following:
ReplyDelete- Whom the author intended to address?
- How effective was the author in addressing this intended audience?
- What stylistic decisions did the author make to better address this intended audience?
As to your writing, do be aware of dangling participles/misplaced modifiers. You begin by saying, "As a child, space. . . ." Unless you mean to anthropomorphisize space, I believe you meant to refer to yourself as a child.