Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Marc Neveu^{1

2}, Richard Quinn³, Laura M Barge⁴, Kathleen L Craft⁵, Christopher R German⁶, Stephanie Getty², Christopher Glein⁷, Macarena Parra³, Aaron S Burton⁸, Francesca Cary⁹, Andrea Corpolongo¹⁰, Lucas Fifer¹¹, Andrew Gangidine¹², Diana Gentry³, Christos D Georgiou¹³, Zaid Haddadin¹⁴, Craig Herbold¹⁵, Aila Inaba¹⁶, Seán F Jordan¹⁷, Hemani Kalucha¹⁸, Pavel Klier^{3

19}, Kas Knicely²⁰, An Y Li¹¹, Patrick McNally²¹, Maëva Millan²², Neveda Naz²³, Chinmayee Govinda Raj²⁴, Peter Schroedl²⁵, Jennifer Timm¹⁶, Ziming Yang²⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
² NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA.
³ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA.
⁴ NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
⁵ Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
⁶ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA.
⁷ Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
⁸ NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
⁹ Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawai'i, Mānoa, Hawaii, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Geosciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
¹¹ Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
¹² Office of Development, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
¹³ Biology Department, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
¹⁴ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, California, USA.
¹⁵ School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
¹⁶ Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
¹⁷ School of Chemical Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
¹⁸ Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
¹⁹ NASA Postdoctoral Program, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
²⁰ Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.
²¹ Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
²² Laboratory Atmosphere and Space Observations, Guyancourt, France.
²³ Department of Chemistry, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
²⁴ School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
²⁵ Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
²⁶ Department of Chemistry, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.

PMID: 38227837
DOI: 10.1089/ast.2022.0158

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Marc Neveu et al. Astrobiology. 2024 Jan.

. 2024 Jan;24(1):114-129.

doi: 10.1089/ast.2022.0158.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
² NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA.
³ NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA.
⁴ NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
⁵ Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, USA.
⁶ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA.
⁷ Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
⁸ NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
⁹ Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawai'i, Mānoa, Hawaii, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Geosciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
¹¹ Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
¹² Office of Development, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
¹³ Biology Department, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
¹⁴ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, California, USA.
¹⁵ School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
¹⁶ Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
¹⁷ School of Chemical Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
¹⁸ Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
¹⁹ NASA Postdoctoral Program, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
²⁰ Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.
²¹ Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
²² Laboratory Atmosphere and Space Observations, Guyancourt, France.
²³ Department of Chemistry, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
²⁴ School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
²⁵ Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
²⁶ Department of Chemistry, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.

PMID: 38227837
DOI: 10.1089/ast.2022.0158

Abstract

The 2-week, virtual Future of the Search for Life science and engineering workshop brought together more than 100 scientists, engineers, and technologists in March and April 2022 to provide their expert opinion on the interconnections between life-detection science and technology. Participants identified the advances in measurement and sampling technologies they believed to be necessary to perform in situ searches for life elsewhere in our Solar System, 20 years or more in the future. Among suggested measurements for these searches, those pertaining to three potential indicators of life termed "dynamic disequilibrium," "catalysis," and "informational polymers" were identified as particularly promising avenues for further exploration. For these three indicators, small breakout groups of participants identified measurement needs and knowledge gaps, along with corresponding constraints on sample handling (acquisition and processing) approaches for a variety of environments on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, and Titan. Despite the diversity of these environments, sample processing approaches all tend to be more complex than those that have been implemented on missions or envisioned for mission concepts to date. The approaches considered by workshop breakout groups progress from nondestructive to destructive measurement techniques, and most involve the need for fluid (especially liquid) sample processing. Sample processing needs were identified as technology gaps. These gaps include technology and associated sampling strategies that allow the preservation of the thermal, mechanical, and chemical integrity of the samples upon acquisition; and to optimize the sample information obtained by operating suites of instruments on common samples. Crucially, the interplay between science-driven life-detection strategies and their technological implementation highlights the need for an unprecedented level of payload integration and extensive collaboration between scientists and engineers, starting from concept formulation through mission deployment of life-detection instruments and sample processing systems.

Keywords: Catalysis; Dynamic disequilibrium; In situ measurement; Informational polymer; Sample handling; Search for life.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Atypon
Miscellaneous
- NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Affiliations

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Miscellaneous