Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Marc Neveu; Richard Quinn; Laura M Barge; Kathleen L Craft; Christopher R German; Stephanie Getty; Christopher Glein; Macarena Parra; Aaron S Burton; Francesca Cary; Andrea Corpolongo; Lucas Fifer; Andrew Gangidine; Diana Gentry; Christos D Georgiou; Zaid Haddadin; Craig Herbold; Aila Inaba; Seán F Jordan; Hemani Kalucha; Pavel Klier; Kas Knicely; An Y Li; Patrick McNally; Maëva Millan; Neveda Naz; Chinmayee Govinda Raj; Peter Schroedl; Jennifer Timm; Ziming Yang

doi:10.1089/ast.2022.0158

Future of the Search for Life: Workshop Report

Astrobiology. 2024 Jan;24(1):114-129. doi: 10.1089/ast.2022.0158.

Authors

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

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.

MeSH terms

Exobiology / methods
Extraterrestrial Environment
Humans
Jupiter*
Mars*
Saturn*