Search

The term biosignature has become increasingly prevalent in astrobiology literature as our ability to search for life advances. Although this term has been useful to the community, its definition is not settled. Existing definitions conflict sharply over the balance of evidence needed to establish a biosignature, which leads to misunderstanding and confusion about what is being claimed when biosignatures are purportedly detected. To resolve this, we offer a new definition of a biosignature as any phenomenon for which biological processes are a known possible explanation and whose potential abiotic causes have been reasonably explored and ruled out. This definition is strong enough to do the work required of it in multiple contexts—from the search for life on Mars to exoplanet spectroscopy—where the quality and indeed quantity of obtainable evidence is markedly different. Moreover, it addresses the pernicious problem of unconceived abiotic mimics that is central to biosignature research. We show that the new definition yields intuitively satisfying judgments when applied to historical biosignature claims. We also reaffirm the importance of multidisciplinary work on abiotic mimics to narrow the gap between the detection of a biosignature and a confirmed discovery of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Potential biosignatures that offer the promise of extraterrestrial life (past or present) are to be expected in the coming years and decades, whether from within our own solar system, from an exoplanet atmosphere, or otherwise. With each such potential biosignature, the degree of our uncertainty will be the first question asked. Have we really identified extraterrestrial life? How sure are we? This paper considers the problem of unconceived alternative explanations. We stress that articulating our uncertainty requires an assessment of the extent to which we have explored the relevant possibility space. It is argued that, for most conceivable potential biosignatures, we currently have not explored the relevant possibility space very thoroughly at all. Not only does this severely limit the circumstances in which we could reasonably be confident in our detection of extraterrestrial life, it also poses a significant challenge to any attempt to quantify our degree of uncertainty. The discussion leads us to the following recommendation: when it comes specifically to an extraterrestrial life-detection claim, the astrobiology community should follow the uncertainty assessment approach adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]