The Alien Question

There's an interesting article in New Scientist by Michael Hanlon, science editor of the Daily Mail. In it, Hanlon argues that NASA and other space agencies shouldn't treat the search for extraterrestrial life as the "crazy aunt in the attic" but rather make it their primary, openly acknowledged objective.

The equally interesting question, which Hanlon doesn't really address, is why the space agencies are so gun-shy about looking for aliens. I suspect there are two reasons.

The first is the hard lesson of experience. During the waves of flying saucer sightings in the 1950s, some scientists were drawn to the topic, curious about the possibility that there might be some genuine phenomenon behind the sightings. Unfortunately, the level of crackpotdom in the UFO field quickly got so high that any serious science got overwhelmed.

A significant example is the career of Dr. James E. McDonald, a physicist who advocated increased study of the UFO phenomenon. That advocacy ultimately destroyed him: when he testified before Congress about potential dangers of high-altitude supersonic airliners, a hostile congressman used his interest in "little green men" to question his credibility. McDonald, depressed and suffering personal problems, killed himself. Small wonder that few scientists want to risk getting branded a nut by supporting anything which could be so easily mocked.

The second is the "put up or shut up" problem. If NASA stakes the future of space exploration on the search for extraterrestrial life, that means that failure to find any could endanger the future of human spaceflight. This is sort of happening now -- does anyone doubt that we'd have retreated to low Earth orbit if there were real Martians and Venusians to go visit? I think basing the rationale for space exploration on a variety of reasons is ultimately more prudent.