(Image source: Journal of Cosmology)

BY STEVEN SPARKMAN

You're watching multisource science news analysis from Newsy

It’s time for a science fight! A paper published Friday in the Journal of Cosmology claims to have conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life. PopSci discusses the reaction to the paper.

“Did a NASA scientist find fossilized alien microbes embedded in a 146-year-old meteorite? As this claim emerged over the weekend, the answer from the scientific community so far appears to be something between ‘Um, what?’ and ‘No.’ ”

Richard Hoover, the NASA astrobiologist who wrote the paper, collected samples of a rare type of meteor, cracked them open, and examined them with an electron microscope.

He found loads of unusual microscopic structures in the meteor. Hoover argued the structures looked a lot like bacteria and weren’t from contamination. From that, he concluded these structures were proof of extraterrestrial life. (Images: Journal of Cosmology)

Many commenters wondered why the paper was published in an obscure journal, rather than Science or Nature. NASA backed away from the paper, questioning its “peer reviewed” status in a statement at SpaceRef.

“While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. … NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication.”

But the JOC responded by circulating an email, published by MSNBC science writer Alan Boyle.

The Journal contends:

“It is a matter of public record that the organization which publishes science magazine have engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices designed to harm the Journal of Cosmology. The continuing success of JOC poses a competitive threat to their business model. We should not be surprised their 'hand puppets' are complaining that JOC published this article, and not them.”

The journal also claims to have invited over 5,000 scientists to review the paper and post their comments. They touted their openness in a press release.

“No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published.”

But the article so far includes none of the more thorough critiques from the science blogs.

Microbiologist Rosie Redifield says Hoover didn’t adequately rule out possible contamination of the century-old meteor.

“An important concern with this kind of study is contamination with terrestrial organisms before examination. He doesn't say how the meteorites have been stored before he obtained them, nor how the surfaces of the meteorites were treated before being fractured and examined.”

Finally, biologist P.Z. Myers dismissed the paper, saying Hoover didn’t even demonstrate the structures were biological.

“...apparently, the authors thought some particular squiggle looked sort of like some photo of a bug. This isn't science, it's pareidolia. They might as well be analyzing Martian satellite photos for pictures that sorta kinda look like artifacts.”

So are Hoover and the JOC getting a bad rap? Regardless, it’s not surprising scientists are invoking Carl Sagan’s famous line: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

'Like'  Newsy on Facebook for updates in your news feed

Get news with analysis from Newsy