NEWSFOCUS Astrobiology Fights for Its Life A decade after NASA pledged to create a robust program to find and understand life in the universe, researchers face a debilitating budget crunch and skepticism within their own agency THESE SHOULD BE HEADY TIMES FOR tist on Mars exploration. Researchers are for astrobiology within the space agency and astrobiologists. Reports of recent liquid afraid that the field may go the way of the outside. And the new Congress, which water on Mars and organic matter in the far agency’s life and materials science effort, a includes a more powerful California delega- reaches of the solar system signal that the once-robust $1 billion program now virtually tion, is expected to go to bat for the field in fledgling discipline, which seeks to under- extinct as more pressing needs in the human upcoming budget battles with the White stand the nature of life in the universe, is space flight program have siphoned off funds. House. “We’re going to emerge from this in coming of age. Add an expanding roster of Those fears grew stronger last summer when an even stronger position,” insists Carl newly discovered extrasolar planets and NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told the Pilcher, the new NAI director. But others examples of life flourishing in extreme envi- Mars Society that astrobiology is marginal to aren’t so sanguine. “I feel a pang in my stom- ronments on Earth—amid the high ultra- the agency’s mission. The fiscal downturn has ach,” says Kenneth Nealson, a biologist at the violet of the Andes, in Australian radioactive meant staff cuts at the program’s centerpiece, University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Survival springs, and in granite formations deep the decade-old NASA Astrobiology Institute is going to be tough.” underground—and the research challenges (NAI) at NASA’s Ames Research Center, on seem boundless. “The field is not only the edge of Silicon Valley in Mountain View, Life mission promising,” says Steven D’Hondt, an ocean- California, and less money for the outside NASA has spent a half-century looking for ographer at the University of Rhode Island, scientists it supports. life beyond Earth. For most of that time, how- Kingston, who studies microbial life deep in New, politically savvy leaders in place at ever, the exercise was an afterthought to the ocean sediment. “It is productive and Ames, NAI, and NASA headquarters have agency’s main focus on space exploration. on March 12, 2012 extremely successful.” high hopes that they can make a better case That modest effort underwent a dramatic But don’t ask D’Hondt how astrobiology change in the mid-1990s, the same time is faring in his lab. He is turning away NASA’s sprawling Ames center—founded prospective graduate students because his on the eve of World War II to promote aero- support from NASA has dried up. D’Hondt’s nautical research—appeared to be on the colleagues have similar tales to tell. They are verge of closure. A team of senior NASA scrambling to find funds from other sources officials proposed a makeover for Ames that to cope with a 50% cut over the past 2 years would draw upon its existing small programs www.sciencemag.org in NASA’s support for astrobiology. in exobiology, the life sciences, and comput- “We’re in dark times now for astrobiology,” ing to focus on two core missions: computing says Michael Meyer, a former senior scientist Astrobionauts. Scott Hubbard (left) helped recruit and what was termed astrobiology. The idea for astrobiology and now NASA’s lead scien- Baruch Blumberg to beef up NAI’s research program. wowed then–NASA chief Daniel Goldin, Downloaded from 318 19 JANUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org Published by AAAS ASTROBIOLOGY | NEWSFOCUS who was eager to link up with the exploding biological revolution. Astrobiology’s Roller-Coaster Budget The makeover got a boost when scientists announced in 1996 that they had detected evi- dence of fossilized life in a martian meteorite found in Antarctica. With the backing of then–Vice President Al Gore, Goldin folded NAI and astrobiology funding as a whole into a larger package that included several ambitious Mars missions. He forecast a $100-million- a-year budget line for astrobiology that would help biologists, astronomers, geologists, chemists, and other researchers probe the nature of life on Earth and throughout the uni- verse. His vision had its critics—particularly among biologists—who groused that NASA was using the hype over the martian meteorite to jump on the biology bandwagon. But those concerns were given little credence by a White House, Congress, and NASA leadership intent on pursuing a field that had captured the public’s imagination. Befitting its nontraditional subject, the new NAI was designed to be a nontraditional Downward spiral. NASA’s increased focus on human exploration has meant less money for astrobiology institute. Its research, done by collabora- within an already tight science budget. tive teams from universities outside the on March 12, 2012 institute, would focus on the existence of would look like NSF [the National Science Blumberg, a Nobelist in medicine from Fox habitable planets and moons within the Foundation], and someone would challenge Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Penn- solar system, the origins of life on early its existence,” says physicist G. Scott Hubbard, sylvania, who played a critical role in devel- Earth, the limits of terrestrial life, and signa- NAI’s founding director and later chief of oping a vaccine for hepatitis B. The appoint- tures of life on extrasolar planets. Instead of Ames itself. He and others envisioned NAI ment satisfied Goldin’s demand to Hubbard having a large staff housed in one location, pursuing basic research while also taking a to find “a King Kong biologist” who would NAI would function as a “virtual” institute, lead role in proposing astrobiology instru- provide NAI with instant biological gravitas. employing a few civil servants who would ments that could fly on spacecraft. But that gravitas came at a price: Blum- www.sciencemag.org grow a cadre of experienced scientists work- In 1998, after a stiff competition, NAI berg had no experience with NASA or space ing arm in arm with NASA engineers to plan picked 11 university teams to receive approx- projects. “My understanding was that this future missions. “We knew that if we didn’t imately $1 million annually for 5 years. The was to be a basic science institute, and the keep a connection to missions, this thing next year, Hubbard was replaced by Baruch teams were selected and funded on that Downloaded from Seeing red. The NASA Astrobiology Institute is making a small contribution to the planned Mars Science Laboratory but has little role in other NASA efforts to search for extraterrestrial life. www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 315 19 JANUARY 2007 319 Published by AAAS NEWSFOCUS basis,” Blumberg recalls. “Scientists were itive, 5-year grants hampers long-range plan- given broad direction” to pursue a host of top- ning. And government regulations preclude ics. And so they did, with projects on every- the teams from bidding on new NASA proj- thing from chemical evolution in the inter- ects because they are already collaborating stellar medium to biosynthetic pathways in with the agency. Their diversity would also living cells. The work was intended to lay the make it virtually impossible to settle on a sin- foundation for seeking signatures of life, says gle instrument, notes Bruce Runnegar, a Uni- Blumberg, an approach that he calls “very versity of California, Los Angeles, paleontol- mission-oriented.” ogist who served as a team member and then When Blumberg returned to Fox Chase in succeeded Blumberg. 2002, astrobiology at NASA appeared to be Distance learning. Ames biologist Lynn Rothschild Over time, NAI’s portfolio veered notice- thriving. The institute’s original $4 million hunts for extremophiles in an Australian pond. ably toward the study of extremophiles. That annual budget had grown to $25 million, the unintended shift—driven perhaps by the high number of NAI teams stood at 16, and some at the table when the relevant instruments quality of proposals it received in that area, 15% of the 150 senior scientists on those were chosen. Without their participation, NAI say scientists—was a boon to researchers, teams were members of the U.S. National had little direct impact on planning missions. who canvassed the globe to examine life that Academy of Sciences. NASA was also And missions are at the heart of NASA’s rea- could live off radioactivity from rocks in deep spending considerable sums on technologies son for being. Several university scientists mines, metabolize in subzero temperatures, to monitor life on other planets and for tradi- and NASA insiders give Blumberg credit for or thrive in highly alkaline or highly acidic tional exobiology, which focuses on prebiotic establishing an excellent research program, environments. “If you are looking for life on conditions for life in the universe. but they believe that his failure to pursue a Mars, Europa, or the outer planets, you have But astrobiology’s apparent good health solid role in future missions became the insti- to look at other kinds of energy sources,” says proved illusory. The gulf between NAI and tute’s Achilles’ heel. Andrew Knoll, a Harvard University paleo- the engineers who traditionally run NASA Others note that Blumberg and his succes- biologist who led one of the teams whose began to widen as the institute’s work sor labored under tough constraints. Space- work was not renewed. That makes work on diverged from the agency’s mission pipeline.