103 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
103 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
The following is a reprint of an article which appeared in the
|
||
May/June issue of Technology Review. The article was written by
|
||
Stephen Strauss, a science reporter for the Toronto Globe and
|
||
Mail.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
What should astronomers do if they detect what might be a
|
||
message from intelligent beings from outer space? Who should
|
||
they tell first?
|
||
|
||
Priciples of scientific openness should guide all responses to
|
||
outer-space signals, according to an international group that
|
||
includes a space lawyer, astronomers, and the director of the
|
||
U.S. State Department's Office of Advanced Technology. After
|
||
four years of debate, the group formally presented an
|
||
international protocol for such occasions at an International
|
||
Astronomical Congress meeting in Bangalore, India, in October
|
||
1988.
|
||
|
||
"Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) projects assume
|
||
that coherent radio signals from outer space must be either
|
||
beacons from civilizations wishing to attract attention or
|
||
unplanned evidence of technical competence. But SETI astronomers
|
||
have long worried that some officials might see a potential for
|
||
political or technological gain in being the first to reply to
|
||
aliens. Such politicians might try to keep discoveries of
|
||
incomming signals secret. Messages would also need decoding, and
|
||
bringing in professional code breakers could enmesh the response
|
||
to extraterrestrials in the world of espionage.
|
||
|
||
Georgetown University law professor Allan Goodman has argued
|
||
since 1984 for international rules of conduct to keep SETI signal
|
||
analysis from becoming a political football. Peter Boyce,
|
||
executive director of the American Astronomical Society, adds,
|
||
"We want to circumvent political fiat" that would prevent a
|
||
discovery from reaching the global scientific community. Both
|
||
Boyce and Goodman are among the authors of the report.
|
||
|
||
Scientists have also been concerned that unverified alerts might
|
||
panic the public. News of a SETI event might lead to
|
||
embarrassment as well, because the signals could turn out to have
|
||
a less-than-glamorous origin.
|
||
|
||
In fact, since the first formal SETI searches began in 1960 at
|
||
the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Greenbank, W. Va., a
|
||
number of "false positives" have been reported. These anomalies
|
||
have appeared so unique, that an alien civilization has seemed
|
||
the only explanation. Perhaps the most famous example is a
|
||
strong signal recorded in 1977 at Ohio State University. A team
|
||
member wrote "wow" next to his notes, lending that name to such
|
||
phenomena. The Ohio State wow never reappeared.
|
||
|
||
Boyce appends a related problem. "We need a breathing spell to
|
||
avoid being duped by Caltech undergraduates," he says. Those
|
||
students have made a name for thenselves by perpatrating hoaxes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
VERIFY AND TRUST
|
||
|
||
The proposal addresses verification issues first. Those who
|
||
discover a signal would strive to eliminate the possibility that
|
||
a natural or human source had emitted it. If they succeeded,
|
||
they would notify national authorities such as NASA that
|
||
something significant had been found. They would also inform
|
||
research organizations that sign the treaty, who would attempt to
|
||
independently confirm the finding, or provide an alternate
|
||
explanation.
|
||
|
||
If the scientists at these organizations agree that some
|
||
extraterrestrial intelligence is the likely source of the signal,
|
||
they would notify the astronomical community at large, the
|
||
United Nations, and space-law bodies, such as the International
|
||
Union of Space Law in Paris. Only after this would the
|
||
discoverers go public with their finding, assuming that the
|
||
secret had not leaked out already.
|
||
|
||
While secrecy is necessary during the verification process, the
|
||
protocol places a high priority on ensuring open access to SETI
|
||
information. The protocol would bind signatories to record and
|
||
permanently store all data relating to a signal. Moreover,
|
||
researchers would make data generally available in a variety of
|
||
formats.
|
||
|
||
Because replying is a political act, the protocol adds that no
|
||
single nation should control the answer. It states that "no
|
||
response to a signal or other evidence of extraterrestrial
|
||
intelligence will be sent until appropriate international
|
||
consultations have taken place." Specifically, the accord looks
|
||
to a proposal presented at a 1987 meeting of the congress of the
|
||
International Astronomical Federation, which suggests making all
|
||
responses on behalf of humanity as a whole. And any
|
||
communication to outer space must be peaceful, truthful, and
|
||
express tolerance of differences.
|
||
|
||
Over the next four years, a number of scientific and space-law
|
||
bodies will consider the Bangalore proposal. The authors hope to
|
||
present it to the United Nations before Columbus Day 1992. On
|
||
that date, NASA hopes to begin a $90 million SETI program that
|
||
will sweep the skies looking for wow indicators from all
|
||
directions, as well as radio signals from the 1,000 closest
|
||
sun-type stars.
|
||
|