Talk:Viking lander biological experiments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mars (marked as Mid-importance).
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

POV article[edit]

The edits made on August 4th make it sound like life was conclusively detected by the experiment and omit some counter-arguments from the previous edits. A link to a commercial website was also added by the contributer (which I later removed). Something seems fishy. KBi 04:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave the article a buzz cut. Much of the info that wasn't POV was redundant; it's better just simply removed. What was below the header was already a nice summary of the experiments, so I left it intact. -- Rei 19:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

I placed a {Refimprove} because I could not find the one that requests "in text citations." The list at the end looks nice but it is imposible to know which statement in the text are they are sourcing. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Label Release experiment[edit]

Hello. I am opening a discussion on the term 'Label Release', as it is being written here as 'labeled release'. Note that this assay is not "labeling the release" of anything but measures the release of an already labeled compound. Big difference.

The label is any traceable compound, in this case, the label is radioactive 14C, a radioactive tracer. This traceable label is incorporated in a nutritive substance. In this case, the label is radioactive atoms of 14C; if a living organism takes up the laced nutrient it will metabolize and transform the compound and release some of the 14C label as waste in the form of 14CO2 gas. The assay does not "label the release", but 'measures the 14C label release (the release of the 14C label)

Therefore, a description of the observation would be described as "....the 14C label was released". Another example is: ".....activity, as measured by the release of 14C". Regardless of the popular press headlines, the correct scientific term for this assay is Label Release. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

-Edited to include examples and scientific references to the term "label release". I do not expect anybody to actually read these papers, but only corroborate the use of the scientific term: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I also noticed that the principal investigator of the Viking's LR, Levin, refers to it as 'Labeled Release'. Is it a commercial name given by him or the scientific assay name?

'Labeled Release' was the official name of the experiment. Semantics may be interesting but they are not definitive. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I have no strong bias on one name or the other, I just wanted to make sure the LR name being used here is the appropriate one. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems sourced mostly to Levin & co. which is rather fringey. The journal is pretty obscure, being published by the The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences. I think it needs more mainstream sources for balance. I've added the CNN observation, but there are probably peer reviewed papers and/or books contradicting Levin & co. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Compare to how a textbook presents this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Crocco's hypothesis[edit]

I strongly support the edit performed by 193.10.57.10 (editor from Uppsala, .se) today, and also his or her suggestion that the section be deleted entirely. --El Ingles (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the recent edit. Note that the hypothesis is not by Crocco but by Levin; Crocco only proposed a nomen nudum. Because of the noise they have made I think Levin and Crocco deserve a short mention as a fringe theory only. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific results - needs additional references[edit]

I've added the refimprove-section template to the section 'Scientific results', as I'm not sure that the scientific consensus regarding the matter is correctly described in the section, especially after the results published in December 2010 in the JGR.[5] --Eleassar my talk 13:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "update". Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks OK from a preliminary skim to me. Null hypothesis remains unfalsified - you can do this abiotically/without organics, and so most retain that null hypothesis. I'd say most Mars scientists have open minds on presence of organics (as distinct from "life"), though. "Wide open" is a good description for me. DanHobley (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)