The Last Rung

The question “are we alone in the universe?” is closer to answerable than at any point in human history—and farther from being answered than it was five years ago. Perseverance has cached a potential biosignature that cannot be confirmed on Mars. The retrieval mission that would bring it to Earth has been cancelled. The instruments that could detect life in an alien ocean exist in laboratories; the missions that would carry them do not. The contamination protocols required to search without destroying the evidence have not been built. The institutional framework for confirming and announcing a detection does not exist. Every precursor has succeeded. Every follow-on has been deferred. The gap between capability and execution is not technical. It is institutional, political, and—at its core—a question of whether the species that built the tools will choose to use them.

I. The Ladder

In 2018, a team led by Marc Neveu published a framework they called the Ladder of Life Detection.¹ The concept was simple and devastating: biosignature claims fail not because the initial detection is wrong, but because the process of ruling out alternatives is never completed. Each rung of the ladder represents a higher standard of evidence—detection, contamination assessment, abiotic source exclusion, biological pattern recognition, independent confirmation, replication, and scientific consensus. The insight was that no extraterrestrial biosignature claim in the history of the field had ever climbed past the third rung.

Three years later, NASA formalized the idea. James Green and colleagues published a confidence-of-life-detection scale in Nature—seven levels, designed to give the scientific community and the public a common vocabulary for discussing claims before they harden into headlines.²

Level	Standard	Requirement
1	Detection	A signal recognized as potentially biological
2	Contamination ruled out	Signal confirmed not to be terrestrial in origin; result replicable
3	Context	Signal consistent with biological processes and environmental conditions
4	Abiotic ruled out	All known non-biological sources of the signal excluded
5	Independent detection	Additional, independent observation supports biological interpretation
6	Alternatives excluded	Follow-up observations rule out remaining alternative hypotheses
7	Consensus	Independent confirmation, community-wide agreement, all alternatives exhausted

The scale was designed as a corrective. The field’s history is littered with claims that arrived at Level 1 and were treated by the press—and sometimes by the claimants—as if they had reached Level 7. The gap between those two levels is measured in years of follow-up analysis, independent replication, and the systematic elimination of every abiotic explanation that thermodynamics and chemistry can produce. No extraterrestrial claim has ever completed that process.

The highest any claim has reached is debatable, but the candidates are instructive. The Viking labeled release experiment: Level 1, possibly Level 2. ALH 84001: Level 1, with the contextual work of Level 3 attempted and ultimately retracted. The Venus phosphine detection of 2020: Level 1, with the detection itself contested within months.³ Cheyava Falls: Level 1. In each case, the claim entered public consciousness as a potential discovery and left it as an unresolved question. The ladder was climbed partway and abandoned—not because the question was answered, but because the tools to answer it were not available or not funded.

II. The Template

On August 7, 1996, David McKay and colleagues published a paper in Science reporting four lines of evidence for past biological activity in a Martian meteorite designated ALH 84001.⁴ The meteorite had been ejected from Mars by an impact roughly 17 million years ago and had landed in Antarctica 13,000 years before anyone picked it up. Inside it, McKay’s team found carbonate globules, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, magnetite crystals with morphologies resembling those produced by magnetotactic bacteria, and elongated structures they interpreted as possible microfossils.

The announcement came from the White House. President Clinton delivered a statement from the South Lawn. NASA administrator Daniel Goldin held a press conference. The paper had not yet been through the normal cycle of post-publication peer response. The public received the message as: life has been found on Mars.

What followed was a decade of systematic dismantlement. The PAHs were shown to be consistent with terrestrial contamination during the meteorite’s 13,000 years in Antarctic ice.⁵ The magnetite crystals, initially claimed to match those from biological sources, were demonstrated by Thomas-Keprta and colleagues to have plausible inorganic formation pathways.⁶ The elongated structures were below the theoretical minimum size for a viable cell. The carbonate globules were shown to be consistent with abiotic precipitation at temperatures incompatible with life. Each line of evidence fell individually. None was conclusively disproved; none survived scrutiny as unambiguously biological.

ALH 84001 taught the field two lessons. The first was methodological: a single line of evidence, or even four parallel lines, is insufficient for confirmation if each line has a plausible abiotic alternative. The orthogonality principle—that confirmation requires multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to biology, with abiotic explanations excluded for each—emerged directly from this failure. The second lesson was institutional: premature announcement is costly. The scientific community absorbed the message viscerally. Researchers in the field became conservative about biosignature claims in a way that persists to this day. The Cheyava Falls team’s caution—their refusal to use the word “life” in any publication—is a direct inheritance from August 1996.

III. The Viking Precedent

The ALH 84001 episode repeated, in compressed form, a pattern established twenty years earlier. In 1976, the Viking 1 lander’s Labeled Release experiment injected a nutrient solution containing radiocarbon-labeled organics into Martian soil and measured the gas above it.⁷ The result was a rapid release of ¹⁴CO₂ that closely matched the kinetic curve predicted for biological metabolism. A sterilized control sample, heated to 160°C before nutrient injection, produced no such release. By the criteria the experiment’s designer, Gilbert Levin, had established before launch, the result was positive for life.

But Viking carried a second instrument: the gas chromatograph–mass spectrometer, which searched for organic molecules in the Martian soil and found none above its detection threshold of parts per billion.⁸ The consensus interpretation became: the LR result was caused by a chemical oxidant in the soil—later identified as likely perchlorates—rather than biology.⁹ A positive result from one instrument was overridden by a negative from another. Life was not confirmed.

Levin spent the remaining decades of his career arguing that the GCMS detection limit was too high, that perchlorates would have destroyed organics before the GCMS could detect them, and that his experiment had in fact detected biology. He was partially vindicated: Curiosity’s SAM instrument later detected organic molecules on Mars, confirming that Viking’s GCMS was indeed insufficient to detect the organics that were there. Whether the LR experiment detected life remains contested. What is not contested is the lesson: a single positive result from a single instrument, even one purpose-designed for life detection, is insufficient for confirmation without orthogonal support. This is why the Enceladus Orbilander carries five instruments, not one.¹⁰

IV. The Announcement Problem

If the confirmation process takes years, the communication process takes seconds. The gap between these timescales is where the institutional failure lives.

The International Academy of Astronautics adopted a Declaration of Principles in 1989, revised in 2010, that outlines a protocol for what should happen after a confirmed detection of extraterrestrial intelligence.¹¹ The protocol recommends that the discoverer notify relevant national authorities and the international scientific community before making a public announcement, that the evidence be made available for independent verification, and that no response be sent without international consultation. The declaration is voluntary. It has no legal force. No nation has adopted it into domestic law. And it was drafted for SETI—radio signals from technological civilizations—not for the detection of microbial biosignatures in ice grains or rock cores. There is no equivalent protocol for the scenario most likely to occur first.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty addresses contamination but not communication.¹² Article IX requires states to avoid harmful contamination and to consult if an activity “would cause potentially harmful interference.” COSPAR implements this through its planetary protection categories. But neither the treaty nor COSPAR addresses what happens after a detection. There is no binding mechanism that determines who announces, through what channel, with what level of verification, or with what international review.

In practice, the process will look like this: a research team submits a paper to a high-impact journal. A preprint appears. Journalists with sources at the relevant institution call for comment. A press embargo is set and, historically, broken. A press conference follows. Peer review takes three to six months. Independent replication, if the detection is from a sample, requires access to the same material and takes years. The public experiences the entire multi-year process as a single dramatic headline, followed by confusing hedging, followed by forgetting. ALH 84001 is not just a case study. It is the template for every future announcement.

The geopolitical dimension compounds the problem. If China’s Tianwen-3 mission returns Mars samples and CNSA scientists detect biosignatures in their facility at Hefei, the announcement pathway is internal to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.¹³ No international body has standing to review the claim before publication. No Western laboratory will have access to the sample material unless CNSA chooses to share it. And the Wolf Amendment ensures that NASA cannot participate in any coordinated assessment. The first credible claim of extraterrestrial life may arrive through a publication in a Chinese journal, reviewed by Chinese peers, based on samples in a Chinese facility, without independent international verification—and the global public will have no framework for evaluating it beyond the same media cycle that mishandled ALH 84001.

V. What This Series Has Established

The five parts of this series have traced a single question—whether extraterrestrial life can be detected with existing or near-term technology—through the institutions, instruments, policies, and politics that govern the answer. The findings, in sequence:

Part 1: The Leopard Spots of Jezero Crater. Perseverance’s SHERLOC and PIXL instruments detected a co-location of organic carbon, vivianite (iron phosphate), and greigite (iron sulfide) in millimeter-scale “leopard spots” at the Cheyava Falls outcrop. The Raman G-band signature is consistent with biological carbon but not diagnostic of it. The mineral assemblage is consistent with a habitable subsurface environment with available chemical energy. No instrument on Mars can distinguish biological from abiotic origin for these features. Confirmation requires analysis in Earth-based laboratories. The samples are cached in sealed tubes on the Martian surface.

Part 2: The $11 Billion Tube. Mars Sample Return was the top priority of three consecutive planetary science decadal surveys. The mission architecture grew from a single spacecraft to a four-vehicle campaign involving two launches, a Mars ascent vehicle, an Earth return orbiter, and a capture-and-reentry system. Cost estimates escalated from $2.5 billion to $11 billion. An Independent Review Board proposed a $5.3 billion restructure that NASA rejected. The program entered an indefinite “study” phase in January 2025 that functions as cancellation. China’s Tianwen-3, a single integrated sample-return mission, is scheduled for launch in 2028 with sample delivery to Earth by 2031.

Part 3: The Instrument Gap. The instruments required for definitive life detection exist. The Enceladus Orbilander concept study specified five: a high-resolution mass spectrometer, a sputtering mass spectrometer, a capillary electrophoresis system with chirality resolution, a microscope, and a nanopore-based polymer sequencer. Europa Clipper, the largest planetary science mission ever built, carries nine instruments and will characterize Europa’s ocean—but none of its instruments are designed to detect life. The structural pattern is consistent across the program: characterization missions are funded; life-detection missions are not.

Part 4: The Contamination Problem. Forward contamination threatens scientific integrity on Mars and ecosystem integrity on ocean worlds. Backward contamination from returned samples requires a Sample Receiving Facility that combines BSL-4 containment with ultra-clean curation—a facility type that has never been built and for which no design has been funded. The Wolf Amendment makes it illegal for NASA to coordinate contamination protocols with China, the one nation most likely to return Mars samples first. COSPAR, the only multilateral body that sets planetary protection standards, has no inspection or enforcement authority.

The pattern across all four investigations is consistent: build the precursor, prove the target, defer the definitive test, and never construct the institution required to handle the result.

VI. The Decision

The question “are we alone?” is not waiting on a scientific breakthrough. The targets are characterized. Cassini measured all six CHNOPS elements in Enceladus’s plume, plus hydrothermal energy and complex organic molecules. Perseverance found a mineral assemblage consistent with biologically mediated chemistry in the habitable subsurface of ancient Mars. The instruments are designed. The Orbilander’s five-instrument suite can measure chirality at parts-per-billion concentration, image structures at cellular scale, and read the sequence of informational polymers. The science case has been endorsed by the 2023–2032 decadal survey and its two predecessors.¹⁴

What is missing is a funded mission with life detection as its primary scientific objective. No such mission exists in any space agency’s current portfolio. Europa Clipper will characterize habitability. JUICE will characterize Ganymede’s ocean. Dragonfly will characterize Titan’s prebiotic chemistry. Each is a precursor. None is designed to answer the question.

What is missing is a Sample Receiving Facility. Twenty-three years after the first decadal survey recommended Mars Sample Return, no nation has broken ground on a facility certified to open the samples. China may be building one. No one outside CNSA has evaluated the design.

What is missing is a binding international framework for confirming and communicating a detection. The IAA Declaration is voluntary. COSPAR is advisory. The Outer Space Treaty is silent. If a detection is made, the institutional response will be improvised in real time, by whatever team holds the data, under whatever political pressure exists at the moment.

What is missing is a coordination mechanism that survives the Wolf Amendment. The two nations most likely to return Mars samples to Earth cannot legally discuss how to open them safely. The multilateral body that could mediate—COSPAR—has no authority to inspect, certify, or enforce.

The last rung of the Ladder of Life Detection is not a measurement. It is a set of institutional commitments: to fund the mission, build the facility, create the protocol, and establish the coordination mechanism. The instruments can make the measurement. The question is whether the institutions will let them.

The question has waited 4.5 billion years. It can wait longer. Whether it should is not a question science can answer. It is a question the appropriations committees, space agencies, and treaty bodies that govern the endeavor must decide—knowing that the capability exists, the targets are characterized, and every year of deferral is a choice, not a constraint.

The oceans of Enceladus are patient. The question is whether we are.

---

Footnotes

1. Neveu, M., Hays, L.E., Voytek, M.A., New, M.H. & Schulte, M.D. “The Ladder of Life Detection.” Astrobiology 18, 1375–1402 (2018). doi:10.1089/ast.2017.1773 ↩

2. Green, J., Boardsen, S., Meadows, V. et al. “Call for a framework for reporting evidence for life beyond Earth.” Nature 598, 575–579 (2021). doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03804-9 ↩

3. Greaves, J.S. et al. “Phosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus.” Nature Astronomy 5, 655–664 (2021; originally published 2020). doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1174-4 ↩

4. McKay, D.S., Gibson, E.K., Thomas-Keprta, K.L. et al. “Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001.” Science 273, 924–930 (1996). doi:10.1126/science.273.5277.924 ↩

5. Becker, L., Glavin, D.P. & Bada, J.L. “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Antarctic Martian meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, and polar ice.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 475–481 (1997). doi:10.1016/S0016-7037(98)00105-3 ↩

6. Thomas-Keprta, K.L., Clemett, S.J., McKay, D.S. et al. “Origins of magnetite nanocrystals in Martian meteorite ALH84001.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73, 6631–6677 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.gca.2009.05.064 ↩

7. Levin, G.V. & Straat, P.A. “Viking Labeled Release Biology Experiment: Interim Results.” Science 194, 1322–1329 (1976). doi:10.1126/science.194.4271.1322 ↩

8. Biemann, K. et al. “The search for organic substances and inorganic volatile compounds in the surface of Mars.” Journal of Geophysical Research 82, 4641–4658 (1977). doi:10.1029/JS082iB028p04641 ↩

9. Navarro-González, R. et al. “Reanalysis of the Viking results suggests perchlorate and organics at midlatitudes on Mars.” Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (2010). doi:10.1029/2010JE003599 ↩

10. MacKenzie, S.M. et al. “The Enceladus Orbilander Mission Concept.” The Planetary Science Journal 3, 26 (2022). doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac642d ↩

11. International Academy of Astronautics, SETI Permanent Committee. “Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” Acta Astronautica 21, 153–154 (1990). Revised 2010. ↩

12. United Nations. “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” (1967). UN Office for Outer Space Affairs ↩

13. Dong, G. et al. “Mission overview and key technologies of Tianwen-3.” Space: Science & Technology (2023). doi:10.1007/s11214-023-01025-0 ↩

14. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023–2032. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2022). doi:10.17226/26522 ↩