The Missing Word (Astrobiology)

I do not know who caused the President’s budget to halve Astrobiology funds, or why. The Space Science Board and the NASA Advisory Council have discussed the importance of Astrobiology, and supported restoring the funds, but in neither the House nor Senate version of the appropriations bill mention Astrobiology. If the budget does not show the “A-word” explicitly, we can expect that the Astrobiology cut will remain.

The House bill states; “The Committee expects that the increase provided for research and analysis will be allocated in an equitable fashion among all themes of the Science Mission Directorate”. That could mean that other science themes get their 17% cut rescinded, and Astrobiology gets its 50% cut reduced to a 41.5% cut.

The Senate version states; “The [Space Science] Enterprise asks basic questions that have eternally perplexed human beings, such as how the universe began and evolved and whether there is other intelligent life in the universe. The quest for this information, and the answers themselves, are intended to maintain scientific leadership, excite and inspire our society, strengthen education and scientific literacy, develop and transfer technologies to promote U.S. competitiveness, foster international cooperation to enhance programs and share their benefits, and set the stage for future space ventures.” The Astrobiology themes are there, but the A-word is missing.

I am currently serving on a National Academy committee to discuss early science to be performed from the Moon. There I find that my interdisciplinary Astrobiology experience is allowing me to argue the case for observations for earth science, and astrophysics, and Astrobiology, as well as to compare their value with specific studies in lunar science. Science needs people who can serve both as specialists, and as Jack-of-all-trades. This is part of what I return to NASA for currently supporting Astrobiology.

When in 1986 Roger Angel and I wrote a first paper about a Terrestrial Planet Finder concept, we hoped that we were starting something significant. It became more significant than just one mission. It also became a part of a process where scientists talked across discipline boundaries. This is called Astrobiology. For us at Arizona, Astrobiology includes Roger inventing a solar sunshield, Pete Worden (when he was here) initiated a study of greenhouses for the Moon and Mars, and my own work aims at understanding biomarkers even if they have to be seen in Earthshine from the Moon. It also means understanding how the Solar System came to be, searching for planets around other stars, and understanding how the carbon in our bodies passed through the universe on its way into us.

In other research centers, Astrobiology also means crossing geology, biology and physics boundaries to understand the nature of Early Earth, or studying the way that microbe communities cooperate. All of these are pieces of a big picture of scientists starting to understand each other. Among the results, we can expect to plan for the future development of human life. In NASA, the money is small change, 3.2% of the funds added by the Senate. In human terms, it is how we learn to direct science towards human problems.

One word is needed in that budget.