ISTOCK, JUSTINREZNICKThere is a pernicious temptation in science to speak authoritatively about topics that are beyond scientific exploration and certainty. This has led some theoretical physicists to advocate for a “post-empirical” form of science. That is the idea that theories need not be judged on their ability to make new and testable predictions about the observable universe, in some cases, the absence of a plausible alternative is sufficient. One might be forgiven if one sees an analogous situation in biology, specifically when it comes to the origin(s) of life on Earth or elsewhere, and the steps behind major, essentially historical evolutionary events. For example, there are almost daily reports (and rather excited press releases) of how some scientific observations argue for the plausibility of life on other planets, in other solar systems, or in other galaxies, when in fact, what has been found is one or another organic molecule, or hints of organic material, in meteorites and comets. Rarely is the fact that we have yet to find life anywhere but here on Earth mentioned explicitly.
In a world in which magical thinking persists in popular culture, as witness the number of prominent public figures who speak out against vaccination, advocate unproven, “natural” treatments for (currently) medically incurable diseases, make claims for a flat Earth, or advocate for the insertion of jade eggs to strengthen vaginal muscles, there is a serious challenge to the scientific community as to how to maintain an appreciation for established scientific conclusions and to convey the underlying logic of the scientific enterprise.
Until nonLUCA-derived forms of life are discovered, it does not serve the integrity of science as a source of dependable knowledge to speculate on what came before LUCA much beyond that.
In the context of origin-of-life studies, a key is to explicitly recognize the ...
