Life on Venus

Year: 2020

In late 2020, international news media reported about the possibility of creatures drifting through the atmosphere of Venus. A team of renowned scientists published a research paper in Nature Astronomy, in which they claimed to have detected the chemical phosphine by studying the atmosphere with radiowaves. Phosphine is also produced by some micro-organisms on Earth, and could therefore be seen as a sign that there could be life on Venus, the scientists concluded. The study caught the attention of hundreds of media outlets, and was even covered on the front page of the New York Times.

Some weeks later, when most media already moved on to other stories, colleague astronomers started looking into the methodology and conclusions of the paper more carefully, and found that there might not be phosphine on Venus. The detection of phosphine was not statistically significant and could also be caused by phosphine in the Earth's atmosphere.

The story of phosphine-emitting creatures on Venus is just one of the many 'breakthroughs' in astronomy that failed to deliver. So who do we have to blame for failed science to become a sensationalist news story? Is it the field of astronomy, where high competition pressures scientists to deliver spectacular results in order to continue their career? Or is there also a role for the news media, who want to grab our attention with clear-cut headlines and omit methodological uncertainties?

Or should we perhaps look at ourselves, the public: are we too eager to be shocked and thrilled? Could it be that stories about the far cosmos tickle our imagination a tad too much?

The original New York Times article and a second more nuanced followup. And here is a great article in Undark.