Overview

One day, an astrobiologist may have to host a press conference where they tell the world they’ve discovered the very first evidence of life on another planet—or, (extremely unlikely) they may have to tell the world they’ve discovered intelligent life on another world. In this lab, we will design our own media protocols for handling such a discovery.

Science Question

How should scientists responsibly handle the reporting of life and intelligent life in the universe?

Sci-Comm

Responsible science reporting is a crucial part of the pathway from academic papers to public knowledge. Good science communication can build the trust of the public in the scientific methods, leading to social benefits such as high vaccination rates, and willingness to believe climate scientists. Poor science communication leads to distrust in science as an institution, resulting in poor global health, unaddressed climate catastrophes, and more. For the potential discovery of a lifetime—intelligent alien life—the utmost caution must be exercised as to minimize chaos and maintain a scientific, unbiased approach to first contact.

Technosignatures:

• Chemical Atmospheric Pollution
• Dyson Sphere
• Solar System Mining Rig
• Niven Ring
• Kardashev Type III Civilization
• Ancient Earth Technology
• Stellar Radioactive Pollution
• Laser Communications
• Radio Communications
• Interstellar Probe

Instructions

Your group will be assigned one of six technosignatures which has been unambiguously detected by your team of scientists. Name your team (i.e. “Institution of _____________”), then decide amongst yourselves:

1. Who is the theorist in your group? Who does the math, and made the prediction that your technosignature was out there?
2. Who is the computationalist in your group? Who runs the computer simulations that guided your observations?
3. Who is the observer in your group? Who used the telescope or did the fieldwork to find the technosignature?

QUESTIONS: 

Based on your technosignature, answer the following questions:

1. What can you infer about the civilization you have detected?
2. How many lightyears from Earth are they (decide for yourselves)? Would it take a long time to get there?
3. Pretend we live in the Star Trek future, which has instantaneous communication. Make an argument for why we should try to contact this civilization.
4. Similarly, make an argument why we shouldn’t try to contact this civilization.
5. Describe in detail how you discovered the technosignature. Get specific about it! Use the internet to learn more about your assigned technosignature. Each role (theorist/computationalist/observer) should have a contribution.
6. How long do you think your research team would be able to keep the secret about your discovery?
7. What would you do to prevent the news from leaking early?
8. Describe the reaction you think your discovery might invoke from:
   1. Other scientists in your field
   2. Your family
   3. The Pope
   4. The President of the United States
   5. The US Secretary of Defense
   6. Your average conservative voter
   7. Your average liberal voter
   8. Your average UAP enthusiast

Using your responses, come up with a protocol for reporting the detection of intelligent alien life. Who gets to know first? What needs to happen between each step of letting others know? The people who find out are (in whatever order you choose): other scientists at your institution, your family, the president, the general populace, and the director of SETI.

Your team has been put in charge of giving the press report. The goal of the press report is to disseminate accurate information that does not cause a media riot. At the end of class, each group will have to give their press report to the rest of the class. Then we will vote for the best.

For each press conference, your professor will act as the reporter asking three questions. You will individually rank each group’s press report on a 1-10 scale. A 5 should be considered average. For voting, you will get three votes. You can put them all into one group or distribute them. No voting for yourself.