AW: AW: [meteorite-list] Most important meteorite?

From: Jörn Koblitz <koblitz_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Nov 16 11:23:14 2004
Message-ID: <E5E6112EA31FA24CB448E091C6883C050EBD48_at_server2000.microfab.de>

Dear Martin,

No one can argue against personal views.

ALH 84001 is a very interesting meteorite for sure. But it remains highly subjective and is biased by temporary fashion or even hype. I think, ALH 84001 is a good example for such a hype. A group reports evidence for extraterrestrial life with much public noise (I assume also with the background idea to booster public funding for NASA). There are strong arguments by other research groups against a biogenic origin of these fossil-like features. As far as I know, there majority of scientists currently disapprove. About 40 years ago, another group around Bartholomew Nagy announced the recovery of extraterrestrial lifeforms in carbonaceous chondrites (see e.g. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/Orgueil.html). There was much hype at that time about these findings and some people for sure would have called Orgueil the most important meteorite in history.

For the development of meteoritics and in historical perspective, I still think that CURRENTLY Allende has the by far strongest impact. Some meteoriticists are talking about a "pre-Allende" and a "post-Allende" era. Allende has contributed so much to the our understanding of the origin and development of the solar system.

J?rn


> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: martinh_at_isu.edu [mailto:martinh@isu.edu]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2004 14:49
> An: J?rn Koblitz
> Cc: Adam Hupe; Walter Branch; meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> Betreff: Re: AW: [meteorite-list] Most important meteorite?
>
>
> J?rn kindly wrote:
>
> > Most important meteorite: ALH 84001 or NWA 3133?
> >
> > I think it is difficult to say and is always biased by the personal
> > preferences of the collector or scientist,
> > but there is a fairly objective measure (at least for scientific
> > importance): the number of publications on a specific meteorite.
>
> Hi J?rn and All,
>
> I struggled with this same question in my lastest column in
> Meteorite Magazine. I reviewed meteorite books counting the
> number of times particular meteorites were referenced in
> their historical or scientific context. My focus was on those
> meteorites that were instrumental in changing our collective
> understanding of meteorites. I narrowed the pool further
> based upon significant contributions compared to supporting
> contributions. Sure, the list of suspects could be longer,
> but I doubt it could be any shorter.
>
> As for ALH84001, I believe the most important contributions
> it has made are that ALH84001: 1) was the focus of a US Presidential p
> ress conference, 2) forced us to (yet again) adjust our
> collective understanding of evidence of life, and 3) definded
> a period of meteorite studies that involved widespread
> popular discussion that (my poetic license here) had not been
> seen since L'Aigle.
>
> I did not mention the particular specimens in the article
> here. Sorry about that, but that is what purchasing a
> subscription is all about
>
> Meteorite Magazine subscription info _at_:
>
> http://www.meteor.co.nz/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue 16 Nov 2004 11:23:10 AM PST