New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Proof of Past Life on Mars?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Controversy has surrounded the Martian meteorite ALH84001 since 1996, when scientists first proclaimed that it bore traces of primitive life. What they had found were minuscule mineralized structures, which they took for fossilized, bacteria-like organisms. This theory was soon challenged, though, by scientists who argued that the structures¿crystals, essentially¿could have grown through purely physical processes. Now two separate studies, published in yesterday¿s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, make a strong case for the fossilized life theory and may just put the controversy to rest.

Imre Friedmann and his team of researchers from the NASA Ames Research Center point out that the magnetite crystals inside ALH84001 form chains with gaps between them, resembling a string of pearls. These crystal chains are difficult to explain without the presence of life: "Such a chain of magnets outside an organism would immediately collapse into a clump due to magnetic forces," Friedmann explains. The other researchers, led by Kathie Thomas-Keprta of the NASA Johnson Space Center, offer supporting evidence: they note that the magnetite crystals inside the meteorite are both physically and chemically identical to those found in terrestrial magnetotactic bacteria¿organisms that use a string of magnetic crystals inside their bodies to navigate, much like an internal compass. If these crystals are in fact remains of magnetotactic bacteria, they are not only definite proof of past life on Mars but evidence of the oldest life ever found.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe