Here's the primary source
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8
They possibly detected dimethyl sulfide, which is only known to be produced by living organisms.
replies(5):
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8
They possibly detected dimethyl sulfide, which is only known to be produced by living organisms.
I understand why this is the case but I think it can lead to a loss in trust in science when the reporting jumps to conclusions that aren’t supported by the research itself.
In this case the abstract is far more grounded. In particular,
> The observations also provided a tentative hint of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a possible biosignature gas, but the inference was of low statistical significance.
> We find that the spectrum cannot be explained by most molecules predicted for K2-18 b, with the exception of DMS and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), also a potential biosignature gas.
> More observations are needed to increase the robustness of the findings and resolve the degeneracy between DMS and DMDS. The results also highlight the need for additional experimental and theoretical work to determine accurate cross sections of important biosignature gases and identify potential abiotic sources.