The obsession with economic output as a measure of human development puts sustainability on the back burner. Researchers can now help to devise better indicators.

Nature Astronomy - A portrait of Einstein as an engaged citizen

Five US-based researchers tell Nature why they are exploring career opportunities overseas.

Curtailment of freedoms and disregard for the rule of law in the United States is destroying the ability of science to serve the nation’s, and the world’s, interests. Researchers can take action.

Bold claims of ‘biosignature’ molecules trigger an outpouring of scepticism.

The concept of a biosignature is widely used in astrobiology to suggest a link between some observation and a biological cause, given some context. The term itself has been defined and used in several ways in different parts of the scientific community involved in the search for past or present life on Earth and beyond. With the ongoing acceleration in the search for life in distant time and/or deep space, there is a need for clarity and accuracy in the formulation and reporting of claims. Here, we critically review the biosignature concept(s) and the associated nomenclature in light of several problems and ambiguities emphasized by recent works. One worry is that these terms and concepts may imply greater certainty than is usually justified by a rational interpretation of the data. A related worry is that terms such as “biosignature” may be inherently misleading, for example, because the divide between life and non-life—and their observable effects—is fuzzy. Another worry is that different parts of the multidisciplinary community may use non-equivalent or conflicting definitions and conceptions, leading to avoidable confusion. This review leads us to identify a number of pitfalls and to suggest how they can be circumvented. In general, we conclude that astrobiologists should exercise particular caution in deciding whether and how to use the concept of biosignature when thinking and communicating about habitability or life. Concepts and terms should be selected carefully and defined explicitly where appropriate. This would improve clarity and accuracy in the formulation of claims and subsequent technical and public communication about some of the most profound and important questions in science and society. With this objective in mind, we provide a checklist of questions that scientists and other interested parties should ask when assessing any reported detection of a “biosignature” to better understand exactly what is being claimed.

Three years in the making, the accord aims to increase equity and avoid errors of the COVID-19 pandemic

Evidence shows that science and scientists remain highly trusted. But genuine scientific voices are not shouting loud enough over the noise to hold sway.

Satellites connect people around the world but they also interfere with astronomers’ views of the cosmos. There are ways to reduce these tensions.

Why failing to control defunct satellites leaves everyone at risk from their impacts.

By joining the Page Turners Collective, our community of monthly recurring donors, you become a cornerstone of our efforts to nurture and support science journalism around the world.

Researchers are organizing protests and making their voices heard as Trump officials slash funding and lay off federal scientists.

A standardized system to measure contributions in mentorship, collaboration and more could bring about systemic change in science.

As US federal grants remain frozen and budget cuts loom, anxiety and fear grip early-career researchers.

After years of storytelling and running classes and festivals, I’ve seen first-hand how a love of nature makes people want to protect it.

People's Care Collaborative

Elon Musk’s Fork in the Road isn’t just a sculpture—it’s a monument to the tech world’s obsession with civilizational survival, which has its roots in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Use this form to share information with Nature’s news team, or to make suggestions for future coverage.