You should submit ~1 typed page (single spaced) for each assignment.

• #1 (due 9/8): Write a statement justifying what you believe to be the appropriate level of involvement of Rutgers in the field of astrobiology. Do you favor a new department? an interdisciplinary degree program? an undergraduate major? no commitment at this time to such a speculative enterprise? Your statement should be specific but written at a level that is accessible to a nonspecialist (e.g., a university administrator).
• #2 (due 9/15): The British scientist James Lovelock has proposed that Earth's living organisms, in conjunction with its physical components (atmosphere, oceans, etc.), can be considered together as the equivalent of a single "superorganism". Do you feel that such an entity (dubbed "Gaia" by Lovelock) can satisfy all, some, or none of the definitions of "life" that we have discussed in this class? Write a statement explaining and justifying your answer to this question.
• #3 (due 9/22): High school students are often encouraged to view their science fair projects in terms of a fixed sequence of steps labelled the "Scientific Method": (1) choose a problem (2) formulate a hypothesis (3) make a prediction based on the hypothesis (4) design and conduct an experiment to test the prediction (5) evaluate and, if necessary, revise the hypothesis in light of experimental results. (One among many lengthier descriptions of this sequence can be found here.) Choose one or more of the scientists whose work or writing we have already discussed in this class (this may be a single individual-- e.g., Darwin or Margulis-- or multiple sets of authors), and discuss the extent to which you feel his/her/their scientific activity matches the steps of the Scientific Method.
• #4 (due 9/29): Describe one or more aspects of our visit to Professor Vetriani's deep sea microbiology lab that you found especially interesting or surprising.
• #5 (due 10/6): The International Astronomical Union (IAU), the organization that expelled Pluto from the "planet club", is responsible for choosing official names for minor solar system bodies (satellites, asteroids, dwarf planets, etc.). After reading the guidelines for naming minor planets, explain your views on whether and how you believe these rules (e.g., prohibitions on names that are longer than sixteen characters, inspired by living politicians, or "in questionable taste") should be modified.
• #6 (due 10/13): Explain whether and/or how you think that study of the other planets (and their satellites) in the solar system has improved, or can in the future improve, our understanding of our own world.
• #7 (due 11/3): Assuming that NASA only has enough money to fund one astrobiological mission (i.e., a search for evidence of life) in the next ten years, should this mission focus on Mars, Europa, or Titan? Explain and justify your views.
• #8 (due 11/10): Responsible scientists who report a measurement or a calculation of some quantity will also provide an estimate of the uncertainty in that measurement or calculation, which other people can use to assess the reliability of their result. Considering our previous readings and discussions in this class, identify a measurement or calculation whose uncertainty limits our ability to reach a conclusion on some question in astrobiology, and explain why this is the case.
• #9 (due 11/17): The Arecibo Message, the Pioneer Plaques, and the Voyager Golden Records are three examples of deliberate efforts to communicate with extraterrestrial civilizations. Assess the effectiveness of one or more of these communications, and describe what information you feel our next such electromagnetic or physical message to the cosmos should contain.
• #10 (due 11/24): The late sociologist Marcello Truzzi deserves credit for the axiom (often attributed to Carl Sagan) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Discuss whether and how this axiom applies to one or more of the subjects we have discussed in this class.