'Dark oxygen' mission takes aim at other worlds

BBC - Jan 18th, 2025

Scientists have discovered that metallic nodules on the ocean floor produce oxygen, a finding that contradicts the long-held belief that oxygen can only be made through photosynthesis in sunlight. This unexpected phenomenon was observed in deep-sea expeditions between Hawaii and Mexico and has sparked a new research mission led by Prof Andrew Sweetman. The team plans to explore ocean depths over 10km using remotely-operated equipment to understand the process, which might also explain potential life-sustaining mechanisms on other planets. The discovery has led to both intrigue and controversy, with involvement from NASA and criticism from scientists and mining companies.

The implications of this discovery are profound, not only for marine science but also for astrobiology. If metallic nodules can generate oxygen in darkness, similar processes might occur on other planets, potentially supporting life forms. However, the findings have triggered a debate over the impact of deep-sea mining, as these nodules are rich in metals crucial for technology. With environmental concerns rising, over 900 scientists have called for a pause on seabed mining activities until more is understood about deep-sea ecosystems. Prof Sweetman's upcoming research aims to clarify the phenomenon and its implications for both Earth's and extraterrestrial environments.

Environmental Concerns Deep Sea Oxygen Production Metallic Nodules Marine Science Asteroid Biology Prof Andrew Sweetman Nasa Collaboration Seabed Mining

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The news story presents an intriguing scientific discovery with significant implications for our understanding of oxygen production and extraterrestrial life. It manages to engage readers with its clear language and compelling narrative, particularly by highlighting the potential collaboration with NASA and the excitement surrounding the findings.

However, the story's accuracy is questionable due to the ongoing debate and significant criticisms from TMC. The balance of perspectives is somewhat lacking, as the article provides more emphasis on the researchers' viewpoint while not thoroughly examining the counterarguments. The source quality is decent, with references to credible academic research, but could be improved by including a broader range of expert opinions.

Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed explanations of the methodologies and the criticisms, which could hinder readers' ability to fully assess the claims. Clarity, while generally strong, could be enhanced by a more structured presentation of the scientific arguments.

Overall, the story is engaging and informative but would benefit from a more balanced and transparent approach to reporting the scientific debate and potential implications.

Accuracy

The story discusses a controversial scientific finding regarding 'dark oxygen' production from metal nodules on the ocean floor. According to the accuracy check, the principal study by Sweetman et al. claims that these nodules can produce oxygen independent of photosynthesis, a groundbreaking idea. However, the accuracy of these claims is disputed by The Metals Company (TMC) and other scientists, citing methodological flaws and selective data reporting.

The story mentions that Sweetman et al. conducted several expeditions that resulted in readings showing increased oxygen levels, which they initially dismissed. This detail aligns with the findings reported in sources like *Science News*. However, TMC's rebuttal highlights critical issues such as omitted metadata and the lack of credible evidence supporting the study's claims, suggesting a need for further verification and more rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Given these discrepancies and the ongoing debate within the scientific community, the story's accuracy remains questionable. The article does not provide sufficient evidence to fully support the claims made by the researchers, and the criticisms raised by TMC indicate significant potential inaccuracies.

Balance

The news story attempts to present multiple perspectives, including those of the researchers and their critics. It outlines the groundbreaking nature of the discovery and its implications, while also acknowledging the backlash from scientists and deep-sea mining companies. This inclusion of different viewpoints suggests some level of balance.

However, the story leans more heavily towards the potential and excitement of the discovery rather than delving deeply into the criticisms. It quotes Prof. Sweetman extensively, emphasizing the collaboration with NASA and the implications for extraterrestrial life. In contrast, the rebuttal from TMC, which questions the scientific rigor of the study, is briefly mentioned without much detail.

While the article does not completely dismiss the criticisms, it could provide a more comprehensive exploration of the counterarguments. The balance is somewhat skewed towards the researchers' perspective, which diminishes the overall impartiality.

Clarity

The news story is generally clear and engaging, with a straightforward narrative that introduces the concept of 'dark oxygen' and its potential significance. The language used is accessible, making complex scientific ideas understandable to a general audience. Prof. Sweetman's quotes and explanations help convey the excitement and potential impact of the discovery.

However, the story could be clearer in its presentation of the scientific debate. The criticisms from TMC and other scientists are mentioned but not elaborated upon in a way that would allow readers to fully grasp the nature of the controversy. Additionally, the structure could be improved by organizing the information more logically, perhaps by clearly separating the description of the study, the criticisms, and the potential implications.

Overall, while the article is readable and maintains a professional tone, more detailed explanations and a clearer structure would enhance its clarity and comprehension.

Source quality

The primary sources referenced in the news story include academic research published in *Nature Geoscience* and statements from Prof. Andrew Sweetman. These are credible sources, given the journal's reputation and the expertise of the lead researcher.

However, the story would benefit from a more diverse range of authoritative sources to strengthen its reliability. The critique from TMC highlights significant methodological flaws, yet the article does not delve into these criticisms in detail. Including more insights from independent experts or other peer-reviewed studies could provide a more robust evaluation of the claims.

Additionally, while TMC's rebuttal is mentioned, the article does not evaluate the credibility of their claims or potential conflicts of interest, considering TMC's vested interest in seabed mining. A more thorough examination of these sources would enhance the overall quality and reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The news story provides some context regarding the discovery and its potential implications, particularly in relation to extraterrestrial life and seabed mining. It mentions the involvement of NASA and the scientific debate surrounding the findings, which adds to its transparency.

However, the article could be more transparent about the methodologies used in the study and the criticisms of those methods. It references experiments conducted by Sweetman et al. but does not offer detailed information on how these experiments were designed or the specific data that supports their conclusions. Similarly, TMC's criticisms are mentioned but not explored in depth, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the nature and validity of the rebuttal.

Greater disclosure of the research processes and the specific criticisms would improve the article's transparency, allowing readers to better assess the credibility of the claims and the potential conflicts of interest involved.