QUOTE (remcook @ Jul 20 2004, 09:51 AM)
This was what I was referring to last week on the Space.com Message Boards when I alluded to the fact that many in the science community, including some members of the PFS team, thought Whitehouse's BBC story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3896335.stmwas pure rubbish and that some had even used the word "hoax." According to Strauss, the BBC stated that Whitehouse relied on, among other things, Formisano's abstract for the COSPAR 2004 conference:
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR04/01...R04-A-01554.pdfAs anyone who can read can see, Formisano only reported that it might be possible to detect ammonia. He certainly never stated, or even hinted, that ammonia had been detected on Mars.
This is a cautionary tale, in my opinion, about sloppy journalism and the over-reliance on abstracts, which are not peer-reviewed, and which are usually submitted months ahead of time. These abstracts are usually very speculative and often present very preliminary views that are then subjected to the filter of peer review.