Viewpoint A call for proactive xenoarchaeological guidelines e Scientific, policy and socio-political considerations Ben W. McGee a, b, * a Institute of Temporal Dynamics, 809 Overview Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89145, USA b Physical Science Department, College of Southern Nevada, 6375 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89146, USA article info Article history: Received 19 April 2010 Accepted 4 August 2010 Available online xxx abstract As planetary exploration advances, the likelihood of encountering suspected artifacts of astrobiological activity increases, which, it is argued, should be investigated under the auspices of proto-scientific xenoarchaeology. Considering both the unfavorable conditions under which such an investigation may be undertaken (e.g., while observing international planetary protection protocols, utilizing remote sensing techniques in exotic pressure, temperature, chemical, and gravity environments, or adhering to stringent terrestrial biological quarantine and security measures) as well as the demonstrated propensity of the social mind to romanticize or mythologize even the most benign planetary landforms, it is clear that a reactive and poorly preconceived xenoarchaeological methodology will be plagued by inaccura- cies, rushed judgments, unrealized bias, misinformation, and erroneous conclusions, along with the negative socio-political impacts that accompany them. Central principles for establishing a rigorous xenoarchaeological methodology are proposed, scientific and technical difficulties are discussed, perti- nent international protocols and agreements are reviewed, and sociological and historical considerations are explored. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction and impetus Currently there are active scientific exploration programs on or around the majority of planets in the Solar System (e.g., [1e3]). Additionally a multitude of exploration rovers, landers, and spacecraft are planned or are already en-route to increasingly remote and challenging planetary targets, including geologically diverse planetary terrain, planetary satellites, asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets [4e7]. The discovery of present or ancient astrobiological environments is central to the respective scientific programs of these exploration initiatives. Astrobiology is a key scientific and policy focus in space explo- ration because of the ubiquity of cosmogenic organic molecules and structures [8,9], the pervasiveness of life in even the most extreme and ancient terrestrial environments [10], and the fact that the known age of the Solar System leaves ample time for astro- biological evolution to have occurred e a biochemical likelihood that increases significantly if the existence of alternate evolutionary and biochemical trajectories are assumed [11,12]. However, standing in contrast to much contemporary astrobiology research is the fact that the time-scales involved, when weighed against the periodic nature of cataclysmic events such as planetary impacts [13] and galactic supernovae [14], make it far likelier that the first evidence of astrobiology will be extinct, not extant, in nature. When considering these arguments of temporal scale in conjunction with the reality of an ever-advancing suite of space exploration activities, it is manifest that suspected material evidence of astrobiology will inevitably be produced [11,15e17], which will arguably be archae- ological (or paleontological) and not biological in nature. Because of the reconstructive tools available to modern archae- ology when dealing with what will be an almost certain lack of context with respect to any astrobiological morphology, it is this author’s and others’ [18,19] belief that any evidential evaluation of suspected macroscopic artifacts of astrobiological activity would be best performed under the auspices of an archaeological-style forensic investigation, referred to here as “xenoarchaeology” [20]. It should be noted that the term “xenoarchaeology”, which is reserved specifically for the study of material evidence of astrobiological activity, differs from “exoarchaeology”, which is defined as the archaeological study of human activity in space (e.g., the study of Apollo-era lunar landers in-situ). A xenoarchaeological investiga- tion also significantly differs from traditional archaeology in that it requires enhanced considerations with respect to scientific rigor, international agreements and protocols, and socio-political sensi- tivities [21]. These key differences, in combination with the scientific * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 702 428 5363. E-mail address: mcgee@temporaldynamics.org. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Space Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol 0265-9646/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2010.08.003 Space Policy xxx (2010) 1e5 Please cite this article in press as: McGee BW, A call for proactive xenoarchaeological guidelines e Scientific, policy and..., Space Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2010.08.003