SPACE.com: 'Beyond Contact' looks at the search for extraterrestrial life as more than just a few eager scientists listening to blips in the night, but as a multidisciplinary field that looks not only beyond Earth but how humans interact and communicate, was that your initial intent?
Brian McConnell:
The search for extraterrestrial life (and intelligence) involves many fields of study from biology to linguistics. My background is in telecommunications, so I approached the subject from this perspective. I am especially interested in exploring different modes of communication. Detecting an ET signal is one aspect of the search. Figuring out how to extract information from it is another.
The search for extraterrestrial life is fascinating, not only because it touches many fields of study, but also because it has mass appeal (SETI@home) now has over 3 million users). This makes it a great hook for drawing young people into science. Even if SETI doesn't succeed, it will still help answer some important questions. In the course of thinking about how to communicate with "ET", we'll also develop technologies that can be put to use here on terra firma.
You've referred to the public telephone network as the "eighth wonder of the world", as SETI and seekers of extrasolar planets improve their equipment, how do you think their technological innovations benefit the rest of us who just want to make local phone calls?
SETI has already made some important contributions, especially in computing. SETI@home demonstrated that distributed computing can be used on a massive scale. SETI is dependent on computing technology (and lots of it). Because it is perpetually underfunded, SETI researchers have an incentive to build super-fast yet economical computers and signal processing software. This know-how can, in turn, be applied elsewhere. That's one specific example.
By looking at SETI and the search for alien life from a technicians point of view, did it make the idea of searching for "little green men" more credible in your eyes?
The argument against SETI has never really been a technical argument. It's always been an emotional argument ("SETI is a waste of time because, of course, there's nothing out there, so why waste time looking"). When Drs. Drake, Morrison, and others proposed the concept of using microwave signals for inter-stellar communication, the debate wasn't about the technical feasibility of doing this (we already had radiotelescopes), but about the likelihood that someone would bother trying to send a signal in the first place. The problem is, nobody has studied life on another planet, so nobody really knows how common extraterrestrial life is.
In terms of telecommunications research and history, who are your heroes?
Claude Shannon. He was a mathematician at Bell Labs (and later joined the MIT faculty). He is best known for his work on information theory early in his career. Shannon's insights into information theory were remarkably prescient.
Where would you most like to travel?
If I had $20 million burning a hole in my pocket, I'd be booking my trip to the ISS. Keep those book sales coming!
What most upsets you about how SETI is represented in the mainstream media?
It's much better today than it used to be. I think this is because everyone has seen the Eagle Nebula pictures from the Hubble. That one picture made people realize that what happened here could be happening elsewhere. Most of the media coverage I have seen in the past year or so has been positive. SETI's main problem is it is an all-or-nothing project. So, the media's tendency will be to ignore it until there is a confirmed discovery.
What is the most beautiful aspect to the search for extraterrestrial life and other planets?
I think it's remarkable that we're alive at a time when we're about to learn whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. Whether the answer is yes or no, the implications of knowing this are pretty amazing.
If you controlled a $1 billion foundation, what research effort would you fund?
I would split the money between research into infectious diseases, space science and renewable energy sources.
Why should we spend money on space exploration over research into deadly diseases?
We should spend money on both, so it's not an either-or decision. Space exploration is important because, in the long-term, being confined to a single habitat is risky. What seems like an unprofitable enterprise today will look like a very good investment if we discover an asteroid or comet with our name on it.
What to you is the most vexing question in modern science?
How and why does complexity develop in simple systems?
