Astronomers and astrobiologists use a wide range of tools in their search for extraterrestrial life. Probes, satellites, and rovers take photographs and collect data on the geology and chemistry of planets and moons in the solar system. Radio telescopes sweep the sky, looking for signals from intelligent civilizations. And telescopes like the JWST can observe the atmospheres of distant exoplanets, potentially finding ones similar to Earth’s.
A limitation of these methods is that they assume life on other worlds is fundamentally similar to life on Earth, requiring the same balance of molecules in the atmosphere, producing the same chemicals for their metabolic processes, or developing technologies analogous to those humans make. While researchers use these assumptions as baseline markers to look for, assuming such similarities might lead them astray. Scientists looking for life using too narrow a set of parameters might miss life unlike Earthlings. Or they might mistake coincidentally similar geological, chemical, or astronomical processes for having been made by living things.
So, to complement techniques that assume alien life resembles life on Earth, scientists also consider approaches that detect signs of life while making as few assumptions as possible about what it could look like, known as agnostic biosignatures. One of these life signs with few assumptions is complexity. Though it can be difficult to quantify precisely, living things tend to create more complex systems than nonliving things. A team of researchers recently tested whether living and nonliving worlds could be distinguished solely by examining the complexity of the light-reflection patterns from their surfaces.
For this, the team treated Earth and Mars, similar planets but one with life and one without, as stand-ins for exoplanets around other stars. They collected data on the light reflected off both planets’ surfaces from a space station monitoring Earth, known as the Deep Space Climate Observatory or DSCOVR, and an orbiter around Mars observing its atmosphere, known as the Hope Probe.
The team identified 3 nearly identical wavelengths of light that these machines observe from their respective planets. From the machine databases, they collected measurements of how much light each planet reflected, called its reflectance, at these 3 wavelengths over 486 local days. By using only individual wavelengths of light rather than full photographs, the team claimed that, if their test worked, researchers could apply it to distant exoplanets that cannot be photographed in detail.
Without looking for any particular chemical or signal, the team compared these measured reflectances using a series of statistical tests to determine the variation and randomness in their reflected light, which they considered representative of the complexity of the planets’ surfaces. The researchers found that of the 27 complexity metrics they tested, Earth scored higher than Mars on 25, Mars scored higher than Earth on 1, and the planets scored the same on 1. So, even though both planets have rocky surfaces with atmospheres, weather, and cyclical changes, the one with life is measurably more intricate and dynamic, and the researchers found this difference detectable even with a small stream of light at great distances.
The researchers claimed their test demonstrated that complexity could be a valid agnostic biosignature, with caveats. One is that Earth is quite distinct from Mars, in that it has oceans and a relatively thick atmosphere. This means that processes like making and dispersing clouds and the sharp contrast between land and water could add complexity to Earth’s measurements without direct ties to living things.
They suggested 2 possible explanations for how these complicating factors relate to life on Earth. Either life allows Earth to have these factors, or Earth is inherently complex regardless of life, and therefore it can’t be used to assess how life leads to measurable complexity. To say which is the case, one would have to replicate this test with a lifeless copy of Earth. However, the team argued that Earth’s biosphere is unlikely to be wholly unrelated to its water cycle.
To bolster the validity of their methods, the team plans to expand their sample of planets to include Venus, Saturn’s moon Titan, and simulated exoplanets with modeled biochemistry and atmospheres. If the model holds up, their methodology could represent a new category of mission to find alien life, with long searches for variations in reflected light uncovering properties of distant worlds that would otherwise go unnoticed.
Astronomers searching for extraterrestrial intelligence have traditionally focused on a specific, narrow band of the radio spectrum. However, a new survey presented at the Royal Astronomical Society‘s National Astronomy Meeting (NAM2026) in Birmingham suggests that this approach may overlook a significant portion of the available frequencies.
The frequencies most often investigated by SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) programs are those between 1.42 and 1.66 GHz. This range, known as the ‘water hole’, is situated between the natural radio emissions of hydrogen and hydroxyl, the two molecules that make up water. Astronomers have regarded this quiet section of the spectrum as a reasonable place for interstellar communication, because any civilization acquainted with these molecules would probably also decide to send and receive signals in search of in that specific region.
Louisa Mason, who is carrying out research as a PhD student at the University of Manchester, focused on investigating frequencies outside the water hole range. To carry out the first SETI survey with that telescope, she used archived data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile. She analyzed data originally collected for other astronomical studies instead of requesting new observation time.
Hunting for Signals in Unclaimed Territory
Mason focused on two narrow frequency bands in the ALMA Band 3 data, looking for narrowband signals that might be the result of technology rather than natural astrophysical origins. In the four observations that she examined, she did not discover any candidates for technosignatures above her detection threshold.
“For decades, SETI searches have concentrated on a relatively small part of the radio spectrum. We wanted to ask what might happen if we looked somewhere very different,” Mason said. “The millimetre and submillimetre radio bands remain almost completely unexplored for SETI, so this is really about opening up a new area of parameter space to search.”
A lack of results does not rule out the possibility of alien transmitters. It only means that none appeared in this specific region of the sky and frequency range. Mason describes the survey as a proof of concept, showing that high-frequency telescopes like ALMA could play a much larger role in future SETI efforts.
A Much Bigger Haystack Than Anyone Realized
The research also revealed a gap in how astronomers count the stars they have actually examined. Each time a telescope observes a single target, it also collects light from many other stars in the same field of view. Researchers refer to this as “stellar bycatch.”
Previous SETI surveys have made this bycatch estimate based on the Gaia catalog, which is the European Space Agency‘s survey of the stars. However, Gaia has certain limitations such as its magnitude cutoffs, uncertainties when measuring distant stars, and difficulties in crowded areas. To overcome these limitations, Mason used the Besançon Galactic Model, a simulation of the Milky Way’s stellar population that includes stars that are too faint or too far away for Gaia to detect.
When Mason applied the model to a previous survey of 1,327 telescope observations, the estimated number of stars observed increased from about 288,000 with Gaia to over 6.1 million with the galactic simulation.
“One of the most exciting things about this work is realizing that we’ve surveyed many more stars than initially thought,” Mason said. “Even a very small observation can contain a huge number and diversity of stars that we might never have intended to study. By combining high-frequency observations with galactic simulations, we can better understand exactly what we’ve searched and where we should look next.”
Recommendations for SETI
Mason carried out this research in collaboration with Professor Michael Garrett, Dr. Andrew Siemion, and Dr. Kelvin Wandia. The team argues that expanding both the radio frequencies searched and the number of stars included could reduce the influence of human assumptions on SETI strategies. Whether these broader searches will detect technosignatures missed by traditional water-hole surveys remains unknown.
Austin Burgess is a writer and researcher with a background in sales, marketing, and data analytics. He holds an MBA, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and a data analytics certification. His work focuses on breaking scientific developments, with an emphasis on emerging biology, cognitive neuroscience, and archaeological discoveries.
For decades, the possibility of discovering extraterrestrial intelligence has captured the imagination of scientists, sci-fi enthusiasts, filmmakers, and the public alike.
In line with such efforts, the IAA SETI Committee and the uNHIdden Foundation, two separate not-for-profit organizations, have recently released updated rules for evaluating and disclosing detections, and preparing for public preparedness in the event of potential disclosure of extraterrestrial intelligence.
With the release of director Steven Spielberg’s new alien film Disclosure Day, nearly coinciding with the recent release of the government records from the Department of War related to UAP, it seems a growing number of individuals, from the film industry to the science community, have extraterrestrials and “disclosure” on their minds.
The IAA SETI Committee Rules
In June 2026, the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) approved a major update to the protocols governing the evaluation, verification, and communication of evidence related to extraterrestrial intelligence. The revised guidelines were designed to address a modern information environment shaped by social media, artificial intelligence, and the rapid pace of the 24-hour news cycle.
Professor Michael Garrett, Sir Bernard Lovell Chair of Astrophysics, led the international effort to revise the long-standing post-detection protocols used by researchers engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The updated guidelines have since been formally ratified by the IAA.
“The information environment we operate in today is vastly more complex than it was in 2010,” said Garrett, Chair of the IAA SETI Committee, in a statement. “In an era of deepfakes, automated misinformation, and instant global connectivity, a single unverified claim could trigger confusion or panic. These new protocols ensure that scientists maintain the highest standards of evidence before making announcements to the world.”
The revised declaration reflects the broader scope of modern SETI and technosignature research. Since the previous guidelines were adopted in 2010, advances in technology have enabled scientists to investigate the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including excess infrared heat signatures that could indicate megastructures, optical laser emissions, and even multi-messenger signals.
The updated framework also addresses modern challenges, including protections for researchers who may face harassment, doxxing, or intense media scrutiny. It further emphasizes the importance of distinguishing verified scientific data from viral rumors, hoaxes, or terrestrial interference.
“The last significant update was more than 15 years ago, and the world has changed a lot since then,” Andrew Siemion, Ph.D., Astrophysics and Director of SETI Research, said an email to The Debrief. “With the tremendous renaissance we are seeing in the technosignature field, and the advent of incredibly powerful AI tools, the prospect for a discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence has sharpened considerably.”
“In recognition of these developments, the IAA SETI Committee undertook a multiyear expansive effort to work with scientists across the world and across disciplines to present the most up-to-date guidelines possible to the community,” Siemeon said.
New Contact Rules at SETI
At the heart of the new guidelines is a familiar scientific principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Under the revised protocols, no public announcement should be made until a signal or artifact has been rigorously verified by independent organizations using different instruments and methodologies.
“We do not shout ‘alien’ the moment we see a strange blip,” said Garret in a statement. “The scientific method demands we check, check again, and then ask others to check. Only when we have reached a consensus that a signal is credible do we bring it to the world.”
While the protocols explain how to share discovery news, they make one rule clear: no reply should be sent.
“The threshold for ‘extraordinary evidence’ is subjective,” Siemion says. “Because of the vast diversity of modalities in which a technosignature might manifest, it is impossible to state explicitly the criteria that would meet this threshold under all circumstances.”
“In the case of a coherent electromagnetic signal, like a narrowband carrier or a series of laser pulses, an example of ‘extraordinary’ would be if we repeatedly detected the signal at the same location with multiple independent observatories,” Siemion adds.
He also noted that, for a transient signal, compelling evidence might include multiple lines of data indicating that it traveled through interstellar space. Determining whether a phenomenon truly originated from extraterrestrial technology would likely be a lengthy process, with evidence presented, challenged, and reassessed over time.
The declaration reinforces that any response to extraterrestrial intelligence would be a decision for all humanity and should only occur following international consultation, particularly through the United Nations.
With the updated declaration now ratified by the IAA Board, it will be shared with stakeholders, including the United Nations. A formal presentation of the protocols is scheduled for the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Türkiye later this year.
“The release of these updated rules and protocols marks an important step in acknowledging both the radically different media landscape that science functions within today, and the vastly expanded efforts in terms of technology and resources being deployed in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth,” said Bill Diamond, President and CEO of the SETI Institute and IAA SETI Committee member. “We applaud Prof Garrett’s leadership in developing these new protocols and the IAA for their ratification.”
First Contact and Humanity’s Mental Health
Another nonprofit organization has taken a different approach, focusing on the potential psychological and public-health implications of disclosure. The uNHIdden Foundation, whose mission is to support mental health related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), recently released a preparedness framework addressing the societal impact of a paradigm-shifting discovery.
If governments prepare for natural disasters, pandemics, and other low-probability, high-impact events, should humanity also consider preparing for the possibility of contact with another intelligent civilization?
On June 8, uNHIdden Foundation Founder and Chairman John Priestland, alongside clinical spokesperson Dr. Martin Abbas, launched what they describe as the first public-health preparedness framework focused on disclosure-related scenarios.
Developed by healthcare practitioners, physicians, clinical psychologists, and public-health specialists, “Preparing for Disclosure: A Public Health Framework for Paradigm-Shifting Revelations” examines how society might reduce harm, build resilience, and support individuals processing a profound shift in humanity’s understanding of its place in the universe.
“This report is not a prediction. It is a preparedness exercise,” Priestland says. “Governments prepare for all kinds of low-probability, high-impact events.”
“Our view is that if a paradigm-shifting disclosure were ever to occur, we should at least have thought about the human consequences in advance,” Priestland added.
The report suggests that certain groups could be more vulnerable to disclosure-related distress, including individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions, those facing socioeconomic hardship, UAP experiencers, highly religious individuals, and some STEM professionals. The authors emphasize that the report neither predicts disclosure nor attempts to judge future discoveries; rather, it argues that preparedness is a prudent response to the possibility of transformative new information.
David Whitehouse, former BBC Science Correspondent, wrote the report’s foreword, arguing that planning is essential should such a discovery ever occur.
The new framework proposes several practical actions to be taken, which include:
Reducing stigma surrounding anomalous experiences and disclosure-related concerns
Building public resilience and psychological flexibility
Developing trusted sources of information and support
Creating community conversation groups and peer-support networks
Strengthening mental health preparedness and triage capability
Encouraging collaboration between healthcare professionals, researchers, government, and civil society
The report argues that stronger community resilience, clearer communication during periods of uncertainty, and improved mental-health support would be critical not only during a disclosure event but during any large-scale societal disruption.
Ultimately, the question remains whether humanity is truly prepared—or whether a globally coordinated framework is still lacking. Voices ranging from the UAP community to figures within the U.S. government have argued that the public is ready. However, only time will tell what the result may be if confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence were to arrive—and how humanity will collectively respond to the discovery.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
Astronomers from around the world were fascinated last year when 3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object ever observed passing through our Solar System, was discovered.
The SETI Institute was one of the many organizations that examined the unusual interstellar object, conducting a comprehensive search for any signs that it might be producing technological signals.
Using the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) at the Hat Creek Radio Observatory in Northern California, SETI researchers scanned a broad range of radio frequencies in search of potential evidence of extraterrestrial technology associated with 3I/ATLAS. The data that came back was clear: no signs of artificial signals. As most astronomers expected, 3I/ATLAS is most likely a natural comet.
“We searched for narrowband signals across a broad range of spectrum: 1–10 GHz. We can do this efficiently due to the ATA’s ability to record and search billions of channels at a time,” says Dr. Sofia Sheik, lead author of a new paper describing the SETI Institute’s work, in an email to The Debrief.
The interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS (Image Credit: International Gemini Observatory/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/Shadow the Scientist)
Observations of interstellar objects have become more common in recent years, due to advances in telescopic technologies available to astronomers. Discovered last July, 3I/ATLAS is only the third confirmed interstellar visitor to enter our Solar System, preceded by 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017, and 2I/Borisov in 2019.
These rare discoveries help astronomers understand the materials in our cosmic backyard. By analyzing the composition of these objects, scientists can gain a deeper understanding of how planetary systems develop and evolve throughout the galaxy.
The Research
The majority of recent astronomical observations indicate that 3I/ATLAS is a natural object, albeit one that exhibited some unusual qualities. However, the possibility remains that we may one day find a technological artifact from an intelligent civilization; it is equally possible that at some point, aliens may also discover a spacecraft of Earthly origin.
“Eventually, our own Voyager spacecraft will be extraterrestrial artifacts in other stellar systems,” Sheik told The Debrief. “Given that, it is important that we understand the natural distribution of interstellar objects so that we will be able to identify any anomalies that could one day be signs of an artificial interstellar object.”
The SETI research team studied 3I/ATLAS for over seven hours using the ATA, searching radio frequencies from 1 to 9 gigahertz. This range is especially important because it can detect narrowband radio signals, which are rarely produced by natural space phenomena and are often considered possible signs of technological activity.
Researchers found 74 million narrowband signals, but after filtering out human interference and motion-matched sources, only about 200 remained. These were later confirmed to come entirely from Earth-based technology or satellites.
“To be clear, we did not detect any radio signals from 3I/ATLAS. We ruled out the presence of signals down to power levels comparable with everyday appliances: for example, we definitely would have picked up a cell tower or a radio station equivalent had it been on the surface of 3I/ATLAS,” Sheik said.
In other words, no technosignatures were detected. The SETI observation ruled out signals stronger than approximately 10 to 110 watts across the observed frequencies (comparable to the power consumption of a household appliance).
NASA diagram showing the trajectory of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS (Image Credit: NASA).
The Origins of 3I/ATLAS
For a time, there was a considerable amount of speculation over whether 3I/ATLAS could represent something more than just a natural object. Among the proponents of such ideas, theoretical physicist Avi Loeb emerged as one of the most visible supporters of the possibility that the interstellar object displayed anomalous qualities that could point to technological origins.
Last July, shortly after the object’s discovery, Loeb predicted on his Medium page that 3I/ATLAS may be one of two things: a comet possessing a smaller core with a radius less than 400 meters, or “an object that favored a radial orbit into the inner solar system,” meaning that it may also be a larger object compared to its predecessors. Indeed, further observations of the object eventually suggested that 3I/ATLAS appears to be significantly larger than ‘Oumuamua or Borisov was.
Loeb also suggested in a podcast interview that 3I/ATLAS might not be following a random trajectory, but rather that its current motion could be understood as “directed” toward the inner solar system.
“That obviously opens the door for it being technological, because who would target the inner solar system?” said Loeb during an interview.
In an email to The Debrief, Loeb shared his thoughts on the recent SETI findings.
“Radio communication is an old technology, which was recently accompanied by optical laser communication in NASA’s Artemis II mission to the Moon,” Loeb said. “Lasers might replace radio communication in our future space missions, and there is no guarantee that they would operate at the frequencies scanned in this study.”
“To save power, a technological transmitter might beam its signal in the direction of the receiver (rather than Earth) and might only transmit sporadically,” Loeb added.
“Interestingly, the anomalous ‘Wow! Signal’ detected on August 15, 1977, came from a direction which is separated by only 9 degrees from the arrival direction of 3I/ATLAS into the inner Solar System, but a similar signal was never detected again,” Loeb told The Debrief.
The Search for Interstellar Objects
For Sheik and the team, while 3I/ATLAS did not display any obvious signatures that could be associated with technosignatures, it still provided a significant learning opportunity.
“The results from 3I/ATLAS show how realistic it is to detect a signal with the technology we have today,” said co-author Valeria Garcia Lopez. “That is why it is important to keep searching for technosignatures, even from objects we might not expect to have signals.”
Additionally, this project highlighted the ATA’s ability to respond quickly to new discoveries. Observations began less than 24 hours after the discovery of 3I/ATLAS was announced, showcasing the telescope’s flexibility and preparedness.
“One of the ATA’s advantages is being able to get quickly on-source to follow up on new and exciting discoveries, which was showcased in the 3I/ATLAS observations,” Sheik told The Debrief. “3I/ATLAS was announced on July 1st, and the ATA began observations on July 3rd.”
With ongoing advancements in technology, future observations of similar interstellar objects should become more frequent.
“For sources that might be changing quickly, this kind of rapid follow-up is essential to get early data and context for later observations with other observatories,” Sheik added.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.
Login
