New guidelines aim to help scientists verify, communicate, and manage evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence

Disclosure Day, arriving in movie theaters this week, deals with what would be a pivotal event in history: the moment conclusive evidence arrives of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The movie pits sinister military-industrial forces that hide and control the information against those who strive to reveal the truth.

Researchers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have long realized this moment—if it ever arrives outside cinemas—is going to be fraught with emotion, confusion, and possible danger. To get a jump on such events, the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) convened a permanent committee of SETI experts. In 1989, the committee drew up a set of “postdetection protocols,” nonbinding guidelines for what scientists and their institutions should do when the time comes.

The protocols stress the importance of verifying the alien signal and making accurate and transparent announcements. They suggest data should be stored securely, in multiple repositories. No reply to any alien civilization should be sent without the authority of the United Nations and other representative bodies.

The committee carried out the latest revision to the protocols over the past few years, following a huge expansion in SETI tools and a dramatic shift in the communications and political landscape since the last revision in 2010. The update retains its long-standing principles but also addresses modern challenges such as social media–fueled misinformation, artificial intelligence (AI)-generated hoaxes, and even the need to protect scientists who might find themselves at the center of a political maelstrom. IAA adopted the revised protocols in April.

Science spoke with IAA’s SETI Permanent Committee Chair Michael Garrett, a radio astronomer at the University of Manchester, about the revision and what he thinks might happen on “disclosure day.” The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: Why do we need SETI postdetection protocols?

A: It’s much bigger than your typical discovery and it’s also very immediate in terms of its impact. So, I think it kind of behooves us to look at the way we do science just because of the sensitive aspects of it.

Q: Following a detection, what would be the sequence of events?

A: It sort of depends on who makes the discovery. If you look at the way astronomical instrumentation is going, it’s quite possible that whoever makes this discovery has never thought about any of these issues before. I honestly think that if someone makes this detection, the first thing that they’re going to do is write it up and submit it to Nature. I’m not sure any of them would follow the protocols.

It also depends on the nature of the signal. If it’s just broadly telling you that there’s something there, something like a narrowband signal that’s clearly not being produced by nature, then a big question is: Is it just a signpost of intelligence or is it also conveying information? If there’s information being conveyed, then that’s a bit of a game changer.

What we’ve tried to do in this document is set out what we think are the best practices, the best way to limit the negative possibilities or aspects of the discovery that a researcher could encounter if they don’t think very hard about this.

Q: If a signal does contain information, what might happen?

A: As soon as you go to a funding agency, if they have any competent people who realize how important this is, they’re going to take it to government. If they take it to government, then politics would be involved.

Q: Do you think scientists have a greater duty to the international community or their national government?

A: I think some would be drawn to that international commitment and responsibility. In a perfect world, that’s what we would all do. If there’s no information content in the message, I would go international, but if there was information content in the message, personally I would have to think very carefully about that.

Q: Why do the protocols call for a recognition of the interests of humanity?

A: That suggests an international approach and being open and making sure that everyone can benefit from whatever it is, even if it’s just the message that there’s extraterrestrial life out there.

We’re not really going into the idea that somehow the information that’s been transmitted by a civilization that’s 10,000 years further advanced than us could have some practical applications. Those applications could give countries significant advantages over other countries very, very quickly.

Michael Garrett, a radio astronomer at the University of Manchester, helped revise guidelines for dealing with a detection of extraterrestrial intelligence. Michael Garrett

Q: Did you consider that the discovery might pose a threat to humanity?

A: Yes, that’s definitely in people’s minds, especially if the signal was [coming from somewhere] relatively close. People are very aware that there is a potential for harm and that’s another one of the main reasons for drafting the protocols.

Q: Since the last revision in 2010, has SETI or astronomy changed to make the chance of a detection more likely?

A: We look at SETI now just like any other kind of astronomy. It’s basically anomaly detection. To be able to distinguish intelligence from natural processes, we actually need to know a hell of a lot of astronomy and astrophysics as well. What are the natural explanations for these things as well as potentially something that’s artificial?

Q: Has SETI become part of the normal activity of astronomers?

A: Technology has moved us on in many different ways. If you look at the radio side of things—the huge data rates, the enormous bandwidths, the fantastic frequency channelization that you get, the temporal resolution—astronomy has been moving in that direction. The MeerKAT telescope in South Africa is a good example of something that just naturally can do SETI. It’s just perfect to hook up a SETI analysis backend.

What AI can bring to the table in terms of anomaly detection, that really wasn’t possible in the past. If there’s a signal out there to be detected, then we are moving towards that signal exponentially. That’s another reason why I felt it was so important to get this update in place, as the chances of a detection are much better than they’ve ever been before. Where we intersect with this detection threshold, I do not know, but we’re moving towards it really, really quickly.

Q: What changes in society have contributed to the revision of the protocols?

A: That’s one of the big things that has changed: The whole of SETI science has just exploded. It’s really a global pursuit now. China, for example, is becoming a bigger and bigger player.

And the world is a much more complicated place. We have fake news and we accept that people will tell us lies, especially politicians. There’s a challenge to the scientific method in all of that and an understanding that if we did make a detection, that environment—the media, the public environment, the government and political environment—is incredibly complicated.

There’s a risk involved for someone making this detection today. There’s not much we can do about it, but we think that institutions would be duty-bound to protect people. People feel they can be pinpointed, they can be attacked on social media in a way that really causes significant distress. Politicians could incite people to violence. You could imagine that people who have a completely different viewpoint from the idea that there might be intelligence out there would feel threatened by this.