The story began last August, when NASA scientists at the Ames Research Center
claimed they had found fossilised bacteria in a Martian meteorite. The
announcement greatly excited the world press and sent shockwaves through the
scientific community. Here was proof of alien life鈥攐r so it seemed.

One group particularly struck by the discovery were the meteorite traders.
Overnight they pushed up the price of Martian meteorites from about $50 a
gram to as much as $10 000 a gram. Estimates for the three meteorites at
Guernsey鈥檚 stood between $2600 and $14 000 a gram. Or so the
traders believed. The 3000 people around the world who collect meteorites as a
hobby were not so convinced.

Shortly before the auction, a representative of a British pension fund asked
me whether the Martian meteorites were worth their asking price, and whether
they were likely to increase in value. I advised the fund not to buy.
Meteorites, in general, are a bad investment, and Martian meteorites
particularly so.

The problem, I explained, was threefold. First, it was always going to be
difficult to prove beyond doubt that the structures found in the NASA sample
were bacteria. 杏吧原创s were already arguing that the alien 鈥渂acteria鈥� were
too small to contain all the DNA and organelles they would need to exist.

Second, there was no guarantee that the bacteria were not due to terrestrial
contamination. Although the NASA sample was discovered in Antarctica and
subjected to extremes of quarantine processing used on Moon rocks recovered by
the Apollo missions, contamination could not be ruled out. And, finally, there
is no absolute proof that the NASA meteorite comes from Mars. Even NASA would
only say of its material that the rock is 鈥減robably鈥� Martian.

Even as the auction approached, weighty critiques of NASA鈥檚 claims began to
appear. Given the uncertainties about the evidence, this was bound to continue,
I warned. As each piece of evidence was called into question, so the price of
the Martian meteorite would be forced down.

But there was a little more to the caution of hobbyists. The NASA sample is
believed to be about 4550 million years old and the supposed fossilised bacteria
about 3500 million years old. But the rocks for sale at Guernsey鈥檚 in November
were much younger鈥攂y more than 2000 million years. The three meteorites in
the sale belong to a group known as the 鈥淪NC suite鈥濃�攖he shergottites,
nakhlites and the unique chassignites. These are igneous in origin and were
formed about 1300 million years ago. The NASA sample was not only created much
earlier in Mars鈥檚 history, but was formed by different processes. Canny
meteorite collectors were quick to work out that the SNC meteorites probably
came into existence thousands of millions of years after supposed life on Mars
had probably fizzled out. So there was little to connect the SNC meteorites with
the NASA meteorite.

Furthermore, Guernsey鈥檚 refused to name the owner of the meteorites. Over the
past few years, both professional and amateur collectors have become wary of
buying meteorites whose histories cannot be fully traced鈥攊ncluding details
of whose hands they have been through. This anxiety follows several cases in
which meteorites were given new identities after being stolen from countries
with strict laws on meteorite collecting, such as Australia.

The scam is simple. An unscrupulous trader illegally acquires the meteorites
and then lists them in his or her catalogue as a new 鈥渇ind鈥� from a country where
meteorite collecting is legal. As an additional sting, the trader may charge a
premium because the meteorite is supposedly from a newly discovered site. Some
collectors don鈥檛 even bother to purchase these meteorites. In one case referred
to me a couple of years ago, a collector became suspicious about a Martian
meteorite for which he had paid $5000. I had it analysed and it turned
out to be no more exotic than terrestrial basalt. After some pressure, the
trader eventually agreed to refund twice the cost of the alleged meteorite,
claiming that he too had been fooled by the original vendor.

Some people seem to think they can successfully invest in meteorites just by
buying a rare and authenticated specimen. And many have done so. There is only
one problem: even by the time you finish reading this article, a meteorite could
have fallen somewhere in the world bringing tonnes of the stuff to Earth. Then
your $10 000 specimen will suddenly lose most of its value.

So, if you鈥檝e got a few quid to spare you鈥檇 be better off investing in
something more terrestrial. Oh, and have you ever asked where your pension fund
is invested?

What appears to have made Hawking change his mind is the concept of 鈥渃osmic
wormholes鈥�. Despite the name, these have nothing to do with intergalactic
invertebrates. They are, in effect, some sort of time tunnel. The theory
is that
you can enter the time tunnel at one end and exit at the other, in a different
era.

Now who am I to question Hawking鈥檚 thinking on such matters. Yet my senses
(and a few observations) tell me that he is barking down the wrong hole. Ever
since Albert Einstein introduced his theories on space and time in 1905,
scientists and film producers have been intrigued by the possibility of
travelling through time. But of course, H. G. Wells wrote his famous novel
The Time Machine in 1895, some time before Einstein put forward his
theory鈥� so fascination with time had been knocking about for a while. It
is an attractive idea. You could travel forwards in time to see what the Nobel
committee considers to be worthy of a prize, come back to 1996, 鈥渄iscover鈥� it,
write up the papers, and claim the gong and the dosh for yourself. If it
is just
the money that motivates you, an easier way of making some would be simply to
flit forward a few days and find out what the winning numbers in the National
Lottery were to be. Yet there are problems.

While travelling forwards in time seems safe enough, going in the opposite
direction could get you into a lot of trouble. The most common argument against
time travel is the 鈥渄ead grandfather scenario鈥�. I could, the argument goes,
travel back in time to when my grandfather was a boy, and kill him. He
could not
then have fathered my father, who, in turn, could not have fathered me. So I
would not exist and hence could not go back in time. Therefore my grandfather
would not have been killed, my father would have been born and thus I would
exist. So I could go back in time and鈥ell, you get the idea.

Proponents answer this by arguing that when you travel in time you actually
emerge in a parallel universe鈥攋ust one of many. But surely that is not
real time travel? It is simply space travel. If I fly off to the US I shall end
up in a different time zone, sure, but I have not, by any stretch of the
imagination, travelled through time.

The other problem I have with parallel universes is that they do not really
deal with the dead grandfather problem. Suppose we have, say, 100 parallel
universes. Then, just as you pass from one universe to another, so will all the
other 鈥測ous鈥濃�攁nd they will all kill each other鈥檚 grandfathers,
bringing us
back to square one.

There is also some pretty convincing circumstantial evidence that time
travel
is, and always will be, impossible. Suppose someone in AD 3000 invents a time
machine that uses wormholes. From that year onwards, time travel would be
possible, and having become possible it would undoubtedly grow in popularity.
History shows us that if something can be done, it will be done. It is possible
to holiday in Spain, so people do. It is possible to holiday in Australia. And
so, despite the expense, people do. It is even possible to holiday in
Antarctica. And so people do鈥� although heaven knows why.

So if it ever becomes possible to travel in time, people will. Thomas Cook
will set up Time Travel Centres in every major town and city to cater for the
trade. The antiques business would collapse. And we would all be in danger of a
faux pas. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 an unusual American accent you have,鈥� you might say to
someone
from the future. To which they may reply 鈥淎merica? Where鈥檚 that?鈥� Anyway, the
net result is that there should be millions of people travelling in time. And
quite a few would visit our era. That they are not here now, and in large
numbers, would seem to demonstrate that time travel is impossible鈥攐r at
least that it will never be invented.

Granted, you can construct other arguments to explain the absence of people
from the future. The government of the day might not allow mass access to time
machines for fear of the consequences. A little more thought, however, shows
that this is unlikely. Few governments would be able to keep such a device
secret forever. And time machines would eventually be reinvented by people
working for other, more liberal governments, and at different times in
history.

There is also the personal glory factor. If a scientist ever invented a time
machine which they believed their government would keep quiet about, then they
could probably use it to travel back in time to a period when they could
鈥渋nvent鈥� the machine without hassle from the powers that be. The scientific
community would be likely to reward richly any scientist who invented such a
machine.

We all dream of travelling in time. We could go back to correct our errors,
or forward to find solutions to our problems. Yet the absence of time tourists
suggests that time travel is nothing more than a dream: it is impossible. Or is
it?

But there is, I must admit, another explanation for the absence of time
tourists thronging the late 20th century. It could be that time travel is
perfectly possible, but that the human race will perish before anyone works out
how to exploit it. So perhaps we should just all live for today and leave time
travel to those with greater minds than ours.

It did seem like a good idea. After all, we have spent a blissful 15 years together, so why shouldn鈥檛 she find love in the 23rd century? It was only after I did a little research that I began to have some nagging doubts.

Cryonics, in case you鈥檙e wondering, is the science of freezing someone in the hope that they can be revived at a later date. In the US it can cost between $40 000 and $140 000 and so is considerably more expensive than a conventional funeral in Britain. So only about 1000 people worldwide have expressed a serious desire to be cryonically preserved.

Even so, if you decide freezing is for you you will probably be in good company 鈥� though I鈥檇 better not mention anyone by name. And the people offering a cryonic service won鈥檛 say who they have on their books, or should I say in their flasks. Freezing a body is far from easy. Ice crystals form inside the body鈥檚 cells and become quite large and jagged, often puncturing delicate membranes causing cells to collapse. Salts build up and the acid-alkaline ratio changes, throwing the whole biological system into chaos.

To overcome this problem, the cryonics companies rapidly freeze bodies in vats of liquid nitrogen to below -196 掳C. At this temperature most people believe all biochemical activity, including decay, ceases and the body can be preserved indefinitely. They also argue that rapid freezing 鈥� several degrees per second 鈥� prevents the build-up of large ice crystals and keeps cells intact for later resurrection.

The cryonics companies do not guarantee you a resurrection, only that you have a better chance than everyone else of being 鈥渞e-born鈥� at some time in the future. And just to ensure that you don鈥檛 have a rude awakening you can specify the conditions under which you wish to return. So if, for example, you have suffered from chronic asthma then you may wish to remain suspended until your problem can be cured.

I was quite taken with this idea. Waking up a few centuries from now would be a real eye opener. You could find out how the human race dealt with, global warming, ozone depletion, overpopulation and dwindling rain forests. You would be able to see how many of the new discoveries made during your last years were developed into practical applications. And, of course, you鈥檇 be able to discover whether or not your National Lottery numbers ever came up.

The only snag is that cryonics doesn鈥檛 work and never can. Of the people who have thus far actually been frozen, about a third have been allowed to thaw out and been given more conventional funerals, mainly because the undertakers who promised to hold them in suspension for centuries went bankrupt after just a few years. A bit rough when you have had to find 拢90 000 in the hope of eternal life. But the real problem is with the state of the defrosted bodies.

When a human body is rapidly frozen to -196 掳C and then held at that temperature, it undergoes a sort of thermal shock. Most of the major organs, including the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys, develop fissures and, quite literally, fall apart. In some cases major organs have been reduced to little more than dust, which is not much good if you needed them again in the dim and distant future when Britain gets a decent science budget and scientists work out how to bring you back to life.

鈥淎h, but we鈥檝e got that problem cracked,鈥� the cryonics companies claim, though perhaps not in exactly those words. 鈥淲e鈥檒l offer you the opportunity of neurosuspension.鈥� Their solution is to get rid of your body altogether freeze just your head. It may sound gruesome but apparently you stand a better chance of resurrection if only your head is 鈥減reserved鈥�.

Call me an old sceptic, but I don鈥檛 believe a word of it. To my way of thinking, the brain would fall apart. It doesn鈥檛 matter whether you are talking about whole-body suspension or the cheaper $26 000 neurosuspension, no organs presently survive cryonic processing undamaged.

Which leaves me with my original problem of what to buy her for Christmas. Perhaps there鈥檚 something in that idea of the Orbit of Rest in deep outer space 鈥�

It is unfortunate that when science fails the public it can do so in a big and devastating way. Was it not, after all, scientists who gave us thalidomide, damaging DDT insecticide and ozone-destroying CFC propellants? In the eyes of the public, though not necessarily the lawyers, these were all cases in which scientists had not done their jobs with sufficient thoroughness. Hardly a day passes without some story emerging of how scientists are trying to clean up a mess they caused in the first place.

Even when matters are in the hands of the gods, it is still the poor mortal scientist who is expected to carry the can. When the so-called October Hurricane wreaked havoc in southern Britain a few years ago, the blame was firmly placed at the door of the Meteorological Office. True, a Met Office brimming full of scientists issued an incorrect forecast saying that the storm was going to miss the country. And also true is the fact that some people could have taken steps to limit the damage caused by the high winds, had they known they were about to strike. But most of the devastation could not have been prevented. Even so, the press seized the opportunity to blame the scientists for the storm, for roofs being ripped off, for caravans being blown over, and for the destruction of the oaks at Seven Oaks in Kent. 鈥淚f only the weathermen had warned us,鈥� was the cry, 鈥渨e could have avoided all this!鈥�

The reason the Met Office attracted so much criticism is probably because it is in touch with the public on a daily basis on radio, television and the media generally. In theory, at least, it should be able to give us up-to-date information on weather conditions anywhere in the country. In practice, our maritime weather system has an inherent degree of uncertainty which means that, on a local scale, things can be very different from the country-wide, or even region-wide picture.

However, not all scientists are looked down on by the public. The nursing professions are highly regarded by one and all, even by those who have had little or no contact with them. The only trouble is that nurses are not generally regarded as 鈥渟cientists鈥� despite the fact that nowadays they need a considerable degree of scientific knowledge and practice if they wish to succeed in their careers.

The low esteem in which 鈥渞eal鈥� scientists are held is exacerbated by the failings of their co-conspirators, the technologists, whom the public regard as being in the same boat. It seems unbelievable that an almost indestructible polythene bag can be bought for just a few pence while a car costing several thousand pounds can rust away in just a few years. And then we have the carcinogenic fumes spewed out by diesel engines, noise pollution by aircraft and so on. If the scientists are doing their jobs properly, then how come the world is in such a mess?

Perhaps it is the picture we paint of science and scientists that gives a false impression of how science works. Most popular television and radio programmes, not to mention magazine articles and coffee-table books, usually approach science from a very positive angle. 鈥淭his is what science can achieve 鈥︹��, or 鈥淭hese are the men and women fighting disease and starvation 鈥︹�� Such an approach is understandable to anyone who has had to deal with the editors of pop science. We live in a era in which positive results and success are chic. Try to introduce an element of uncertainty and it is likely to be edited out. As a result, the public tends to expect too much of the scientist.

In recent years there has been a move towards encouraging the scientific community itself to communicate more effectively with the public. For example, some scientists have been awarded grants enabling them to work in the media for a fixed period. It鈥檚 undoubtedly a good thing. 杏吧原创s are trained to be cautious, so perhaps some of this attribute will eventually filter down through the media. While there can be little doubt that the public perception of scientists is important in how they react to news of discoveries, it is also true that their perception of themselves is of equal significance, if not more so.

Let鈥檚 face it, a suntan does make a person look healthy and, psychologically, it probably makes them feel better about themselves even though their skin is undergoing a traumatic metamorphosis. A cigarette or drink before an important meeting helps you to relax. As someone recently put it, 鈥淗ow come scientists seem hellbent on spoiling the good things in life?鈥�

So is there any hope that the public will come to appreciate and trust the scientific community? Perhaps. Friends in Australia tell me that semi-naked sunbathing is fast becoming a thing of the past on the beaches there. The message is getting through. But sadly it is sinking in only slowly.

The subject became prominent after legal proceedings in the US. The
case concerned 18-year-old Holly Ramona, who visited a therapist in 1989
when she was diagnosed as suffering from the eating disorder bulimia. Shortly
after she began receiving therapy, she had a number of 鈥榬ecollections鈥� of
her father sexually abusing her over a period of 11 years, beginning when
she was 5. She had not previously complained of abuse, or shown any signs
of having been subjected to it, even though the last incident had allegedly
occurred only two years earlier, when she was 16. After a trial lasting
several weeks, the father, Gary Ramona, was awarded damages of $500 000
against therapists Marche Isabella and Richard Rose, who administered sodium
amytal to Holly.

What makes me so concerned about this method of investigating child
sexual abuse is my experience with people who have undergone hypnosis for
other reasons. Some years ago I, together with some others, were investigating
reports of UFOs in an attempt to determine how many were actually fireballs
and other meteoric phenomena. During our investigations we met several people
who claimed to have been abducted by aliens and taken to various planets
and star systems. Quite often the details of their abductions were revealed
under hypnosis. One case is typical.

A woman, in her forties, was driving alone along a country road one
night when she witnessed a bright light in the sky overtaking her car at
high speed and disappearing behind trees. A second or so later she drove
around a bend and was met by the bright light again. Her car ended up in
a ditch and she in hospital. Under hypnosis she claimed that her car had
stalled and that, in the light, she could see a flying saucer. Two aliens
emerged from the spacecraft and escorted her into it. They then transported
her to Venus, which she described as being 鈥榣ike paradise鈥�. After a medical
examination, she was returned to Earth. She has vivid memories of that visit.

In all probability, the woman had witnessed a fireball 鈥� a piece of
planetary debris burning up in the atmosphere. Momentarily distracted,
she rounded the bend and lost control of her car when an oncoming vehicle
blinded her with its head-lights. Her 鈥榬ecollections鈥� are clearly not 鈥榟idden
memories鈥� but imagination, perhaps influenced by similar stories in the
media.

Consider, also, the numerous cases of people who, again under hypnosis,
have claimed to have lived in earlier times. There are stories of people
having lived in ancient Egypt, Rome, Bethlehem and China, of being fighter
pilots in the Great War, Samurai in Japan, and paupers during the Great
Plague. None of the reports adds any insight into the conditions under which
people lived in these times, and all of the information could have been
absorbed consciously or subconsciously from books, television and the cinema.

Taking these reports into account, I am suspicious of the increasingly
common reports of incidents in which therapists claim to have recovered,
by hypnotic techniques, hidden memories of child sexual abuse. It appears
I am not the only one.

An organisation called the British False Memory Society aims to sponsor
research into allegations of abuse following hypnotherapy. It boasts an
impressive board of experts. The society鈥檚 Roger Scotford tells me that
during the past year about 350 cases have come to light which may be the
result of what has come to be called false memory syndrome (FMS). In most
cases there has been no corroborative evidence or previous allegations of
abuse.

At least one MP has raised the matter of FMS in Parliament after being
contacted by a family that had been accused of abuse. Andrew Hunter, the
MP for Basingstoke, asked the health minister whether the government intended
to introduce legislation to control hypnotherapists. Adopting the nothing-to-do-with-us
approach that appears to be the hallmark of this government, the minister
replied that the government hoped that hypnotherapists would introduce their
own voluntary codes of training and conduct.

In Britain, anyone can practise as a hypnotherapist. A correspondence
course is available for 拢450, including VAT, from the International
Association of Hypno-Analysts. The course of 12 lessons is run by Neil French
in Bournemouth who has been featured by the BBC鈥檚 Watchdog consumer affairs
programme. But do not assume that proper training is a guarantee that therapists
will not use dubious analytical techniques. Stephen Ceci, a psychologist
at Cornell University, told Time magazine (29 November, 1993): 鈥業 wish I
could say the debate involves a few kooks. It鈥檚 much broader, happening
among the cream of the crop of psychiatrists.鈥�

The sexual abuse of children is one of the more sickening aspects of
the society in which we live, and no one except the paedophile would wish
to hinder the investigation of genuine cases. Investigators are faced with
a difficult task: the subject is still very much taboo, and evidence often
has to be gently coaxed out of victims, irrespective of their age, sometimes
in an atmosphere of public near-hysteria. Even so, we need to ensure that
the investigative techniques employed in this area are based on sound scientific
principles by suitably qualified practitioners, for errors are devastating
to all concerned.

Phil Bagnall is a freelance science writer. Anyone wishing to contact
the British False Memory Society can phone it on (0225) 868682.

The company running Lunar Tours turned out to be none other than good
old Thomas Cook. So I rang its public relations department for further details.
Sure enough, a spokeswoman informed me, Thomas Cook is taking bookings for
the first holiday flight to the Moon 鈥� and has been doing so since Neil
Armstrong made that 鈥榦ne small step鈥� back in July 1969.

It would seem that some people were so enthralled by the Apollo 11 landing
that they wanted to see the place for themselves. Never one to miss an opportunity,
the travel agency 鈥� whose founder invented the package holiday back in the
1860s 鈥� decided to open a register of would-be lunar tourists. And it is
not stopping there. Cook has even produced a brochure, Galactic Tours,
advertising trips to planets in the Solar System 鈥� and beyond. Sadly, this
brochure, which was full of suggestions about getting the most from the
鈥榮olar sailing regatta鈥� and skiing on Jupiter鈥檚 moon Europa, is now out
of print.

Thus far, more than 500 people have declared an interest in flying
to the Moon. 鈥楽ome people,鈥� says Thomas Cook, 鈥榟ave even sent us 拢100
deposits, but we always return them. For the time being, we鈥檙e just taking
names.鈥� Even so, all enquirers are issued with certificates and luggage
labels. One newly-wed husband has reportedly booked his mother-in-law on
a one-way ticket.

The concept of holidays on the Moon opens up some interesting possibilities.
Sunseekers are guaranteed good weather, even in the inappropriately named
Mare Imbrium (Sea of Showers) and Mare Nubium (Sea of Clouds) resorts. With
midday temperatures soaring to 100 degreeC, instant suntans are assured.
Those who prefer nightlife, however, will appreciate the long lunar evening
鈥� although, with temperatures dropping to -150 degreeC, woolly undies are
recommended.

If you鈥檝e had a long, hard year and you need a peaceful, uneventful
vacation, may I suggest Mare Tranquillitatis or Mare Serenitatis? If, on
the other hand, you prefer to get about a bit and are tired of hopping
around the usual Greek islands, then perhaps you should visit Mare Insularum
鈥� the Sea of Isles.

The Moon, of course, has always been associated with love and lovers
so it is perhaps the ideal place for newlyweds to take a real honeymoon.
And with gravity at only one-sixth that of the Earth, the groom should experience
no difficulty in carrying the bride across the threshold. Indeed, the Moon
has a number of resorts suitable for the newly hitched, such as Lacus Lenitatis
(Lake Tenderness), Lacus Gandil (Lake Joy) and Lacus Felicitatis (Lake Happiness).
And what could be more romantic than two weeks at Sinus Amoris (the Bay
of Love)? Those who have been married for a number of years, however, may
prefer a rather different destination 鈥� such as Oceanus Procellarum (the
Ocean of Storms).

If you are a bit of a Victor Meldrew and are determined that, come what
may, you will not enjoy your holiday, then try Lacus Doloris (Lake of Suffering),
Lacus Odii (Lake of Hate), Lacus Timoris (Lake of Fear) or, perhaps best
of all, Lacus Mortis 鈥� the Lake of Death. The more energetic and sports-minded
amongst you will certainly find plenty of activities to occupy your time.
The high jump, pole vaulting and trampolining are experiences not to be
missed in the low lunar gravity, while rock climbers will be faced with
some pretty impressive peaks. Mons Blanc stands 3.6 kilometres high, though
with most slopes at less than 20degree, lunar mountains are not too challenging.
Despite all the seas and lakes, however, there is little opportunity for
scuba diving. Golfers, on the other hand, should have no trouble at all
with those 200-yard shots, though putting is somewhat difficult in the veneer
of dust and rock debris. And as for the bunkers . . .

Children are well catered for by the natural lunar landscape. The craters,
rilles and valleys are adventure playgrounds to rival the best on Earth.
But make sure they are vaccinated before visiting Palus Epidemiarum 鈥� the
Marsh of Epidemics.

If you fancy a holiday that is truly different, then contact Thomas
Cook鈥檚 Lunar Tours on 0733 502649. As for me, I鈥檓 staying here on Earth.
The Moon looks very nice in the brochures, but I don鈥檛 think it has much
atmosphere.

Phil Bagnell lives in Wallsend and suffers travel sickness just going
to work (though this might have something to do with the destination).