I can't follow all the chemistry but this seems like the takeaway, from the Nature paper (open acccess!):
> Regardless, confirmation of macromolecular organic matter supports the possibility that future optimized TMAH thermochemolysis experiments can liberate ancient biosignatures preserved in macromolecules on Mars (if present). The broad structural variety of organic molecules observed in situ from surface materials suggests some chemical diversity is preserved in ancient Martian sediments despite >3.5 billion years of diagenesis and radiation exposure.
Macromolecules, not just "organic" (which, reminder, does not mean "biological"). It seems like you can still get macromolecules abiotically, but it's a little more tantalizing.
Shouldn't this link directly to the paper in question, instead of... Shuffles papers... Courthousenews?
The paper might contain too much jargon for lawyers.
Given the political climate re science and life, a website run for lawyers might be the safe place to publish. The idea of the US government (via nasa) looking for life elsewhere than earth rubs certain people the wrong way, people with political power.
Since there’s no such thing as 100% proof in science, when and who gets to “call it” that the signs of life have been discovered outside of Earth? Presumably NASA, but how do they decide?
Officially it'll be "called" when a politician feels like it's solid enough proof for them to leech off of it.
Scientifically, it'll be called when there's too much evidence to genuinely dispute it. Probably when a collection of specimens is found, either dead or alive, that can be shown to be unrelated or distantly related to Earth life.
They found molecules on Mars? Great, now we know that Mars is made out of different materials. But we knew that before we sent a lonely Rover over there.
Wake me up if they find ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Without ATP no life.