SSETI and Democracy
Peter Hatfield a, ∗ , Leah Trueblood b,c a Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK b Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, St Cross Building, St Cross Road, Oxford, OX1 3UL, UK c Worcester College, 1 Walton St, Oxford OX1 2HB, UK
Abstract
There is a wide-ranging debate about the merits and demerits of searching for, and sending messages to, extrater-restrial intelligences (SETI and METI). There is however reasonable (but not universal) consensus that replying to amessage from an extraterrestrial intelligence should not be done unilaterally, without consultation with wider societyand the rest of the world. But how should this consultation actually work? In this paper we discuss various waysthat decision making in such a scenario could be done democratically, and gain legitimacy. In particular we considera scientist-led response, a politician-led response, deciding a response using a referendum, and finally using citizens’assemblies. We present the results of a survey of a representative survey of 2,000 people in the UK on how they thoughta response should best be determined, and finally discuss parallels to how the public is responding to scientific expertisein the COVID-19 Pandemic
Keywords:
SETI
1. Introduction
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is theprocess of searching for intelligent life forms in the Uni-verse beyond planet Earth. There are many such searchesunderway [1], conventionally using large astronomical tele-scopes. The current scientific consensus is that there isno life (intelligent or otherwise) beyond planet Earth inour Solar System [2]; whether there is life elsewhere inthe Milky Way or indeed the Universe remains an openquestion[3, 4]. Alongside SETI, sometimes researchers con-sider the prospect of actively Messaging ExtraterrestrialIntelligence (METI, sometimes called active SETI) - send-ing messages out into the Universe with the intention of anas-of-yet unknown intelligence finding and understandingthe message[5].Modern SETI projects are generally considered to startwith Project Ouzma in 1960[6, 7]. Notable contemporaryexamples include Breakthrough Listen[8] and Search forExtraterrestrial Radio Emissions from Nearby DevelopedIntelligent Populations (SERENDIP)[9]. METI conven-tionally takes either the form of physical artefacts (e.g.the Voyager Golden Records[10]) or electromagnetic sig-nals beamed at astrophysical bodies (e.g. radio signalslike the Arecibo Message [11] or perhaps with pulsed lasersignals [12]). There is an extensive literature consideringhow many extraterrestrial species there might be in theUniverse [13, 14], and the practicalities of sending mes-sages, and how they might be decoded, are fields in and ∗ Corresponding author
Email address: [email protected] (PeterHatfield) of themselves[15]. SETI and METI remain speculative en-terprises, but have grown as disciplines over time, partic-ularly since the discovery that exoplanets are ubiquitousthroughout the Galaxy[16].There is considerable debate in the literature about themerits and demerits of METI[17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24].Those against typically would argue that METI risks ‘re-vealing’ the location and existence of our planet, and thatit might attract the attention of a hostile species, with po-tentially civilisation ending consequences. The argumentsin favour typically counter that Earth’s regular electro-magnetic signals (TV etc.) have already revealed our lo-cation if that was a reasonable worry, and furthermorethat First Contact might bring unimaginable benefits ifthey are friendly . Perhaps the consequences and natureof First Contact would simply be so beyond our currentframe of reference that inevitably any predictions will havebeen made in vain[25, 26]. The purpose of this paper is notto discuss these arguments, but instead to focus on the is-sue of how that decision ought to be made . Opponents haveproposed banning or regulating METI[23, 27], so the ques-tion is not completely hypothetical - and would rapidly be-come imperative if there ever was a real life First Contactscenario. There are a few suggested protocols, but littlediscussion of how these decision making processes mightacquire legitimacy - how can METI be made democratic(if indeed it needs to be). There are many more details to these arguments, better sum-marised elsewhere.
Preprint submitted to Acta Astronautica July 28, 2020 a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . pop - ph ] J u l . Previous Democratic Processes in SETI Outer space has presented democratic, political, legaland governance issues for decades e.g. regulating satel-lite ownership and liability and managing ownership issuesof mining asteroids. For example, legally a key plank inthe international framework for space is the Outer SpaceTreaty of 1967[28], which limits the types of weapon thatcan be placed in space, forbids governments from makingclaims over the Moon or other bodies in the Solar System,and regulates ownership of objects launched into space.Politically, exploration of outer space has been chargedsince the dawn of spaceflight e.g. who is chosen to be anastronaut[29, 30, 31]. Here we discuss various democraticprocesses that have been relevant for SETI and METI todate.
Early 1970’s METI effects were typically led by an in-dividual, or small group of individuals, who then took a se-ries of consultations to improve and clarify their proposedmessage, before sending. The Pioneer Plaques (launched1972 and 1973) were essentially developed just by CarlSagan, Frank Drake and Linda Salzman Sagan[32] overthree weeks. Similarly the 1974 Arecibo message similarlywas developed by a team of about four people led by FrankDrake[33]. A few years later for Voyager Golden Records(1977) NASA required a more formal process over themuch longer period of a year. The images and music (andmessage from US President Carter) that went on the discswere selected by a six person committee chaired by CarlSagan, selected by NASA. NASA is known to have vetoedsome choices of the committee, so there was effectivelyan oversight process[10]. Making a plaque/record/messagethat is representative of all humanity is an incredibly chal-lenging task[34, 27], and the contents of the record havebeen debated substantially in the subsequent decades[35].In all these cases, the number of humans directly con-tributing to the development of the message was less thanten, with arguably with some informal oversight from alarger number of people from NASA.IRM Cosmic Call 2 was sent to 5 Sun-like stars in2003 and contained messages composed by citizens of theUSA, Canada and Russia [36], likely the first interna-tional METI effort. More recent METI attempts have ex-panded the number of people involved in determining thecontent of any message to extraterrestrials. In 2008 ‘AMessage From Earth’ was sent towards Gliese 581 c, andthe content of the message was determined by online sub-missions and votes on social media website Bebo . Beboat the time had 12 million users who in principle couldhave voted, and half a million actually participated. Thetrend is clear; by the 2000’s METI attempts generally felt http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7660449.stm that they should try to have some international consulta-tion in the determination of any message . This trend hascontinued into the 2010’s , a 2012 follow-up to the ‘Wow!’signal consisted of 10,000 Twitter messages , and in 2016the European Space Agency message ‘A Simple Responseto an Elemental Message’ included 3775 messages from theworldwide public . In terms of replying to received messages, there is nouniversally endorsed approach, but probably the most pop-ular/well recognised outlook is the 1989 International Academyof Astronautics SETI Post-Detection Protocols. The pro-tocols lay out some guiding principles to be followed in theevent of a detection, and gives an outline of a procedure tobe followed, namely to not publicly announce the detec-tion until it has been independently verified, and to theninform other observers through the International Astro-nomical Union, and the Secretary General of the UnitedNations (in accordance with Article XI of the Outer SpaceTreaty). In particular the 8th protocol proposes ‘No re-sponse to a signal or other evidence of extra-terrestrialintelligence should be sent until appropriate internationalconsultations have taken place. The procedures for suchconsultations will be the subject of a separate agreement,declaration or arrangement.’ More recently, on the 13thFebruary 2015, SETI experts met at an annual meeting ofthe American Association for the Advancement of Science,and released a declaration concluding that: ‘A worldwidescientific, political and humanitarian discussion must oc-cur before any message is sent.’ The question of whatamounts to an ‘international consultation’ or a ‘world-wide scientific political and humanitarian discussion’ is leftunanswered in the IAA protocol and the AAAS declara-tion . It is the aim of this paper to discuss what sucha process might involve and how it might become to beperceived as legitimate. Also increasingly felt in the literature[20, 23] See [37] for a comprehensive summary of METI messages https://blogs.esa.int/artscience/2017/02/17/paul-quast-man-with-a-simple-message/ https://iaaseti.org/en/declaration-principles-concerning-activities-following-detection/ There a few revisions and drafted new versions of the Pro-tocol; one modified version instead states ‘No communication toextraterrestrial intelligence should be sent by any State until ap-propriate international consultations have taken place. Statesshould not cooperate with attempts to communicate with ex-traterrestrial intelligence that do not conform to the principles ofthis Declaration’ https://iaaspace.org/wp-content/uploads/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/setidraft.pdf https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/meti_statement_0.html Although there are some initial outlines of such a processelsewhere[21, 23, 27, 38] . Approaches in SETI and Democracy In this section, we will critically assess the range ofdemocratic approaches taken to SETI and METI. We willconsider these approaches - scientist-led, representative-led, referendums, and citizens’ assemblies - separately aswell as the ways in which they are connected. The natureof SETI and METI are such that none of these decision-making methods on their own can satisfy the requirementsof the protocol and declaration of a ‘worldwide scientificpolitical and humanitarian discussion’ (Section 2).The key to assessing the appropriateness of the decision-making procedures for SETI and METI is the balancebetween expertise and judgement. Technocratic, exper-tise based arguments are more appropriate for those ques-tions where there are clear answers, but for questions ofjudgement and trade-offs, traditional political representa-tion may be more appropriate . The Protocol and thedeclaration both suggest with the mention of ‘political andhumanitarian elements’ that SETI and METI are not onlyscientific questions, but also questions of political judge-ment. Consequently, a range of decision making processesare required for a process to be perceived as legitimate. A scientist led response is probably the most studiedmode of reply[40], and to some degree is implied by the9th protocol of the IAA Protocols, which proposes that‘...an international committee of scientists and other ex-perts should be established to serve as a focal point for con-tinuing analysis of all observational evidence...’ (althoughit doesn’t explicitly suggest that this body should havedecision making responsibilities per say). With respect tothe Pioneer Plaques and Golden Records, the process wasalmost entirely expert led. There was some governmentoversight, via NASA, but the approach to these processeswas that this was a fundamentally a scientific question,and so the appropriate method of decision-making wastechnocratic, based on scientific expertise. The conceptionof scientific expertise informing these approaches did notinvolve consulting widely among scientists who took differ-ent views, were of different backgrounds, or representingdifferent jurisdictions.It is important to reflect too on what it means for ascientist to be a representative. Different scientists willlikely, and rightly, conceive of their roles in a consultation ‘Political issues, by and large, are...not likely to be as arbi-trary as a choice between two foods; nor are they likely to be ques-tions of knowledge to which an expert can supply the correct answer.They are questions about action, about what should be done; con-sequently, they involve both facts and value judgements both endsand means. And, characteristically, the factual judgements and thevalue commitments, are inexplicably intertwined in political life.”Hanna Pitkin, The Concept of Representation (University of Cali-fornia 1967). 212 [39] process of this type differently and come to different con-clusions on the science itself . Not all representatives areelected , and there are ways to introduce elements of pub-lic engagement and accountability without shifting awayentirely from technocratic representation. The question iswhat the aim of this public engagement is for, is to actas a check on the actions of representatives or introduceelements of feedback and transparency.Consider too the ways in which scientific and politicalrepresentation can bleed into each other . It is importantto think not only what kinds of representatives will beinvolved in a SETI and METI processes, but how thoseactors will exercise their expertise and judgement, and towhat degree the public will perceive that expertise andjudgement as legitimate. An alternative approach would centre on elected andgovernmental representatives. To date there has not beenhuge amounts of interest in playing a major part in SETIby elected representatives at the national government level,but this is of course a mainstay of science fiction e.g.“Take me to your leader”. The IAA protocols do cen-tre the United Nations in the process, and the possibilityof international treaties about METI have been consideredbefore[42]. The challenge of engaging with the United Na-tions is that the underlying democratic credentials andpolitical expectations vary enormously from jurisdictionto jurisdiction. Indeed, that kind of approach would bringall of the limitations of achieving international consensusto the process of SETI and METI. A different group ofelected representatives, perhaps established specifically forthis purpose, would have opposing problems in that whileit could be more nimble, it could have far less publicityand so would likely be perceived to be less legitimate. It isimportant to emphasise again that certain decisions aboutMETI, particularly a “take me to your leader” scenario,have a very short turnaround time. It is essential thatthere is a global discussion in advance[23, 43, 27] in orderto avoid SETI and METI descending into realpolitik[44],and to continue to see SETI and METI in scientific andhumanitarian terms rather than defence terms. ‘A Message From Earth’ and other similar crowd-sourcedMETI efforts are of course drawing heavily upon DirectDemocracy ideas. SETI@Home, where members of thepublic can contribute some of their home computing powerto SETI searches[45], similarly to some degree draws upon Weingart gives a helpful account of this in the context of thedebate about ozone at 156 [41] Representation need not mean representative government. Aking can represent a nation as can an ambassador. Any public officialcan sometimes represent the state. Pitkin 2 [39] ‘The boundary between politics and science has to be constantlyredrawn and reiterated’ Weingart 160 [41] . Furthermore, the voting stage ofa referendum is significantly shaped by the agenda-settingstage and a familiar criticism of these types of processesis that they are dominated by elites . If referendums,polls, and other forms of direct democracy are employed,it must be clear in advance how these processes are beingused and what the implications are in advance, and theremust be equity in the agenda-setting processes that takesdifferent languages, political backgrounds, and scientificperspectives seriously.Governments occasionally reply to petitions on topicsto do with SETI e.g. 17,465 signatures on a petition to theWhite House that got an official response[47] . There hasbeen one real world government mandated referendum todo with the topic of SETI to our knowledge; Initiative300 in Denver, Colorado, USA. Voters in the area on the2nd November 2010 voted on whether or not to charge thecity with creating a seven person commission to investi-gate UFOs. Campaigners had to get 3,973 signatures forthe referendum to go ahead, but it was rejected 31,108(17.66%) to 145,022 (82.34%). Citizens’ assemblies, or mini-publics, are processes whereparticipants are selected randomly and participation re-flects broader demographics [48]. So, for example, if thepopulation is 52% female so too would the participantsbe. This creates challenges for understanding what de-mographic characteristics to isolate. Citizens’ assembliesare sometimes used as freestanding democratic processes,and at other points they are built into larger democraticprocesses such as by producing proposals that then leadto referendums[49]. They provide a reasonably efficientmechanism of public consultation, but not the sort of broad-based public legitimacy of wide-spread participation. The role of individuals and companies in going to spacehas been significant [50, 51]; there have even been a few Valentini introduces some of these and challenges them in LauraValentini, ‘No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systemati-zation and Critique’ (2014) 12 Perspectives on Politics 789 [46] As Walker rightly argues ‘political actors use referendums toachieve their goals.’ M Walker, The Strategic Use of Referendums:Power, Legitimacy, and Democracy (Springer 2003). 1 Similar in principle to juries.
METI efforts that were advertisements for products[37].This allows for nimbleness but not the sort of widespreadpublic perception of legitimacy that is necessary for thesort of broad consensus imagined by the IAA protocol[27].
4. Survey Data
Over 2019-2020 we performed a series of formal andinformal projects to sample opinions in the UK on howMETI efforts might best acquire democratic legitimacy.These public perceptions are crucial for understanding whatkinds of processes have broad public support. The mostrigourous of these studies was a survey we commissionedfrom the British polling agency Survation. On our behalf,Survation asked 2000 people 18 years or older resident inthe UK two questions:
Question 1)
Imagine a scenario in which scientists receive an un-ambiguous message from extraterrestrials (alien life forms)on a distant planet. Of the following options, which wouldbe your preference in terms of how humanity’s response tothis message should be determined?
1. Team of scientists 39%2. By elected representatives 15%3. By a planet-wide referendum 11%4. By a citizens’ assembly of randomly selected adults11%5. Don’t know 23%
Question 2)
In the event that a planet-wide referendum on whetherto reply to a message from extraterrestrials or not was held,would you vote to initiate contact with the alien species,vote to not initiate contact with the alien species or wouldyou not vote in that referendum?
1. Vote to initiate contact with the alien species 56%2. Vote to not initiate contact with the alien species13%3. Would not vote 10%4. Don’t know 21%Survation weighted the sample to be representative interms of age, sex, region, household income, education,2017 General Election Vote, 2016 EU Referendum Vote,and 2019 European Parliament Election Vote, and we haveanswers to the poll broken down by those responses. Thedata was taken 2nd - 5th September 2019. These break-downs are included in Appendix A, but responses largelywere uncorrelated with demographics.The polling questions were designed to be indicativerather than definitive, and of course Q1 artificially sep-arates the approaches; people largely tried to suggest amixture when given the option in person. Participants alsooccasionally brought up the issue of whether a world-widereferendum would be administratively possible. To our4inds such an undertaking would indeed be challenging -but 614,684,398 people voted in the 2019 Indian generalelection, so democracy on a large scale is possible.To our knowledge no comparable polling for the firstquestion exists. Our second question has been asked invarious forms, although to our knowledge this is the firsttime it has been asked posed in the form of a voting in-tention question. Our Q2 however is consistent with otherpolls that find that in the absence of more informationpeople’s attitudes are largely positive towards communi-cation with extraterrestrials e.g. a 2015 Yougov UK pollin 46% found in favour of communication, 33% againstcommunication and 21% don’t know .The limits of the poll are clear and important 1) itcovers only the UK (and just 18 year olds and older) and2) it was taken at an exceptional time for democracy inthe UK. These limitations did however in some ways makethe question a ‘Rorschach test’ for attitudes to democraticprocesses. The authors’ interactions with people suggestedquite a low satisfaction with representatives and referen-dums (although that is for another time and place). Italso proved a useful pedagogical tool to get members ofthe public to think about different democratic processesin a non-partisan way.We also asked the question in a range of less structuredways, including: British Science Festival (10th September2019), Stargazing Oxford (25th January 2020), secondaryschools (Europa School in Oxfordshire on the 15th March2019, Dover Grammar School for Girls in Kent on the 1stNovember 2019) and a British Science Association twitterpoll . Interestingly the results were fairly robust acrossslightly different audiences and slightly different ways ofasking the question.Participants did sometimes get to give their own sug-gestions of how to make the decision. Suggestions in-cluded: letting famous individuals make any decision (SirDavid Attenborough and HM Queen Elizabeth II were sug-gested), flipping a coin, letting psychologists decide andletting children decide .Finally we did during 2019 ask a real sitting Member ofthe UK House of Commons (who will remain anonymous)this question, who simply said that they did not want thereferendum option.
5. Recommendations
The purpose of the protocol and the declaration areto say that a greater degree of legitimacy is required for https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/09/24/you-are-not-alone-most-people-believe-aliens-exist https://twitter.com/BritishSciFest/status/1171422013308559362 This possibility had in fact, unknown to the authors, alreadybeen implemented in the Teen Age message and the ‘New AreciboMessage’, which both used submissions from youths [37]. processes associated with SETI and METI. It is no longerenough - if it ever was - for a few scientists to go it alone.It is essential for purposes of legitimacy of the processesthat the public sees them as legitimate. This creates atension in that processes that are genuinely consultativetake time, and some instances of METI may happen veryquickly. It is essential too to consider what kind of issuesSETI and METI are. We have argued so far that theyinclude elements of expertise and judgement, and so this isgoing to require different types of representatives workingtogether with the public around the world.We broadly support the view put forward by Churchillthat scientists should be ‘on tap, but not on top’. TheIAA has rightly signalled that there are scientific issues atstake, but not scientific issues that are beyond doubt, andthey intersect too with political issues that are questionsof judgement. We think that the process should be drivenby a team of scientists nominated by different jurisdictionsrather than countries (the global north, global south etc)with broad opportunities for consultation through pollsand citizens’ assemblies. Ideally there would be a role forelected representatives who already specialise in sciencesuch as those who lead parliamentary select committeeson science.Essentially: there is a role for scientists, individuals,referendums, and representatives in the process of design-ing ‘global humanitarian and political consultation’. It re-quires attending to the parts of SETI and METI that aretechnical scientific issues, how to communicate (which re-quires social science and humanities as well as science) andthose of judgement, should such initiatives be undertakenin the first place, what should be said. The best balancebetween these different types of representation will lead tothe best outcome. Designing such a process is challenging,but when grounded on the right principles it is certainlypossible.
6. The COVID-19 Pandemic as a SETI Event Proxy
The bulk of the research and thinking behind this pa-per was performed in 2019. In 2020 the world was hit bya real-life scientific crisis that affected the entire world,across society, leading to mass death and economic dam-age. Here we discuss similarities and differences betweenthe pandemic and a First Contact event, and why theworld’s response to COVID-19 might be the best chanceof seeing how governments and scientists might interactin such a scenario, before a First Contact event actuallyhappens.Although the pandemic remains an evolving situationat the time of writing, we suggest that there are some sim-ilarities between the COVID-19 crisis and a First Contactevent for the following reasons - both are: • Crises of a fundamentally scientific nature • Also of huge social, moral, economic, political impact5
World-wide crises affecting essentially every humanon Earth • ‘External’ threats i.e. all of humanity is ‘on the sameside’ (in contrast to say, WWII) • ‘Out of the blue’; both have been seen as possible inadvance, but were essentially unanticipatedThey are of course also many ways in which a pandemicis different from First Contact: • Pandemics are not completely without precedent;the last major global pandemic was 100 years ago,whereas First Contact would be completely withoutprecedent • Pandemics are wholly negative events, whereas FirstContact could have both positive and negative im-pactsThe full social impact of COVID-19 will take manyyears to unravel. We briefly note a few salient occurrencesthat may be insightful for how a real First Contact incidentcould occur (again predominantly from a UK perspective): • Scrutiny of individual involved scientists skyrock-ets to levels normally only experienced by top levelpoliticians • Other scientists setting up alternative sources of ad-vice • The public rapidly learning that scientific advice canbe conflicting In particular we would note the response has been largelyled by politicians. For example, politicians could have atthe start of the crisis completely passed over judgementabout when lockdowns would be imposed and raised to anindependent body. This did not happen in the UK (andnot to our knowledge anywhere else in the world). Simi-larly it is not completely unimaginable to completely passdecision making about the crisis out to the public; let peo-ple vote every three weeks if they were ready to reduce theseverity of lockdown . There were some weak efforts atdirect democracy e.g. petitions, but these currently havefar fewer signatures than the petitions about Brexit, whichclearly there was much more demand for direct input intothe process (the top Brexit-related petition has ∼ Challenging technologically but not beyond the realms of possi-bility if there had been felt a real need for it. was no desire for the public to be directly involved in deci-sions about lockdown. All of these are observations abouthow the crisis played out rather than approval/criticism.Could a committee of just scientists have had the authorityto order lockdown? Would voting to end or lift lockdownhave led to good outcomes? We will likely never knowthe answers to these questions - hopefully it will be manyyears before democracies are given comparably challengingdecisions.
7. Conclusions
While historically consultation processes with respectto SETI and METI have been ad hoc and limited, the IAAhave signalled with their declaration that a more demand-ing process is required going forward. We have surveyeddifferent models of representation in light of the differentparts of the METI and SETI questions, which are in factcomposed of a number of sub-questions about science andpolitics. We argued that different types of representationare required for different parts of this question, and thatmany types of representation will need to work together.We suggested some recommendations for how this is pos-sible. This takes time, and it is important to be proactiverather than reactive given that METI can happen quickly,but it is certainly possible to satisfy the standard of aglobal humanitarian and political and scientific conver-sation, and it may be that having such conversations istimely for other global issues such as climate change andpublic health.Key points: • Within the limited scope of this project, it appearsthe the public are happy about scientists having akey role in determining how contact with extrater-restrials is made • The COVID-19 crisis gives an insight into how scien-tific advice can be politicised very rapidly, and sug-gests that scientific and representative mechanismswill find it easy to dominate any First Contact sce-nario • Thought should be given to making sure dealing witha detection has maximum legitimacy. One possibleway we believe this could be achieved is by hav-ing decision making driven by a team of scientistsnominated by different jurisdictions (rather than na-tion states) with broad opportunities for consulta-tion; ideally there would be elected representativeswho already specialise in science. For example thosewho lead parliamentary select committees (and sim-ilar) on science might be particularly well placed tocontribute to decision making, having both expertiseas well as democratic legitimacy.6 cknowledgements
Many thanks to the Oxford Physics Outreach ProjectFund for funding the survey. Thanks to Damian LyonsLowe and Survation for their support and input into thisproject. Particular thanks to Prof. Steven Rose (Imperial)and Dr Sian Tedaldi (Oxford) who gave valuable input tothe ideas in this article, and to the British Science Festival,Europa School and Dover Grammar School for Girls forgiving us an opportunity to explore and develop the ideasin this text.
Appendix A. Full Survey Data
Tables A.1 and A.2 show the full polling data for Ques-tions 1 and 2 discussed in Section 4. Data were analysedand weighted by Survation. Survation are members of TheBritish Polling Council and a limited company registeredin England and Wales with number 07143509.The survey was conducted over 2nd-5th September 2019via online panel. Invitations to complete the survey weresent out to members of the panel, and differential responserates from different demographic groups were taken intoaccount. Data were weighted to the profile of all adultsin the UK aged 18 and over. Data were weighted by age,sex, region, household income, education, 2017 GeneralElection Vote (8th June 2017), 2016 EU Referendum Vote(23rd June 2016), and 2019 European Parliament Elec-tion Vote (23rd May 2019). Targets for the weighted datawere derived from Office for National Statistics data andthe results of the respective votes. In all questions wherethe responses are a list of parties, names or statements,these will typically have been displayed to respondents ina randomised order. The political parties abbreviationsare CON (Conservative Party), LAB (Labour Party), LD(Liberal Democrat Party), SNP (Scottish National Party),BREXIT (Brexit Party) and GREEN (Green Party ofEngland and Wales).The tables show the unweighted total of individuals ina given sub-population, the weighted total, and then theweighted number and percentages of people selecting thegiven options. Needless to say, not all differences in surveyanswers between sub-groups are statistically significant. 7 o t a l AllMaleFemale18-3435-4445-5455-6465+LondonMidlandsNorthSouthEnglandScotlandWalesNINo Qualifications/ Entry Level/ Level 1Level 2 / Apprenticeship / OtherLevel 3Level 4+ U n w e i g h t e d T o t a l W e i g h t e d T o t a l B y a t e a m o f s c i e n t i s t s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y a p l a n e t - w i d e r e f e r e ndu m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y a c i t i z e n s ' a ss e m b l y o f r a nd o m l y s e l e c t e d a du l t s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % D o n ' t k n o w % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % S u m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % £0 - £19,999£20,000 - £39,999£40,000+CONLABLDSNPOTHERLeaveRemainBREXITLDLABGREENCONSNPOther U n w e i g h t e d T o t a l W e i g h t e d T o t a l B y a t e a m o f s c i e n t i s t s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y a p l a n e t - w i d e r e f e r e ndu m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B y a c i t i z e n s ' a ss e m b l y o f r a nd o m l y s e l e c t e d a du l t s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % D o n ' t k n o w % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % S u m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % G E V o t e E U R e f V o t e E P V o t e R e g i o n Q u a li f i c a t i o n L e v e l S e x A g e HH I n c o m e p . a . T a b l e A . : T h e p o lli n g r e s u l t s f o r Q u e s t i o n : ” I m ag i n e a s ce n a r i o i n w h i c h s c i e n t i s t s r ece i v e a nun a m b i g u o u s m e ss ag e f r o m e x t r a t e rr e s t r i a l s ( a li e n li f e f o r m s ) o n a d i s t a n t p l a n e t . O f t h e f o ll o w i n go p t i o n s , w h i c h w o u l db e y o u r p r e f e r e n ce i n t e r m s o f h o w hu m a n i t y ’ s r e s p o n s e t o t h i s m e ss ag e s h o u l db e d e t e r m i n e d ? ” o t a l AllMaleFemale18-3435-4445-5455-6465+LondonMidlandsNorthSouthEnglandScotlandWalesNINo Qualifications/ Entry Level/ Level 1Level 2 / Apprenticeship / OtherLevel 3Level 4+ U n w e i g h t e d T o t a l W e i g h t e d T o t a l V o t e t o i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p e c i e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % V o t e t o n o t i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p e c i e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % W o u l d n o t v o t e % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % D o n ' t k n o w % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % S u m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % £0 - £19,999£20,000 - £39,999£40,000+CONLABLDSNPOTHERLeaveRemainBREXITLDLABGREENCONSNPOther U n w e i g h t e d T o t a l W e i g h t e d T o t a l V o t e t o i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p e c i e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % V o t e t o n o t i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p e c i e s % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % W o u l d n o t v o t e % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % D o n ' t k n o w % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % S u m % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % HH I n c o m e p . a . G E V o t e E U R e f V o t e E P V o t e S e x A g e R e g i o n Q u a li f i c a t i o n L e v e l T a b l e A . : T h e p o lli n g r e s u l t s f o r Q u e s t i o n : ” I n t h ee v e n tt h a t a p l a n e t - w i d e r e f e r e ndu m o n w h e t h e r t o r e p l y t oa m e ss ag e f r o m e x t r a t e rr e s t r i a l s o r n o t w a s h e l d , w o u l d y o u v o t e t o i n i t i a t ec o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p ec i e s , v o t e t o n o t i n i t i a t ec o n t a c t w i t h t h e a li e n s p ec i e s o r w o u l d y o un o t v o t e i n t h a t r e f e r e ndu m ? ” EFERENCESReferences [1] J. Tarter, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI),Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39 (1) (2001)511–548. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511 .URL [2] J. I. Lunine, Saturn’s Titan: A strict test for life’s cosmic ubiq-uity arXiv:0908.0762 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0762 [3] Brin, G. D., The Quarterly journal of the Royal AstronomicalSociety., Vol. 24, Published for the Royal Astronomical Societyby Blackwell Science, 1983.URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983QJRAS..24..283B/abstract [4] C. H. Lineweaver, T. M. Davis, Does the Rapid Ap-pearance of Life on Earth Suggest that Life Is Com-mon in the Universe?, Astrobiology 2 (3) (2002) 293–304. doi:10.1089/153110702762027871 .URL [5] A. Zaitsev, Messaging to Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence arXiv:0610031 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610031 [6] F. D. Drake, Project Ozma, Physics Today 14 (4) (1961) 40–46. doi:10.1063/1.3057500 .URL http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3057500 [7] B. Zuckerman, J. Tarter, Microwave Searches in the U.S.A. andCanada, Springer, Dordrecht, 1980, pp. 81–92. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9115-6_10 .URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-009-9115-6{_}10 [8] V. Gajjar, A. Siemion, S. Croft, B. Brzycki, M. Burgay,T. Carozzi, R. Concu, D. Czech, D. DeBoer, J. DeMarines,J. Drew, J. E. Enriquez, J. Fawcett, P. Gallagher, M. Garrett,N. Gizani, G. Hellbourg, J. Holder, H. Isaacson, S. Kudale,B. Lacki, M. Lebofsky, D. Li, D. H. E. MacMahon, J. Mc-Cauley, A. Melis, E. Molinari, P. Murphy, D. Perrodin, M. Pilia,D. C. Price, C. Webb, D. Werthimer, D. Williams, P. Worden,P. Zarka, Y. G. Zhang, The Breakthrough Listen Search for Ex-traterrestrial Intelligence arXiv:1907.05519 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05519 [9] C. Werthimer, D.; Ng, D.; Bowyer, S.; Donnelly, The BerkeleySETI Program: SERENDIP III and IV Instrumentation, ASPC74 (1995) 592.URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ASPC...74..293W/abstract [10] C. Sagan, Murmurs of Earth : the Voyager interstellar record,Random House, 1978.URL https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Murmurs{_}of{_}Earth.html?id=oD90-PBNyr8C{&}redir{_}esc=y [11] D. Goldsmith, T. C. Owen, The search for life in the universe,University Science Books, 2002.[12] F. P. Irish Astronomical Society., M. E. Armagh Observatory.,S. J. Dunsink Observatory., D. D. Burgess, F. P. Keenan, M. E.Phillips, S. J. Rose, D. D. Burgess, The Irish astronomical jour-nal., Vol. 26, Irish Astronomical Society, 1999.URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999IrAJ...26...87K/abstract [13] D. A. Vakoch, M. F. Dowd, The Drake equation : estimatingthe prevalence of extraterrestrial life through the ages.URL [14] D. Kipping, An objective Bayesian analysis of life’s early startand our late arrival, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (22) (2020) 11995–12003. doi:10.1073/PNAS.1921655117 .URL [15] M. W. Busch, R. M. Reddick, Testing SETI Message De-signs arXiv:0911.3976 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3976 [16] R. Heller, L. Kiss, Exoplanet Vision 2050 arXiv:1911.12114 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12114 [17] Shouting at the Cosmos.URL https://lifeboat.com/ex/shouting.at.the.cosmos [18] Guest Editorial – Making a Case for METI.URL [19] J. A. Ball, The zoo hypothesis, Icarus 19 (3) (1973) 347–349. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90111-5 .URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0019103573901115 [20] J. Gertz, Reviewing METI: A Critical Analysis of the Argu-ments arXiv:1605.05663 .URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05663 [21] D. Brin, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) andWhether to send ’Messages’ (METI): A Case for Conversation,Patience and Due Diligence, Journal of the British Interplane-tary Society 67 (2014) 8–16.URL [22] S. Dumas, The Fear of Contact, Journal of the British Inter-planetary Society 67 (2014) 33–37.URL [23] J. Billingham, J.; Benford, Costs and Difficulties of Interstellar’Messaging’ and the Need for International Debate on PotentialRisks, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 67 (2014)17–23.URL [24] K. Denning, Unpacking the great transmission de-bate, Acta Astronautica 67 (11-12) (2010) 1399–1405. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.02.024 .URL [25] K. Denning, Is life what we make of it?, PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys-ical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1936) (2011) 669–678. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0230 .URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2010.0230 [26] K. Denning, Impossible Predictions of the Unprecedented:Analogy, History, and the Work of Prognostication, in: Astrobi-ology, History, and Society, Advances in Astrobiology and Bio-geophysics, 2013, pp. 301–312. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35983-5_16 .URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-35983-5{_}16 [27] J. Gertz, Post-Detection SETI Protocols & METI: The TimeHas Come To Regulate Them Both, Journal of the British In-terplanetary Society 69 (2016) 263–270.URL [28] Disarmament Treaties Database: Outer Space Treaty.URL http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/outer{_}space [29] C. Burgess, B. Vis, Interkosmos, Springer International Pub-lishing, Cham, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24163-0 .URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-24163-0 [30] D. Sage, Giant Leaps and Forgotten Steps: NASA and thePerformance of Gender, The Sociological Review 57 (1 suppl)(2009) 146–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01822.x .URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01822.x [31] M. J. Casper, L. J. Moore, Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Fu-ture: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space, Sociolog-ical Perspectives 38 (2) (1995) 311–333. doi:10.2307/1389295 .URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/1389295 [32] C. Sagan, L. S. Sagan, F. Drake, A Message from arth, Science 175 (4024) (1972) 881–884. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.175.4024.881 .URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/175/4024/881 [33] It’s the 25th anniversary of Earth’s first attempt to phone E.T.— Cornell Chronicle.URL https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/11/25th-anniversary-first-attempt-phone-et-0 [34] D. A. Vakoch, The dialogic model: representing human diversityin messages to extraterrestrials, Acta Astronautica 42 (10-12)(1998) 705–710. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(98)00030-7 .URL [35] M. Wolverton, The depths of space : the story of the Pioneerplanetary probes, Joseph Henry Press, 2004.URL https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3eekqPQMlycC{&}redir{_}esc=y [36] H. P. Shuch, Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, TheFrontiers Collection, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei-delberg, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13196-7 .URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-13196-7 [37] P. E. Quast, A profile of humanity: the cultural signa-ture of Earth’s inhabitants beyond the atmosphere, Inter-national Journal of Astrobiology (2018) 1–21 doi:10.1017/S1473550418000290 .URL [38] M. Michaud, SETI and Diplomacy, Astronomical Society of thePacific Conference Series 74.[39] H. F. Pitkin, The concept of representation, 1967.URL https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The{_}Concept{_}of{_}Representation.html?id=AgUVWLswTNEC [40] D. Goldsmith, Who will speak for earth? Possible structuresfor shaping a response to a signal detected from an extrater-restrial civilization, Acta Astronautica 21 (2) (1990) 149–151. doi:10.1016/0094-5765(90)90143-9 .URL [41] P. Weingart, Scientific expertise and political accountability:paradoxes of science in politics, Science and Public Policy26 (3) (1999) 151–161. doi:10.3152/147154399781782437 .URL https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-lookup/doi/10.3152/147154399781782437 [42] R. B. Bilder, On the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence(SETI), American Journal of International Law 114 (1) (2020)87–95. doi:10.1017/ajil.2019.86 .URL [43] K. Denning, S. J. Dick, Preparing for the Discovery of LifeBeyond Earth, Astro2020: Decadal Survey on Astronomy andAstrophysics, APC white papers; Bulletin of the American As-tronomical Society 51 (7) (2019) 183.URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019BAAS...51g.183D/abstract [44] M. Dominik, J. C. Zarnecki, The detection of extra-terrestriallife and the consequences for science and society, PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys-ical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1936) (2011) 499–507. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0236 .URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2010.0236 [45] D. P. Anderson, J. Cobb, E. Korpela, M. Lebofsky,D. Werthimer, SETI@home: an experiment in public-resourcecomputing, Communications of the ACM 45 (11) (2002) 56–61. doi:10.1145/581571.581573 .URL http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=581571.581573 [46] L. Valentini, No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Sys-tematization and Critique, Perspectives on Politics 12 (4) (2014)789–807. doi:10.1017/S1537592714002138 .URL [47] A. J. Gulyas, Extraterrestrials and the American zeitgeist :alien contact tales since the 1950s, McFarland, 2013.URL https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Extraterrestrials{_}and{_}the{_}American{_}Zeitg.html?id=bPxRk{_}-Wv1wC{&}redir{_}esc=y [48] J. Rose, Institutionalizing Participation through Citizens’ As-semblies, in: Activating the Citizen, Palgrave Macmillan UK,London, 2009, pp. 214–232. doi:10.1057/9780230240902_11 .URL http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9780230240902{_}11 [49] M. Pal, The Promise and Limits of Citizens’ Assemblies:Deliberation, Institutions and the Law of Democracy (2012).URL [50] A. Dula, Private Sector Activities in Outer Space, InternationalLawyer 19 (1).URL https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol19/iss1/9 [51] G. Denis, D. Alary, X. Pasco, N. Pisot, D. Texier, S. Toulza,From new space to big space: How commercial space dreamis becoming a reality, Acta Astronautica 166 (2020) 431–443. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.08.031 .URL