Now the Czech republic is seduced by the dark side

 Czech Republic in the Footsteps of Russia? Jehovah’s Witnesses Threatened with Liquidation

The Ministry of Culture is about to start proceedings whose consequences would be draconian.

by Massimo Introvigne

When Petr Pavel was inaugurated as the new President of the Czech Republic in March 2023, he vowed to align the country with European Union human rights standards. He also emerged as a staunch critic of the human rights violations in Russia. Some developments with respect to small minority religions were in fact regarded by local human rights activists as hopeful.

However, these hopes have now been shattered by an unprecedented move by the Czech Ministry of Culture. It appears that the Czech Republic still maintains among its laws a statute on “religious freedom” dated January 7, 2002, which includes some draconian Russian-style, or perhaps Soviet-style, provisions on the “liquidation” of religious organizations. According to this law, “a church is formed as a legal entity by registration” (article 6.1). Registration can be denied and, once obtained, can be lost, including if the church’s activity are deemed to be “in violation of the law” (article 22.1.c).This is a vague provision, but the consequences are not vague at all. If it believes that a “violation of the law” has occurred, “the Ministry shall, prior to initiating de-registration proceedings, instruct the registered church or association of churches to cease and desist from engaging in such unauthorized activities. Should the registered church or association of churches continue to engage in said activities, the Ministry [of Culture] shall initiate its procedure for de-registration” (article 22.2).“The registration of a church or an association of churches is terminated when the Ministry’s decision to de-register becomes effective” (article 24.1). “Upon the de-registration of a church, the church and all of its recorded church legal entities shall be liquidated” (article 24.2). Liquidators will be appointed and they “shall notify the Ministry of the conclusion of liquidation proceedings within five business days of said conclusion” (article 24.5). Unless the liquidated church had previously indicated another church to which the proceeds of the liquidation should be transferred, “the net proceeds shall accrue to the State, which shall use the net proceeds for the benefit of other registered churches” (article 24.6).Happily, these draconian provisions are rarely applied. However, on September 5, 2024, the Ministry of Culture sent to the Czech Religious Association of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (RAJW) the cease and desist letter mentioned in article 22.2. The Ministry gave to the RAJW three months for ceasing and desisting from certain “activities,” warning them that if they do not comply within the term the de-registration proceedings will be initiated. Various meetings between representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Ministry failed to resolve the issue. On November 26, the Jehovah’s Witnesses received confirmation that the cease and desist letter stands. Since on December 5, the three-month period ended, they are currently waiting for an official communication from the Ministry about the initiation of the deregistration proceedings.In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.The “activities” the Ministry regards as illegal are all features of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings and lifestyles that have been examined by courts of law throughout the world and regarded as lawful and protected by domestic and international principles of freedom of religion or belief, with the exception of Russia and partially of Norway. In the latter country, however, a court decision is under appeal and does not threaten the Jehovah’s Witnesses with liquidation but “only” (between brackets, because these are serious limitations of their religious liberty) with the loss of state subsidies and certain other faculties, including the possibly of celebrating legally valid marriages.The first and second objections of the Czech Ministry deal with the same matter being litigated in Norway. It is alleged that by teaching the practice of counseling members not to associate with ex-members (except cohabiting relatives) who have been expelled as guilty and unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right of their members to change their religious beliefs. The fear, it is argued, compels members who would like to leave to remain in the organization.The second objection adds that this is even more dangerous when “children” (meaning minors) are expelled, or they remain within the Jehovah’s Witnesses but are prevented from associating with friends and relatives who have been expelled or have publicly left the organization. The Czech Ministry’s letter does not clarify whether any minor was expelled in the Czech Republic. Cases of expulsion of minors are indeed extremely rare.This matter has been litigated in a good dozen of countries, resulting in decisions unanimously favorable to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, except (as mentioned earlier) in Russia and in a non-final decision in Norway. Courts have observed that in fact nobody can be compelled to associate with persons, including relatives, they no longer want to associate with, and that suspending relationships is a common fact in our societies as a consequence of all sorts of quarrels. Former spouses and other relatives often cease relationships with divorced ex-spouses. In fact, opponents do not ask courts to compel Jehovah’s Witnesses to associate with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would be practically impossible, but to prohibit the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching that relationships should be suspended.However, in some form, that relationships should cease is clearly taught in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John:10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”: all quotes from the New International Version). How to read these passages is a matter of Biblical interpretation that cannot be adjudicated by secular courts without a gross violation of freedom of religion.The third charge is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use “psychological coercion to create dependency, which leads to psychological harm to individuals or their family members or damage to their social relationships.” By reading the explanatory part of the cease and desist letter, it seems that “psychological coercion” is allegedly practiced by avoiding relationships with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would make the third charge a duplicate of the first. On the other hand, the charge itself uses the language of the discredited theory of “brainwashing” or “psychological subjection” allegedly used by religious movements, debunked since the past century by mainline academic scholars of religion and rejected by courts of law in most democratic countries (with the exception of France, whose campaigns against “cults” have received widespread international criticism).The fourth charge relates to the question of blood transfusions to minors, including in cases when they are “necessary to save the child’s life.” Again, the letter does not mention whether specific incidents happened in the Czech Republic.The Czech Ministry failed to consider that in most democratic and medically advanced countries the issue is becoming moot as hospitals can provide appropriate care that does not involve a blood transfusion. On their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to various medical studies showing that “patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to receive assistance in finding doctors who can provide bloodless treatment, they can seek the help of Hospital Liaison Committees, which have been established for this purpose.In most democratic countries, courts—including the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 (“Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia,” June 10) and 2022 (“Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,” November 22), and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2020 (3rd Civil Session, decision of 4–23 December 2020, no. 29469)—have ruled that adult patients have a right to refuse any medical treatment and protected the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. In several jurisdictions, this also applies to “mature minors.”

BITTER WINTER

HOME

ABOUT CHINA▼

FROM THE WORLD▼

INTERVIEWS

DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS▼

ABOUT

EDITORIAL BOARD

TOPICS

Search

Skip to main content

Skip to footer

BITTER WINTER



Home / From the World / News Global

Czech Republic in the Footsteps of Russia? Jehovah’s Witnesses Threatened with Liquidation

01/02/2025MASSIMO INTROVIGNEA+ | A-

The Ministry of Culture is about to start proceedings whose consequences would be draconian.

by Massimo Introvigne

The Czech Ministry of Culture, Prague. Credits.

The Czech Ministry of Culture, Prague. Credits.

When Petr Pavel was inaugurated as the new President of the Czech Republic in March 2023, he vowed to align the country with European Union human rights standards. He also emerged as a staunch critic of the human rights violations in Russia. Some developments with respect to small minority religions were in fact regarded by local human rights activists as hopeful.

However, these hopes have now been shattered by an unprecedented move by the Czech Ministry of Culture. It appears that the Czech Republic still maintains among its laws a statute on “religious freedom” dated January 7, 2002, which includes some draconian Russian-style, or perhaps Soviet-style, provisions on the “liquidation” of religious organizations. According to this law, “a church is formed as a legal entity by registration” (article 6.1). Registration can be denied and, once obtained, can be lost, including if the church’s activity are deemed to be “in violation of the law” (article 22.1.c).

This is a vague provision, but the consequences are not vague at all. If it believes that a “violation of the law” has occurred, “the Ministry shall, prior to initiating de-registration proceedings, instruct the registered church or association of churches to cease and desist from engaging in such unauthorized activities. Should the registered church or association of churches continue to engage in said activities, the Ministry [of Culture] shall initiate its procedure for de-registration” (article 22.2).

“The registration of a church or an association of churches is terminated when the Ministry’s decision to de-register becomes effective” (article 24.1). “Upon the de-registration of a church, the church and all of its recorded church legal entities shall be liquidated” (article 24.2). Liquidators will be appointed and they “shall notify the Ministry of the conclusion of liquidation proceedings within five business days of said conclusion” (article 24.5). Unless the liquidated church had previously indicated another church to which the proceeds of the liquidation should be transferred, “the net proceeds shall accrue to the State, which shall use the net proceeds for the benefit of other registered churches” (article 24.6).

Happily, these draconian provisions are rarely applied. However, on September 5, 2024, the Ministry of Culture sent to the Czech Religious Association of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (RAJW) the cease and desist letter mentioned in article 22.2. The Ministry gave to the RAJW three months for ceasing and desisting from certain “activities,” warning them that if they do not comply within the term the de-registration proceedings will be initiated. Various meetings between representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Ministry failed to resolve the issue. On November 26, the Jehovah’s Witnesses received confirmation that the cease and desist letter stands. Since on December 5, the three-month period ended, they are currently waiting for an official communication from the Ministry about the initiation of the deregistration proceedings.

In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.

In 2023, the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated 100 years of publication of “The Watchtower” in Czech language. Source: JW.org.

The “activities” the Ministry regards as illegal are all features of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings and lifestyles that have been examined by courts of law throughout the world and regarded as lawful and protected by domestic and international principles of freedom of religion or belief, with the exception of Russia and partially of Norway. In the latter country, however, a court decision is under appeal and does not threaten the Jehovah’s Witnesses with liquidation but “only” (between brackets, because these are serious limitations of their religious liberty) with the loss of state subsidies and certain other faculties, including the possibly of celebrating legally valid marriages.

The first and second objections of the Czech Ministry deal with the same matter being litigated in Norway. It is alleged that by teaching the practice of counseling members not to associate with ex-members (except cohabiting relatives) who have been expelled as guilty and unrepentant of serious sins or have publicly disassociated themselves from the organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right of their members to change their religious beliefs. The fear, it is argued, compels members who would like to leave to remain in the organization.

The second objection adds that this is even more dangerous when “children” (meaning minors) are expelled, or they remain within the Jehovah’s Witnesses but are prevented from associating with friends and relatives who have been expelled or have publicly left the organization. The Czech Ministry’s letter does not clarify whether any minor was expelled in the Czech Republic. Cases of expulsion of minors are indeed extremely rare.

This matter has been litigated in a good dozen of countries, resulting in decisions unanimously favorable to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, except (as mentioned earlier) in Russia and in a non-final decision in Norway. Courts have observed that in fact nobody can be compelled to associate with persons, including relatives, they no longer want to associate with, and that suspending relationships is a common fact in our societies as a consequence of all sorts of quarrels. Former spouses and other relatives often cease relationships with divorced ex-spouses. In fact, opponents do not ask courts to compel Jehovah’s Witnesses to associate with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would be practically impossible, but to prohibit the Jehovah’s Witnesses from teaching that relationships should be suspended.

However, in some form, that relationships should cease is clearly taught in the Bible in 1 Corinthians 5:13 (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and 5:11 (“Do not even eat with such people”), and 2 John:10–11 (“Do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work”: all quotes from the New International Version). How to read these passages is a matter of Biblical interpretation that cannot be adjudicated by secular courts without a gross violation of freedom of religion.

The third charge is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use “psychological coercion to create dependency, which leads to psychological harm to individuals or their family members or damage to their social relationships.” By reading the explanatory part of the cease and desist letter, it seems that “psychological coercion” is allegedly practiced by avoiding relationships with expelled or apostate ex-members, which would make the third charge a duplicate of the first. On the other hand, the charge itself uses the language of the discredited theory of “brainwashing” or “psychological subjection” allegedly used by religious movements, debunked since the past century by mainline academic scholars of religion and rejected by courts of law in most democratic countries (with the exception of France, whose campaigns against “cults” have received widespread international criticism).

The fourth charge relates to the question of blood transfusions to minors, including in cases when they are “necessary to save the child’s life.” Again, the letter does not mention whether specific incidents happened in the Czech Republic.

The Czech Ministry failed to consider that in most democratic and medically advanced countries the issue is becoming moot as hospitals can provide appropriate care that does not involve a blood transfusion. On their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to various medical studies showing that “patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to receive assistance in finding doctors who can provide bloodless treatment, they can seek the help of Hospital Liaison Committees, which have been established for this purpose.

In most democratic countries, courts—including the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 (“Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia,” June 10) and 2022 (“Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,” November 22), and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2020 (3rd Civil Session, decision of 4–23 December 2020, no. 29469)—have ruled that adult patients have a right to refuse any medical treatment and protected the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. In several jurisdictions, this also applies to “mature minors.”

As for minors who are not “mature,” in the rare cases when doctors believe a blood transfusion is absolutely necessary, and parents or guardians would not authorize it, that dispute can be resolved by a court. In such a case, a parent who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will respect the decision made by the court. Courts in democratic countries have also recommended that such measures are adopted only exceptionally. As stated in the Canadian appeal court decision of “M. (J.) v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare)” (2004 ABQB 512, para. 43), the State “must be careful not to presume that the doctor has always recommended the only acceptable treatment and that Jehovah’s Witness parents are always wrong in denying their consent for treatment by way of blood products. Such a paternalistic attitude impairs the parents’ [constitutional] rights…” In Italy, one of the countries with the largest per capita population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, courts have held that by choosing medical alternatives to blood transfusions, parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are not displaying “parental inadequacy,” but are instead conscientiously exercisingbut are instead conscientiously exercising constitutional rights afforded to all parents (Minors Court of Genoa, no. 1109/19, 6 May 2019; Minors Court of Milan, no. 1110/2014, 15 January 2014).

Undisputed champions in the longevity stakes.

The longest-living plants, based on scientific records, include:

Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva): Individual trees can live up to 5,000 years. The oldest known, "Methuselah," is around 4,850 years old.

Pando (Populus tremuloides): A clonal colony of quaking aspen in Utah, estimated at 14,000–80,000 years old, though individual stems live about 130 years.

Norway Spruce (Picea abies): A clonal colony in Sweden, "Old Tjikko," has a root system dated to ~9,500 years.

Lomatia tasmanica (King’s Lomatia): A clonal shrub in Tasmania, with colonies estimated at 43,600 years old.

Yew (Taxus baccata): Individual trees, like the Fortingall Yew in Scotland, may live 2,000–5,000 years.Clonal colonies often outlast individual plants due to their ability to regenerate. Ages are estimated via radiocarbon dating and growth records.

Isaiah ch.65:22NIV"No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands."

Man is not even an also ran in the longevity stakes according to GROK.

The Greenland shark has an estimated life expectancy of at least 250–500 years, making it one of the longest-living vertebrates on Earth. Studies using radiocarbon dating of their eye lenses suggest some individuals may live over 400 years, with sexual maturity reached around 150 years. Their slow metabolism and cold, deep-water habitat contribute to this extreme longevity.

Bowhead Whale: Up to 200+ years. Radiocarbon dating of harpoon points in blubber suggests some live over two centuries.

Galápagos Tortoise: Around 150–200 years. Famous examples like Harriet lived over 170 years in captivity.

Ocean Quahog Clam: Over 500 years. One specimen, "Ming," was dated to 507 years via shell ring counting.

Galápagos Tortoise: Around 150–200 years. Famous examples like Harriet lived over 170 years in captivity.

Ocean Quahog Clam: Over 500 years. One specimen, "Ming," was dated to 507 years via shell ring counting.

Rougeye Rockfish: Up to 205 years. Age determined by otolith (ear bone) analysis.

Tuatara: Around 100–150 years. These reptiles have slow metabolisms and can live over a century in the wild.Hydra: Potentially immortal. These simple freshwater organisms can regenerate cells indefinitely under ideal conditions.

Parrot (e.g., Macaws): Up to 80–100 years. Some captive parrots, like Cookie the cockatoo, lived nearly a century.

Longevity often correlates with slow metabolisms, stable environments, or regenerative abilities. Deep-sea or cold-climate species, like the Greenland shark, tend to dominate the upper ranges.

The future of refridgeration?

 

Sabine Hossenfelder does not work and play well with others?

 

The fall of reductionism?

 Are “Mind” and “Brain” the Same Thing?

Evolution News

In a thought-provoking interview hosted by Wesley J. Smith for the Humanize podcast, three scholars — philosopher Angus Menuge, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, and engineer Brian Krouse — explore the relationship between the mind and the brain, a subject of the recent book Minding the Brain. The conversation revolves around some of the most profound questions in science and philosophy: What is the mind? Is it reducible to the brain? Do we have free will? And how do humans differ from machines and animals? Download the podcast or listen to it here.

The Mind Beyond Measurement

Menuge begins by addressing a fundamental limitation in neuroscience: while brain activity can be correlated with emotional or cognitive states, thoughts themselves cannot be localized in space the way physical objects can. This distinction leads naturally into the concept of dualism — the philosophical view that the mind is distinct from the physical brain.

As host, Smith raises a common question: must dualists also be theists? Menuge clarifies the fact that one can embrace dualism from a purely secular standpoint. Many philosophers have concluded from experience and introspection that mental phenomena cannot be reduced to neural mechanisms — regardless of their theological commitments.

The Free Will Debate

Much of the discussion centers on free will, which the participants see as a defining trait of human beings. Dr. Egnor delves into the famous experiments by Benjamin Libet (1916–2007), which suggested that the brain initiates actions before we become consciously aware of our decisions. But he also found that people could veto actions their brains had already initiated, a phenomenon he termed “free won’t.”

Egnor passionately argues that denying free will undermines moral responsibility and paves the way for totalitarian ideologies. He lists five reasons to affirm free will, including its universality in human experience, the logical inconsistency of denying it, and new physics that disproves classical determinism.  

Are We Just Fancy Computers?

Brian Krouse and Angus Menuge tackle the increasingly popular notion that the brain is merely a computer, and that the mind is nothing more than information processing. They say no. Despite massive advances in computational neuroscience, even simple organisms like the worm C. elegans, with just a few hundred neurons, resist complete computational modeling. If we can’t fully understand a nematode, how much less can we claim mastery over the human brain, which contains trillions of connections?

Egnor, who is author along with Denyse O’Leary of The Immortal Mind (June 3, 2025), adds a philosophical dimension to this critique. Drawing on the concept of intentionality — the “aboutness” of thought — he argues that the mind is categorically unlike computation. Thoughts carry meaning, while computation is blind to meaning. A word processor doesn’t care what you type; it just processes symbols. This, he claims, shows the mind is not only distinct from computation but its opposite.

Human Uniqueness and the Limits of AI

The discussion also touches on the rise of large language models like ChatGPT. While these systems appear intelligent, Krouse emphasizes that their “hallucinations” (errors) reveal their lack of true understanding. They do not grasp meaning; they merely complete patterns. Menuge underscores the danger of forgetting the fundamental distinction between machines and human creativity. The capacity for abstraction, purpose, and moral reasoning sets humans apart from both animals and AI.

Egnor illustrates this difference through a humorous but profound observation: his dog finds deep meaning in the smell of bacon, but she doesn’t reflect on nutrition or ethics. Human cognition, by contrast, includes abstract thought, moral deliberation, and metaphysical inquiry.

Why It Matters

As the conversation concludes, Menuge insists that these philosophical debates are not merely academic. Understanding the mind’s immaterial nature opens up new horizons for science and human flourishing. Our ability to transcend our biological limitations — to think about universal truths, moral ideals, and the cosmos itself — is central to what makes us human.

The guests all stress that a recent book on these themes, Minding the Brain, is not dogmatic but exploratory. The book presents diverse perspectives and invites open-minded inquiry. As Smith remarks, this is precisely what science and philosophy ought to be: a generous dialogue among differing views in pursuit of deeper truth.

Finally, the end of the fermi paradox?

 Fact Check: Did Scientists Really Detect Evidence of Life on Exoplanet K2-18b?

Casey Luskin

The Internet is buzzing right now with the headlines that “Scientists find strongest evidence yet of life on an alien planet” (CBC news), “Scientists detect signature of life on a distant planet, study suggests” (CNN), “Astronomers have found the ‘most promising signs yet’ of alien life on a planet beyond our Solar System” (Sky at Night Magazine), or “Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world” (BBC). But wait, that last headline isn’t from this week — it’s from 2023, and it’s about precisely the same story. That’s because this is not a new discovery — it’s been reported before — and all that happened recently is that the results got published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Carl Zimmer described the finding this week in the New York Times: 

[A] team of researchers is offering what it contends is the strongest indication yet of extraterrestrial life, not in our solar system but on a massive planet, known as K2-18b, that orbits a star 120 light-years from Earth. A repeated analysis of the exoplanet’s atmosphere suggests an abundance of a molecule that on Earth has only one known source: living organisms such as marine algae.

The molecule is called dimethyl sulfide (DMS) or dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), and on Earth its sole known source is life (specifically, marine phytoplankton algae). But there are a few problems with the claim. Ars Technica has a very nice framing of the problems, and explains:

So why are many astronomers unconvinced? To be compelling, a biosignature from an exoplanet has to clear several hurdles that can be broken down into three key questions:

Is the planet what we think it is?

Is the signal real?

Is life the only way to produce that signal?

At present, none of those questions can be answered with a definitive yes.

We’ll discuss each of these problems briefly.

The  authors of the current study claim that K2-18b could be a Hyacean ocean planet — a very large rocky planet with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere surrounding and sustaining a liquid water ocean that could be filled with life. But many are skeptical of this interpretation, and are suggesting the findings are also consistent with a planet covered in molten magma ocean and a greenhouse-inducing hydrogen atmosphere — a planet highly inhospitable to life. CNN quotes a scientist explaining this possibility:

Astrophysicist Sara Seager, a professor of physics, planetary science, aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said independent teams have completely different interpretations of the planet itself. Seager was not involved in the new research.

“Some propose a Hycean world, others suggest a hot magma ocean — a planet with molten rock beneath a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, which is about as inhospitable as it gets — and still others see it as a mini-Neptune,” Seager said, referring to worlds that are larger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. For reference, K2-18b is 8.6 times as massive and 2.6 times as large as Earth.

Likewise, Science reports:

Christopher Glein, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute, posted a preprint on arXiv on Sunday suggesting K2-18b may host a vast magma ocean wrapped around a large rocky core — a very different beast from the water-world idea that Madhusudhan’s team advocates. Glein told The New York Times it would take a lot to persuade him there’s life on the planet: “Unless we see E.T. waving at us, it’s not going to be a smoking gun.”

Glein’s preprint paper explains problems with the interpretation that K2-18b is a Hycean exoplanet:

The atmospheric composition determined by transmission spectroscopy in the near-infrared (H2/He atmosphere with ~1% abundances of CH4 and CO2 and no detectable NH3 or CO) seemed to suggest that K2-18 b is a Hycean world. However, a reanalysis of those data found no statistically significant evidence for the detection of CO2. This finding may cast doubt on the occurrence of Hycean conditions. Moreover, updated photochemical modeling underscores the difficulty of producing sufficient methane on a Hycean world. It has been emphasized that K2-18 b is too close to its star to support liquid water at its surface due to greenhouse heating, inhibited atmospheric convection, and patchy cloud cover around the substellar point. 

The  point that K2-18b is too close to its host star was also a problem raised by Sky at Night Magazine: “The planet is also very close to its star, meaning it is bombarded with a great deal of high-energy radiation, which any organisms on its surface would have to be able to survive.”

Ars Technica pushes this argument further, noting that without clouds on K2-18b (which have not been detected), it would be impossible to sustain an ocean:

The first question is whether we’re actually looking at a hycean world. As the researchers acknowledge in their paper, the presence of an ocean on K2-18b depends very strongly on its weather: “A cloud-/haze-free atmosphere would render the surface too hot to be habitable and/or have water in a supercritical state.” And, as they later acknowledge, the data obtained from the JWST shows no signs of clouds. That doesn’t mean they’re not there, but it certainly doesn’t help the case.

And, in fact, a different research group has already found evidence that the planet isn’t reflecting enough light back into space to keep from boiling away any oceans it tries to form. That manuscript suggests that K2-18b is more likely to be a magma-ocean or gas-dwarf world. And a modeling paper suggests that most potential hycean worlds would suffer from a runaway greenhouse effect unless they receive significantly less illumination than Earth does. Then there’s a draft paper from Glein and his collaborators, which suggests you can get many of the same properties seen in K2-18b from a planet with a deep atmosphere sitting above a magma ocean.

A 2023 article at Big Think by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel argued that K2-18b is “massive, puffy, and more Neptune-like than Earth-like” and thus simply cannot be covered by a liquid-water ocean:

And for large, massive planets that are more like Neptune/Uranus than Earth/Mars/Venus, their stronger gravitational pull makes it easy for them to hold onto the lightest gases of all: hydrogen and helium, whereas for a small, low-mass planet like our own, our gravity is insufficient to prevent solar radiation from boiling those atoms/molecules away.

A recent study has shown that any planet that’s more than about 1.75 times the radius of Earth must be Neptune-like, not Earth-like, and that same study showed that if a hydrogen/helium atmosphere reaches even half-a-percent of the planet’s overall mass, the surface pressure will be tens of thousands of times as great as it is on Earth’s surface, while the temperature will reach into the thousands of degrees. K2-18b, therefore, cannot be an ocean-covered, Earth-analogue world.

With all this skepticism that K2-18b has a liquid-water ocean, I think Zimmer’s article at the New York Times summarized the situation nicely: “Other researchers emphasized that much research remained to be done. One question yet to be resolved is whether K2-18b is in fact a habitable, Hycean world.”

Did They Really Detect DMS/DMDS?

Multiple articles have noted that the detection of DMS/DMDS on K2-18b needs to be independently verified and brought to a higher level of statistical significance before it can be accepted by the scientific community. CNN quotes astrobiologist Eddie Schwieterman of UC Riverside explaining this point:

But Schwieterman said that first, scientists need to confirm that dimethyl sulfide is really present in the atmosphere of K2-18b, which will require validation from multiple independent groups who study the same data and analyze it for the chemical signature of the molecules. Madhusudhan said the data the study team analyzed will be released next week, so other astronomers can do just that.

Next, Schwieterman wants to see additional Webb observations with a higher level of statistical significance to see whether the interpretation of dimethyl sulfide being present holds. Searching for the signatures of these molecules in atmospheres of other similarly sized planets within the habitable zones of their stars would also help, although it’s a process that will take years.

“I do have at (least) one reason to be skeptical, which is that I’d anticipate the presence of ethane (C2H6) to accompany DMS/DMDS if those gases were present,” he said. “This is because UV rays from the star would break apart the DMS/DMDS into components we’d predict would react to form ethane. The absence of ethane makes me think we’ve missed something. Perhaps our models are wrong, or perhaps the DMS/DMDS isn’t there.”

The insightful analysis at Ars Technica further notes that the spectral signature that is being claimed to indicate dimethyl sulfide could easily also indicate other molecules instead:

For its specific identity as dimethyl sulfide, we only know that it’s the best fit out of the 20 chemicals considered in this paper. There are a whole host of other chemicals that could plausibly be produced on a planet like this that weren’t included in this analysis. The potential presence of a dimethyl sulfide signal at other wavelengths in earlier work may seem to solidify this identification, but a reanalysis of that data found no evidence of a statistically significant signal.

But even if they did find DMS/DMDS, there’s still another crucial question which must be addressed…

Can DMS/DMDS Be Produced Abiotically

The answer to this question is yes — it is well-established that dimethyl sulfide can be produced from nonbiological sources. In 2024, DMS was detected on what the journal Science described as a “cold, lifeless comet.” That article stated:

Scientists have discovered dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a molecule thought to have only living sources, on a cold, lifeless comet. The finding calls into question the molecule’s usefulness as a biosignature and the significance of an earlier hint of it in the atmosphere of an alien planet.

“This is the first sign of an abiotic source,” says Nora Hänni, a chemist at the University of Bern who presented the discovery last week at the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union.

That same year a paper in The Astrophysical Journal Letters reported: “Through laboratory photochemical experiments, we show the abiotic production of organosulfur gases, including DMS…” They caution that “H2S-influenced organic haze chemistry may be an overlooked abiotic source of organosulfur compounds” and conclude:

We have shown that DMS, OCS, CS2, and simple thiols, species previously considered potentially robust biosignatures in exoplanetary atmospheres, have possible abiotic production pathways via planetary organic haze chemistry. Thus, each organosulfur gas presented here is at risk of being a false-positive biosignature if the abiotic pathways proposed are neglected.

he current study proposing life on K2-18b acknowledges these abiotic mechanisms of producing DMS, but dismisses them, claiming that the don’t produce dimethyl sulfide in high enough amounts to allow them to reach observed concentrations observed on K2-18b before being destroyed. That may be true — but it’s also true for observed biotic production of DSM on Earth. So something else must be going on here. 

Sky at Night Magazine acknowledges the possibility of other processes at work: “Another unknown chemical process could be the source of the molecules detected in K2-18b’s atmosphere.” Indeed, there are good reasons to suspect that something else might be going on: The concentrations of DMS and DMDS on K2-18b are orders of magnitude higher than they are for biotic production here on Earth. Sky at Night explains:

Yet the concentrations of dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide in K2-18b’s atmosphere are different from those on Earth. On Earth, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide are below one part per billion by volume. On K2-18b, they’re thought to be thousands of times stronger, over ten parts per million.

So if dimethyl sulfide is in fact present on K2-18b in concentrations 1,000+ times greater than on Earth, then something very different is happening there — and we still don’t know what that is. This possibility of non-Earthlike processes has been acknowledged by multiple sources, and further study is needed to rule out abiotic production, as the technical paper says:

Future laboratory experiments and/or theoretical modeling are also needed to fully explore the possible photochemical mechanisms for producing DMS and DMDS in dry, methane-rich, reduced environments, to address potential abiotic sources of these molecules.

Again, the New York Times provides a good summary: “Scientists will also need to run laboratory experiments to make sense of the new study — to recreate the possible conditions on sub-Neptunes, for instance, to see whether dimethyl sulfide behaves there as it does on Earth.” Whatever is happening on K2-18b, it seems unlikely to be similar to what happens on Earth. 

Little Data to Go On

At the end of the day, we must bear in mind that all the data we have from these exoplanets is a small amount of light that is reflected coming from their host star that is reflected off the planet. A news story in the journal Science reminds us just how little information we have to go on: 

Even then, researchers say there should be a very high bar for claiming the presence of life based solely on the gases in a planet’s upper atmosphere. “Everything we know about planets orbiting other stars comes from the tiny amounts of light that glance off their atmospheres,” Oliver Shorttle of Cambridge told BBC. “So it is an incredibly tenuous signal that we are having to read, not only for signs of life, but everything else.”

Researchers would prefer a more thorough knowledge of the planet’s atmosphere and surface to exclude other possibilities. “On Earth [DMS] is produced by microorganisms in the ocean, but even with perfect data we can’t say for sure that this is of a biological origin on an alien world because loads of strange things happen in the Universe,” Catherine Heymans of the University of Edinburgh and Scotland’s Astronomer Royal told BBC. “We don’t know what other geological activity could be happening on this planet that might produce the molecules.”

There are other examples in recent memory where detection of a molecule in an exoplanet led to premature declarations of alien life. A 2023 BBC story recounts:

It is the first time astronomers have detected the possibility of DMS in a planet orbiting a distant star. But they are treating the results with caution, noting that a claim made in 2020 about the presence of another molecule, called phosphine, that could be produced by living organisms in the clouds of Venus was disputed a year later.

Could something similar be happening right now? When the possibility of dimethyl sulfide on K2-18b was first reported in 2023, an article at Big Think said, “I’m betting that you don’t want hype and exaggeration; you want the scientific truth” and concluded we “see no evidence that K2-18b has water; we see no evidence for water there at all. And, most importantly, there is no detection of any biosignature on this world.” I think perhaps Sara Seager, a planetary scientist at MIT, put it best when she said: “When it comes to K2-18 b, enthusiasm is outpacing evidence.”