Science
First contact with aliens could end in colonization and genocide if we don’t learn from history
Last Updated on March 15, 2026 by Daily News Staff
First contact with aliens could end in colonization and genocide if we don’t learn from history
David Delgado Shorter, University of California, Los Angeles; Kim TallBear, University of Alberta, and William Lempert, Bowdoin College
We’re only halfway through 2023, and it feels already like the year of alien contact.
In February, President Joe Biden gave orders to shoot down three unidentified aerial phenomena – NASA’s title for UFOs. Then, the alleged leaked footage from a Navy pilot of a UFO, and then news of a whistleblower’s report on a possible U.S. government cover-up about UFO research. Most recently, an independent analysis published in June suggests that UFOs might have been collected by a clandestine agency of the U.S. government.
If any actual evidence of extraterrestrial life emerges, whether from whistleblower testimony or an admission of a cover-up, humans would face a historic paradigm shift.
As members of an Indigenous studies working group who were asked to lend our disciplinary expertise to a workshop affiliated with the Berkeley SETI Research Center, we have studied centuries of culture contacts and their outcomes from around the globe. Our collaborative preparations for the workshop drew from transdisciplinary research in Australia, New Zealand, Africa and across the Americas.
In its final form, our group statement illustrated the need for diverse perspectives on the ethics of listening for alien life and a broadening of what defines “intelligence” and “life.” Based on our findings, we consider first contact less as an event and more as a long process that has already begun.
Who’s in charge of first contact
The question of who is “in charge” of preparing for contact with alien life immediately comes to mind. The communities – and their interpretive lenses – most likely to engage in any contact scenario would be military, corporate and scientific.
By giving Americans the legal right to profit from space tourism and planetary resource extraction, the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 could mean that corporations will be the first to find signs of extraterrestrial societies. Otherwise, while detecting unidentified aerial phenomena is usually a military matter, and NASA takes the lead on sending messages from Earth, most activities around extraterrestrial communications and evidence fall to a program called SETI, or the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
SETI is a collection of scientists with a variety of research endeavors, including Breakthrough Listen, which listens for “technosignatures,” or markers, like pollutants, of a designed technology.
SETI investigators are virtually always STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – scholars. Few in the social science and humanities fields have been afforded opportunities to contribute to concepts of and preparations for contact.
In a promising act of disciplinary inclusion, the Berkeley SETI Research Center in 2018 invited working groups – including our Indigenous studies working group – from outside STEM fields to craft perspective papers for SETI scientists to consider.
Ethics of listening
Neither Breakthough Listen nor SETI’s site features a current statement of ethics beyond a commitment to transparency. Our working group was not the first to raise this issue. And while the SETI Institute and certain research centers have included ethics in their event programming, it seems relevant to ask who NASA and SETI answer to, and what ethical guidelines they’re following for a potential first contact scenario.
SETI’s Post-Detection Hub – another rare exception to SETI’s STEM-centrism – seems the most likely to develop a range of contact scenarios. The possible circumstances imagined include finding ET artifacts, detecting signals from thousands of light years away, dealing with linguistic incompatibility, finding microbial organisms in space or on other planets, and biological contamination of either their or our species. Whether the U.S. government or heads of military would heed these scenarios is another matter.
SETI-affiliated scholars tend to reassure critics that the intentions of those listening for technosignatures are benevolent, since “what harm could come from simply listening?” The chair emeritus of SETI Research, Jill Tarter, defended listening because any ET civilization would perceive our listening techniques as immature or elementary.
But our working group drew upon the history of colonial contacts to show the dangers of thinking that whole civilizations are comparatively advanced or intelligent. For example, when Christopher Columbus and other European explorers came to the Americas, those relationships were shaped by the preconceived notion that the “Indians” were less advanced due to their lack of writing. This led to decades of Indigenous servitude in the Americas.
The working group statement also suggested that the act of listening is itself already within a “phase of contact.” Like colonialism itself, contact might best be thought of as a series of events that starts with planning, rather than a singular event. Seen this way, isn’t listening potentially without permission just another form of surveillance? To listen intently but indiscriminately seemed to our working group like a type of eavesdropping.
It seems contradictory that we begin our relations with aliens by listening in without their permission while actively working to stop other countries from listening to certain U.S. communications. If humans are initially perceived as disrespectful or careless, ET contact could more likely lead to their colonization of us.
Histories of contact
Throughout histories of Western colonization, even in those few cases when contactees were intended to be protected, contact has led to brutal violence, pandemics, enslavement and genocide.
James Cook’s 1768 voyage on the HMS Endeavor was initiated by the Royal Society. This prestigious British academic society charged him with calculating the solar distance between the Earth and the Sun by measuring the visible movement of Venus across the Sun from Tahiti. The society strictly forbade him from any colonial engagements.
Though he achieved his scientific goals, Cook also received orders from the Crown to map and claim as much territory as possible on the return voyage. Cook’s actions put into motion wide-scale colonization and Indigenous dispossession across Oceania, including the violent conquests of Australia and New Zealand.
The Royal Society gave Cook a “prime directive” of doing no harm and to only conduct research that would broadly benefit humanity. However, explorers are rarely independent from their funders, and their explorations reflect the political contexts of their time.
As scholars attuned to both research ethics and histories of colonialism, we wrote about Cook in our working group statement to showcase why SETI might want to explicitly disentangle their intentions from those of corporations, the military and the government.
Although separated by vast time and space, both Cook’s voyage and SETI share key qualities, including their appeal to celestial science in the service of all humanity. They also share a mismatch between their ethical protocols and the likely long-term impacts of their success. https://www.youtube.com/embed/5gZwLGrJQrM?wmode=transparent&start=0 This BBC video describes the modern ramifications of Captain James Cook’s colonial legacy in New Zealand.
The initial domino of a public ET message, or recovered bodies or ships, could initiate cascading events, including military actions, corporate resource mining and perhaps even geopolitical reorganizing. The history of imperialism and colonialism on Earth illustrates that not everyone benefits from colonization. No one can know for sure how engagement with extraterrestrials would go, though it’s better to consider cautionary tales from Earth’s own history sooner rather than later.
This article has been updated to correct the date of James Cook’s voyage.
David Delgado Shorter, Professor of World Arts and Cultures/Dance, University of California, Los Angeles; Kim TallBear, Professor of Native Studies, University of Alberta, and William Lempert, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Bowdoin College
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/
unknown
Did Jackie Gleason See Aliens? Inside the Strange Nixon–UFO Legend
Jackie Gleason reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Here is what we know—and why the remarkable story remains unverified.
The beloved comedian reportedly told his wife that President Richard Nixon arranged for him to view preserved extraterrestrial bodies at a Florida Air Force base. Decades later, the extraordinary story remains fascinating—but unverified.
Jackie Gleason is remembered as “The Great One,” the larger-than-life entertainer who turned bus driver Ralph Kramden into one of television’s most enduring characters on The Honeymooners. Away from the cameras, however, Gleason had another consuming interest: UFOs, psychic phenomena and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
That interest eventually became the foundation of one of the strangest stories ever associated with an American president and a Hollywood celebrity. According to Gleason’s second wife, Beverly McKittrick, her husband came home late one night in 1973 and claimed that President Richard Nixon had helped him see the preserved bodies of extraterrestrial beings at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida.
Did Jackie Gleason really see aliens?
The honest answer is that we do not know. The allegation is remarkable, but the available evidence never rises above an uncorroborated story attributed to Gleason years after the supposed event.
Gleason’s fascination with UFOs was real
There is little question that Gleason took the UFO subject seriously. He reportedly assembled a substantial personal library devoted to UFOs, the paranormal and related mysteries. His unusual circular home in New York—often nicknamed “The Mothership”—only strengthened his public association with flying saucers, although its distinctive architecture is not evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter.
Gleason also had a genuine social connection with Nixon. The two men shared an interest in golf and spent time together in Florida. That documented friendship is the factual starting point from which the more sensational story grew.
The alleged trip to Homestead Air Force Base
McKittrick said that Gleason returned to their Florida home at about 11:30 one evening looking disturbed. According to her account, he told her that Nixon had arrived without the usual presidential entourage and taken him to Homestead Air Force Base, south of Miami.
Once there, Gleason allegedly entered a secured building where he saw small humanoid bodies preserved inside glass-topped containers. Published versions differ over the number of bodies and some physical details, but they generally describe child-sized beings with oversized heads.
Importantly, McKittrick did not claim to have accompanied the men or witnessed anything at the base. Her account was based entirely on what she said Gleason told her after returning home.
The story became public in 1983, years after the alleged visit and after the couple had divorced. It circulated widely through tabloid reporting, UFO publications and later books, gradually becoming part of UFO folklore.
Why the story remains unverified
No authenticated photograph, visitor record, military document or firsthand statement from Nixon has emerged to confirm the alleged trip. Gleason also never provided investigators with a signed affidavit describing the experience.
UFO researcher Larry Bryant reportedly sought records from Homestead and tried to obtain a statement from Gleason, but those efforts produced no confirming documentation. Gleason’s refusal to address the account publicly has sometimes been portrayed as suspicious, but silence is not proof that an event occurred.
There is another important complication: McKittrick later expressed uncertainty about her former husband’s story.
During telephone interviews conducted by researcher Kenny Young in 2003, she stood by her recollection that Gleason told her he had seen “dead aliens.” She also acknowledged that, as the years passed, she wondered whether he might have invented the explanation because he had been out late. She declined to appear on camera and said the story should be authenticated first.
Her later comments do not establish that the account was false, but they considerably weaken any attempt to treat it as verified history.
Could a president have slipped away unnoticed?
Some versions of the legend emphasize that Nixon supposedly drove to Gleason’s house alone and then entered a military installation without his Secret Service detail. Presidents have occasionally sought privacy or slipped away from tightly managed schedules, but a secret nighttime excursion of this nature would have involved serious security and logistical obstacles.
The claim becomes even more difficult to accept when we consider what Nixon allegedly revealed. If the United States possessed extraterrestrial bodies, granting a comedian personal access to them would have represented an extraordinary breach of national security—with no apparent official purpose and no surviving documentation.
None of that makes the episode logically impossible. It does, however, mean that the story requires exceptionally strong evidence. That evidence has never appeared.
A compelling legend, not a confirmed encounter
The Jackie Gleason story endures because it combines three irresistible ingredients: a famous comedian fascinated by UFOs, a secretive American president and a nighttime visit to a military base containing an alleged government secret.
What can be established is that Gleason was deeply interested in UFOs, knew Nixon and was said by his former wife to have made an extraordinary claim. What cannot be established is that Nixon took him to Homestead Air Force Base or that preserved extraterrestrial bodies were ever stored there.
So, did Jackie Gleason see aliens?
Perhaps he believed that he did—or perhaps he simply told an unforgettable story. Until corroborating evidence emerges, the alleged encounter belongs in the intriguing borderland between celebrity history and American UFO mythology.
Sources and further reading
- The Black Vault: Jackie Gleason and the Pickled Alien
- University of Miami Libraries: The Jackie Gleason Collection
- U.S. Department of Defense: All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office
Step into The Unknown, where STM Daily News explores the strange phenomena, unexplained encounters and enduring mysteries that continue to challenge what we think we know. From UFO sightings and paranormal events to historical mysteries and unusual scientific discoveries, we examine the stories, evidence and competing explanations—without losing our sense of wonder. https://stmdailynews.com/science/unknown/
health and wellness
Lactose intolerance is actually the human norm – but racism, the US government and business interests have made it into a condition
Lactose intolerance is the global human norm, but Western dietary standards, government policies and commercial interests helped frame it as a medical deficiency.
Hilary Smith, University of Denver
Lactose intolerance makes drinking milk or eating ice cream a literal pain. For some people, eating a dairy treat can lead to bloating, nausea and diarrhea. You might’ve experienced its effects yourself. If so, you may think of lactose intolerance as a defect rather than the norm.
But did you know that most people in the world today are lactose intolerant – and that the condition itself was invented in the 1960s?
“Surely you mean discovered, not invented,” I hear you saying. I don’t. As a historian who has traced the origins of nutrition-science ideas, I have chosen the word “invented” on purpose.
Inventing lactose intolerance
Variations in people’s ability to digest lactose first came to scientists’ attention after American dairy producers found a way to rid themselves of a postwar milk surplus. To offload what they couldn’t sell, they looked to the government to intervene. And it did, buying the excess and embedding it in school lunches and other places with publicly funded meals.
Suddenly, many people who had not habitually drunk milk were consuming it regularly, including not only some Americans but also people overseas. Part of that same milk surplus found its way into school lunches in places such as Japan and Taiwan in the 1950s as the American government began to sell milk to allies during the Cold War.
Many of the groups drinking milk regularly for the first time did not like it. In fact, it made them feel sick. Intrigued, scientists set up experiments to figure out why. In a 1966 study comparing how Black and white people incarcerated in Baltimore metabolized lactose, researchers found that Black participants had lower levels of lactase – the enzyme that breaks down lactose – in their guts.
To the white scientists conducting this study, the trouble that the Black prisoners had digesting milk looked like an “inborn error of metabolism.” They assumed that the normal human state was lactose tolerance and that the lactose intolerant had inherited a genetic mutation.
It was only after years more work with research participants of many races that experts realized that, as one National Institutes of Health official put it in 1981, “lactose intolerance is a normal physiological condition, shared by every adult animal except for certain ethnic and racial groups in man.” People of northern European descent, it turned out, were the weird ones. It was their ancestors who had passed down a genetic mutation – one that made them able to digest milk after infancy.
In short, what scientists discovered in the 1960s was that different bodies process milk differently. What they invented was the idea that lactose intolerance is a defect. Accepting that framing would mean nearly two-thirds of the human population – the estimated prevalence of lactose intolerance worldwide – is defective.
Instead of acknowledging that dairy-free diets can be healthy, people innovated ways to overcome this supposed disability so everyone could consume more.
Nutritional imperialism
Lactose intolerance is one example of what I call nutritional imperialism: a way of thinking that treats white diets as the norm and everyone else’s as an aberration.
Nutritional imperialism was common in the 20th century, when scientists thought that not only milk-rich but also meat-heavy diets were best; they considered diets outside of the United States and Europe too vegetarian. Some also argued that wheat flour, not rice, ought to be the universal staple.
The same bias applied to bodies. Besides faulty lactose digestion, nonwhite bodies were accused of other failures, too, such as aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, an inability to digest alcohol quickly. The less technical term for this may be more familiar: Asian flush.
Such differences might have been thought of as variety, just another way of being human. Instead, each became a deficiency.
Many people today have inherited and perpetuated this way of thinking without knowing it, including those who are deemed deficient by it. In 1959, the director of Japan’s nutrition bureau declared that “rice-eating peoples” such as the Japanese were “resigned and passive” and could correct this by imitating Western diets and switching to wheat.
Today, the most prominent scientist promoting the idea that Asian flush is a disease is a geneticist of Taiwanese descent who started a research consortium to study “the most common human enzymopathy in the world.”
The Chinese Nutrition Society placed a tall glass of milk next to its 2022 Food Guide Plate – never mind estimates that the vast majority of Han Chinese, the largest ethnic group in China and worldwide, are lactose intolerant.
Turning sickness back into difference
Science that pathologizes difference helps racism persist.
In recent years, white supremacists have embraced the concept of lactose intolerance as a distinguishing debility of nonwhite people. Social media users have copied and pasted a map of the geographic distribution of lactose tolerance originally published in the scientific journal Nature into racist chat threads on the online discussion forum 4chan.
In 2017, internet trolls disrupted an anti-racist art installation with neo-Nazi chants and messily downed jugs of milk to accentuate their white identity.
Turning a lactose-digestion difference into a deficiency has done more to reinforce narratives of racial hierarchy than to improve public health. So here’s a suggestion: If you enjoy eating dairy, keep doing it; if you don’t, don’t – and know that there is nothing wrong with you.
Hilary Smith, Professor of History, University of Denver
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
News
FAA Certifies Boeing 737-7: What It Means for Airlines and the 737 MAX Program
The FAA has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, clearing the smallest 737 MAX variant for service as Boeing and Southwest prepare for first deliveries.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, granting the company an amended type certificate that clears the smallest member of the 737 MAX family for commercial service. The milestone closes a multi-year certification effort and puts the focus on execution: Boeing and launch customer Southwest Airlines say preparations are underway to support first deliveries.
For STM Daily News readers, the headline isn’t just “another plane gets approved.” It’s a signal that Boeing has now cleared a key MAX variant designed for long-range flexibility in a smaller footprint—an aircraft type airlines can use to open or defend routes where demand is strong, but not strong enough to justify a larger narrowbody.
What FAA certification means
An amended type certificate means the FAA has approved the 737-7’s design as compliant with commercial aviation regulations. In practical terms, certification allows airlines to place the aircraft into revenue service once deliveries begin and operator-specific steps—training, manuals, maintenance programs, and entry-into-service planning—are completed.
Boeing also said the FAA updated Boeing Production Certificate No. 700 (PC 700) to include the 737-7, supporting production and delivery activities.
Why the 737-7 matters in the MAX lineup
Boeing positions the 737-7 as the smallest and longest-range member of the 737 MAX family. The company says it typically seats 135 to 160 passengers in a two-class configuration and offers a range of up to 3,800 nautical miles (7,040 km). That combination matters because it gives airlines more options to fly longer “thin” routes—markets where frequency and reach matter more than packing in additional seats.
Boeing also highlights performance for operations out of high-altitude airports and in hot climates, where takeoff performance and payload-range tradeoffs can shape fleet decisions.
Efficiency claims: fuel, emissions, and noise
Boeing says the 737-7, like other 737 MAX jets, reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 20% and cuts the noise footprint by 50% compared to the airplanes it typically replaces. For airlines, those improvements typically show up in two ways:
- Route economics: lower fuel burn can improve margins on longer sectors and reduce exposure to fuel-price swings.
- Operational constraints: quieter aircraft can help with airport noise requirements and community pressure, while lower emissions support sustainability targets.
Inside the certification effort
Boeing said the certification program began in 2018 and included more than 1,000 hours of flight and ground testing, extensive system safety analysis, and human factors reviews. The company also noted an updated engine anti-ice system to address a potential condition discovered during flight testing.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Stephanie Pope called the certification “important” validation of the airplane’s design and the work of the MAX development team. Mike Sinnett, senior vice president of Product Strategy, Product Development and Development Programs, said Boeing held regular discussions with the FAA and that the process has sharpened the company’s understanding of current regulatory requirements—knowledge Boeing expects will accelerate future development with a renewed emphasis on human factors, safety, and quality.
What to watch next
With certification complete, the next phase is about delivery timing and real-world deployment.
- First deliveries to Southwest: Boeing and Southwest are preparing for delivery of the first airplane, including updates to final configuration.
- Production stability: certification removes a major hurdle, but supply chain health and production cadence will determine how quickly the 737-7 shows up in airline schedules.
- The 737-10 timeline: Boeing reiterated it is working to certify the 737-10 this year, keeping attention on how quickly the final MAX variant clears regulatory review.
The bigger MAX picture
Boeing said the 737 MAX family order book stands at more than 7,200 airplanes, with more than 2,300 delivered through the end of June 2026. The 737-7’s certification adds another deliverable product to that portfolio—one aimed at airlines that want long range without stepping up to a larger gauge.
Bottom line
FAA certification of the 737-7 is a meaningful milestone for Boeing and for airlines looking for a smaller narrowbody with long-range capability. The real test now is operational: turning certification into on-time deliveries and reliable entry into service—while the industry watches Boeing’s push to certify the 737-10.
Related Links
- Boeing 737 MAX family overview (manufacturer background/specs): https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/
- FAA Aircraft Certification (how type certification works): https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/
- FAA Airworthiness Directives (regulatory actions database): https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives
- Southwest Airlines newsroom (launch customer context / fleet updates): https://www.swamedia.com/
- Boeing Commercial Airplanes newsroom (for follow-ups and official updates): https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases?item=130821
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
Source:
Boeing (PRNewswire), Aug. 3, 2026 — “U.S. FAA certifies new Boeing 737-7 airplane.”
