Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb renewed his criticism of the scientific establishment this week, accusing leading astronomy institutions of fostering an "irrational" and "anti-intellectual" bias against research that considers technological explanations for interstellar objects. The former Chair of Astronomy at Harvard University argues that conventional researchers have ignored compelling evidence about 1I/'Oumuamua-an object that entered the solar system from another star in 2017-and are dismissing the possibility that it may represent alien technology.
Loeb has long contended that the behavior of 1I/'Oumuamua defies traditional comet or asteroid classification. Upon its discovery by the Pan-STARRS telescope in Hawaii, the object was first labeled a comet, then reclassified when no tail appeared. Its acceleration away from the sun, without the visible outgassing expected from volatile ices, has remained one of astronomy's most perplexing anomalies. Loeb's question-whether the object might be artificial-has placed him at the center of a fierce scientific debate.
The professor argues that invoking exotic outgassing models ignores basic physics. His team has noted that if 1I/'Oumuamua were losing nitrogen or hydrogen in a way that produced thrust, the escaping gas should have forced the object into an unstable spin-something astronomers did not observe. That absence, he says, strengthens the case for an alternative explanation, including the possibility that the object could be a "light sail" or a fragment of advanced extraterrestrial equipment.
Loeb's critique extends beyond the object itself to what he sees as entrenched academic conservatism. He says astronomers rejected his hypothesis not on scientific grounds but because the idea of alien technology is considered taboo. He argues the reaction has been "irrational" and "anti-intellectual," likening the pushback to resistance faced by Galileo and Copernicus. Such unwillingness to consider extraordinary evidence, he claims, threatens to sideline what could be one of the century's most consequential discoveries.
His concerns broaden into a financial indictment of research priorities. Loeb contends that the field invests heavily-approaching sums like £90 million or $90 million-into surveys and programs that preemptively exclude searches for technological artifacts. By prioritizing what he calls "safe" topics designed to secure government funding and publication in major journals, he argues institutions are reinforcing bias and discouraging bold inquiry.
Those pressures, Loeb maintains, create a research culture where young scientists fear career repercussions for exploring the possibility of intelligent life. He points to the premature labeling of 1I/'Oumuamua as a comet as an example of this tendency to force new data into familiar categories rather than confronting the unknown.
Loeb's willingness to challenge the field has made him a polarizing figure, but his stance continues to attract public attention and philosophical debate. He insists scientists must "follow the evidence, regardless of where it leads," and warns that ignoring anomalous data risks missing transformative knowledge.
