Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board? As has been widely reported, the US government has asked Professor Avi Loeb, of the Department of Astronomy at Harvard University (see the main announcement at the end of this posting), to create a UAP Advisory Council. The members of this advisory group span a range of disciplines from astronomy, psychology, physics, biology, data analytics, psychology, entrepreneurs, and more. I am thrilled to have been invited alongside a notable list of scientists, academics, entrepreneurs, and others. What follows are my personal thoughts and are not any official position of the UAP Advisory Council. Dr. Loeb has already elaborated on the formation of this Council, along with his views through postings on his blog and in public interviews. Importantly, no one on the Council has been asked to sign any non-disclosure agreements. We are told that we are free to discuss matters that come before the Board, but without attribution of the source (Chatham House rules). By the same token, I am not obligated to answer any questions either. I plan to treat this effort like I do my day job in cancer immunology—not talking publicly about results until I am sure the answer is as close to correct as I can determine. So, how did this Advisory Council come to be? Well, one answer is simple—through the dedicated action of thousands of individuals across decades, the coming forward of credible military and government officials in public testimony (sometimes under oath), the work of members of Congress and the Senate, along with testimonials of public witnesses, and much more. Collectively, those actions have led to the extraordinary and courageous decision by President Donald J. Trump and his administration to release to the public US government-owned UAP-related files and information as vetted by a UAP Governance Board and other government agencies. As publicly announced, our group will report to the UAP Governing Board, which is under the direction of the Executive Branch. Many people have openly wondered, “Why create a new Board when elements of the government or even commercial institutions already (allegedly) know the answer?” The UAP Advisory Council doesn't have any funding, and we don’t have subpoena power. We are all volunteers. We advise. Given that, there are some straightforward answers to the criticisms and commentary I have seen. First, appreciate that the complexity of what UAP might represent is not definable in a single technological or cultural framework. It is so complex that even I, who have been steeped in the matter for over 15 years, have a hard time encompassing the breadth of explanations from “it’s real, and it’s here” to “it’s all misidentification”. My mind spins trying to make sense of it all. What is clear is that the data released so far is not enough. The anecdotes are not enough. Sure, interesting videos, but where’s the metadata? What are the parameters of how the data was collected? Why are there extreme redactions of files and data? Why the incredible pushback? Where are the alleged retrieved technologies? There’s simply not enough to convince me when I put on my serious scientist’s hat. Yet what I do know is that the question of what it might be will not go away while the data remains locked up. The answers to what any data might mean will require a comprehensive effort across disciplines that expand well beyond “nuts and bolts” science. Hence, the broad makeup of the team that comprises the UAP Advisory Council. Every person on the Board is, I believe, devoted to taking a logical and deeply skeptical approach to this matter. We will let the data guide us and cross-check each other. For me, despite my widely known bias that I think there’s something deeper to the matter than misidentification, I remain like any scientist a trained sceptic at heart. I am terrified of making a mistake, but I’ve yet to reach a formal conclusion despite my public musings. I can believe a thing might be true, but as a scientist, I must believe enough in the possibility of an idea being true to justify my time and effort to prove it to myself— and more so to prove it to colleagues or the lay public. There is data that, when contextualized as a hypothesis, becomes evidence that invites us to wonder whether the answer to “Are We Alone?” might be sitting right in front of us, but we choose to ignore it or let others tell us it should be ignored. Remember, data is only evidence towards supporting a conclusion when you pose a question (hypothesis) around what the data means. But evidence is not a conclusion. Evidence is what you put in front of a jury, where the data has been sufficiently scrubbed of doubt to allow one to decide what it means. So, back to “Why do we need a UAP Scientific Advisory Board?” Well, we all want objective, and even subjective, expertise to interpret whatever data comes our way. Even if tomorrow a saucer landed in Times Square, we would still need a swath of expertise to interpret what opens the door, how it got here, and what might be the intent. Better to be prepared, in my opinion. We obviously risk that this is a misdirection from some essential truth or that we might be being used in some elaborate disinformation campaign. We are also aware that we might be in for the possibility that there is simply nothing there but elaborate stories and misidentifications. But I can tell you this—the risk is worth it. We have come further than ever before to open the door (or Pandora’s Box) to a potentially incredible opportunity. “Are we alone?” might be answered as “We are one of many.” Coming to know what others might have already learned about the nature of reality is, for me, well worth the effort to ask the question. One way or the other, I believe humanity can handle the answer. avi-loeb.medium.com/more-det…