Court tosses $50 billion suit by ‘prince of panspermia’ against Springer Nature

A neuroscientist once called the “prince of panspermia” has lost a lawsuit against Springer Nature stemming from a 2019 paper of his that a journal retracted.

Here’s the summary from United States District Judge John P. Cronan, who heard the original case:

Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D., proceeding pro se, is a scientist who claims he found evidence of possible extraterrestrial life on Venus and Mars. To expound his ideas here on Earth, Dr. Joseph wrote two articles—one about life on Venus, the other about life on Mars—and submitted them for publication in an academic journal called Astrophysics and Space Science (“ApSS”). ApSS published the article about Venus, and the piece received some traction in the scientific community. But before publishing the article on Martian life, ApSS told Dr. Joseph that it needed to vet his findings a bit more. Dr. Joseph did not like the sound of that. So he withdrew his submission of the Mars article and demanded that ApSS remove the Venus article from its website. Rather than remove the Venus article, and after conducting additional peer review, ApSS told Dr. Joseph that it would retract the article.

Joseph, as Cronan notes, “considers himself ‘one of the leading figures in the search for extraterrestrial life.’” As we reported in October 2020, Joseph, representing himself, sued Springer Nature in June 2020. He eventually said that 

he is actually entitled to $50 billion and explains that he would use this money “to finance and assemble a team of thousands of scientist[s] to perhaps make some of the greatest discoveries in science.”

Cronan  dismissed Joseph’s case in April 2021. His 19-page opinion and order, which is worth the read, describes the panspermia-ist’s original complaint thusly in a footnote:

The Complaint is at times difficult to follow. It is littered with speculation, confusing ramblings, conclusory legal assertions, and personal attacks against Defendants. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 12 (“The Defendants are lying, confabulating, engaging in fraud and falsifying their references[.]”), ¶ 20 (claiming that “major scientific discoveries must pass through three stages: 1) Ridicule, 2) Violent opposition, 3) Acceptance as obvious and self-evident” and that Dr. Joseph’s work regarding life on Venus and Marks “is now at stage 2 (violent opposition)”); ¶ 23 (calling the two individual Defendants “mediocrities”); ¶ 30 (“Defendants libeled and slandered Plaintiff in April of 2020.”). Because Dr. Joseph is proceeding pro se, the Court endeavored to distill the facts from the Complaint as best it could and construe them in the light most favorable to him.

Another footnote:

As with his other claims, Dr. Joseph relies on statutes that make no sense as support for these other tort claims. Compl. ¶ 29. For example, he cites 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which sets forth civil remedies for personal injuries suffered by minors who were victims of sexual abuse. Again, Dr. Joseph offers absolutely no indication how the statutes he cites are relevant here, and the Court declines to engage in a lengthier discussion as to why they offer Dr. Joseph no recourse. 

Joseph appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which today rejected his appeal. Apparently, “some of the greatest discoveries in science” will have to wait. 

The prince of panspermia — who is no stranger to losses in federal court — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Update, 0015 UTC, 12/24/21: Joseph left us a voicemail, which we’ve made available here.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].