The claim of extraterrestial bacteria in a meteorite is probably bullshit
This guy explains at length.
RRResearch: Is this claim of bacteria in a meteorite any better than the 1996 one?
Bottom line:
The Ivuna meteorite sample showed a couple of micron-scale squiggles, one of which contained about 2.5-fold more carbon than the background. One of the five Orguil samples had at least one patch of clustered fibers; these contained more sulfur and magnesium than the background, and less silicon. As evidence for life this is pathetic, no better than that presented by McKay's group for the ALH84001 Martian meteorite in 1996.
The Journal and the Editor aren't very impressive either:
The journal proudly announces that it is obtaining and will publish 100 post-publication reviews. But did it bother getting any pre-publication reviews? It will be shutting down in a few months, after only two years of on-line publication (the 13 'volumes' are really just 13 issues). Its presentation standards are pretty bad - there doesn't seem to have been any effort at copy-editing or formatting the text for publication (not even any page numbers).
Chandra Wickramasinghe is the journal's Executive Editor for Astrobiology, and presumably is the Editor responsible for this article. I heard him give a talk pushing panspermia about 10 years ago (the audience was an undergraduate science society at Oxford). The talk was dreadful. He argued like a lawyer, not a scientist; the evidence he cited to support his arguments wasn't actually untrue, but he twisted everything to make his arguments seem stronger than they were. Thus I wouldn't trust his scientific judgment about anything concerning astrobiology.
[via Mike Sterling]