 the abundance data (cf. Copi, Schramm, & Turner 1995b). The nature of such errors is unclear, and this remains controversial. Other authors have reacted to the impending crisis in self-consistency by simply omitting one or more of the four nuclides in making the fit (Dar 1995; Olive & Thomas 1997; Hata et al. 1996, 1997; Fields et al. 1996).

This controversy has been sharpened by new observations giving the deuterium abundances on various lines of sight to high-redshift QSOs. These data should yield the primordial D abundance, but current results span an order of magnitude. The low values, D/H by number $\approx 2 \times 10^{-5}$ (Tytler, Fan, & Burles 1996; Burles & Tytler 1996), corresponding to $\eta_{10} \approx 7$ in the standard model, have been revised slightly upward \[D/H $\approx (3-4) \times  
10^{-5}$ (Burles & Tytler 1997a,b,c); $\eta_{10} \approx 5$\], but it still seems impossible to reconcile the inferred abundance of $^4$He \[Y$_{\rm P} \approx 0.234$; Olive & Steigman 1995 (OS)\] with standard BBN for this large value of $\eta_{10}$ (which implies Y$_{\rm BBN}  
\approx 0.247$) unless there are large systematic errors in the $^4$He data (cf. Izotov, Thuan, & Lipovetsky 1994, 1997). Such low D/H values have also been challenged on observational grounds by Wampler (1996) and by Songaila, Wampler, and Cowie (1997), and deuterium abundances nearly an order of magnitude higher, D/H $\approx 2\times10^{-4}$, have been claimed by Carswell et al. (1994), Songaila et al. (1994), and Rugers and Hogan (1996) for other high-redshift systems with metal abundances equally close to primordial. Although some of these claims of high deuterium have been called into question (Tytler, Burles, & Kirkman 1997), Hogan (1997) and Songaila (1997) argue that the spectra of other absorbing systems require high D/H (e.g., Webb et al. 1997). If these higher abundances are correct, then D and
the abundance data (cf. Copi, Schramm, & Turner 1995b). The nature of such errors is unclear, and this remain controversial. early authors have reacted to the at hand crisis in self - consistency by simply neglect one or more of the four nuclides in making the fit (Dar 1995; Olive & Thomas 1997; Hata et al. 1996, 1997; Fields et al. 1996). 

 This controversy has been sharpened by fresh observations giving the deuterium abundance on various lines of batch to high - redshift QSOs. These datum should yield the primordial D abundance, but current results span an order of magnitude. The abject values, D / H by number $ \approx 2 \times 10^{-5}$ (Tytler, Fan, & Burles 1996; Burles & Tytler 1996), corresponding to $ \eta_{10 } \approx 7 $ in the standard mannequin, have been revised slightly upward \[D / H $ \approx (3 - 4) \times  
 10^{-5}$ (Burles & Tytler 1997a, b, c); $ \eta_{10 } \approx 5$\ ], but it however seems impossible to reconcile the inferred abundance of $ ^4$He \[Y$_{\rm P } \approx 0.234 $; Olive & Steigman 1995 (OS)\ ] with standard BBN for this large value of $ \eta_{10}$ (which implies Y$_{\rm BBN }  
 \approx 0.247 $) unless there be large systematic errors in the $ ^4$He data (cf. Izotov, Thuan, & Lipovetsky 1994, 1997). Such broken five hundred / H values have also been challenged on observational grounds by Wampler (1996) and by Songaila, Wampler, and Cowie (1997), and deuterium abundances nearly an order of order of magnitude higher, D / H $ \approx 2\times10^{-4}$, have been claim by Carswell et al. (1994), Songaila et al. (1994), and Rugers and Hogan (1996) for other gamey - red shift system with metal abundances evenly close to primordial. Although some of these claim of high deuterium have been called into doubt (Tytler, Burles, & Kirkman 1997), Hogan (1997) and Songaila (1997) argue that the spectra of other absorbing systems require high D / H (e.g., Webb et al. 1997). If these higher abundances are correct, then D and
 thf abundance data (cf. Copi, Schramm, & Turnet 1995v). The iature kf such drrors is unclear, and this rxmaibs cobtroversial. Other authurs have geacted ti tht impending crisis in seln-eonsiabency uy simply omittlng one or kore of the fogr nbclides in making the fit (Dar 1995; Olive & Thomax 1997; Hata et al. 1996, 1997; Sielcf et al. 1996).

This controversy has been sharlened bj new observationx giving the deuterium abujdanfes on various linfs of sight to rugh-redshift DSOs. These data should yield the primordial D abundanze, buc current rgshlhv span an ocder os magnitude. Bne low values, D/H by number $\sppcox 2 \times 10^{-5}$ (Tytler, Fan, & Bnrles 1996; Burles & Tytlet 1996), correspmnbing to $\eta_{10} \approx 7$ ib rhe sjandasd mueel, habe bsen regisxd slightly upward \[D/H $\qpprox (3-4) \times  
10^{-5}$ (Burkef & Tytler 1997a,b,c); $\sta_{10} \ap[rjx 5$\], but it still seems impossible to reboncjle the inferred abundabce of $^4$He \[Y$_{\rm P} \approd 0.234$; Olive & Steigman 1995 (OS)\] with standard BBN for this large vanue oh $\dta_{10}$ (wmich umolies Y$_{\rm BBN}  
\approx 0.247$) unless there are large ayxtvmatic errors in bhe $^4$He data (cf. Izoyog, Yruan, & Lipovetrky 1994, 1997). Sucg low D/H values hage also been challengtd on observational grounds by Wqmpler (1996) and yy Wongaila, Wampler, aud Cowie (1997), anb deutgrium sbundances nearly an orber of magnitude jigher, D/H $\xpprox 2\times10^{-4}$, havd bven wlaimed by Carswell et al. (1994), Songaila et cl. (1994), and Fugets and Rogan (1996) for othev high-redshift systfms wnth matal abundwnces equally close to primordiek. Although spma ox these elaims of high deutqrium have beeu called into question (Nytler, Bucles, & Kirkmag 1997), Hogan (1997) and Dongaila (1997) arjue that ehe wpecrra of ugher absorbing systems gezuirw high D/H (e.g., Webb ct al. 1997). If these highex qbundances are vorfece, nhei D agg
the abundance data (cf. Copi, Schramm, & The of such is unclear, and have to the impending in self-consistency by omitting one or more of the nuclides in making the fit (Dar 1995; Olive & Thomas 1997; Hata et 1996, 1997; Fields et al. 1996). This controversy has been sharpened by new giving deuterium on lines of sight to high-redshift QSOs. These data should yield the primordial D abundance, but current span an order of magnitude. The low values, by number $\approx 2 10^{-5}$ (Tytler, Fan, & Burles Burles Tytler 1996), to \approx in the standard have been revised slightly upward \[D/H $\approx (3-4) \times 10^{-5}$ (Burles & Tytler 1997a,b,c); $\eta_{10} \approx 5$\], it still to reconcile inferred of \[Y$_{\rm P} \approx & Steigman 1995 (OS)\] with standard large value of $\eta_{10}$ (which implies Y$_{\rm BBN} 0.247$) unless are large systematic errors in the data (cf. Izotov, Thuan, & Lipovetsky 1994, 1997). low D/H values have also been challenged on observational grounds by Wampler (1996) and by and Cowie (1997), and abundances nearly an of higher, $\approx have been by Carswell et al. (1994), Songaila et al. (1994), and Rugers Hogan (1996) for other high-redshift systems with metal abundances equally primordial. some of these of high deuterium have called question (Tytler, Burles, & Hogan and that spectra other absorbing systems require D/H (e.g., Webb et al. If these higher abundances
 the abundance data (cf. Copi, SchRamm, & Turner 1995B). The nAtuRe oF sUch eRrorS is unclear, and tHIs reMains controversial. OtheR authOrS Have REaCted tO the impENdING crIsIs In sElF-CoNsistEncY by simpLy omitting One Or More of the fouR NuClides in maKinG the fit (Dar 1995; OlIve & thomas 1997; haTa eT Al. 1996, 1997; FieLds Et al. 1996).

THis conTRoversY has been sHaRPened bY New obseRVAtIons Giving the deuteriuM AbUNdances on varioUs lineS oF SiGHT to HigH-redshift QsOS. ThesE Data shoULd YIELd tHE primordial D aBundance, but CUrrEnt resUlTs sPAn an orDer of MaGNitUde. The low vaLues, d/H by numbeR $\approX 2 \Times 10^{-5}$ (TyTLer, Fan, & BUrles 1996; BUrlEs & TYtleR 1996), CoRrEspOnDIng TO $\eTa_{10} \aPProX 7$ in the stAnDaRd modEl, haVE BEEn reVisEd slIghtlY upward \[D/H $\apprOx (3-4) \tImes  
10^{-5}$ (bUrlEs & TytLer 1997a,b,C); $\eta_{10} \ApProx 5$\], bUt it stIll seEmS impossible to reConcIle the infErrEd AbuNdAnce oF $^4$he \[Y$_{\rm P} \AppRox 0.234$; olive & StEigman 1995 (Os)\] WitH sTANDaRd BBN for this large vAlUE Of $\Eta_{10}$ (which ImplieS y$_{\rM Bbn}  
\approx 0.247$) uNlEss TherE ARe larGe sySTeMatic errOrs in tHE $^4$HE dAta (cf. IzOtOv, ThuaN, & LIpoVetSky 1994, 1997). SuCH low d/H valuEs have alSo beeN Challenged on obSErvational groUNdS BY WAMpleR (1996) anD by Songaila, wampLEr, anD CowIE (1997), aNd dEUteriUm abuNdANcES nearly an order of magNiTude hiGher, D/h $\approx 2\times10^{-4}$, hAve been claIMED by CarswEll eT Al. (1994), sOngaila et al. (1994), and rugerS and Hogan (1996) fOR other hiGh-redShift sysTems with mETAl abundaNceS eqUalLy cLOSe To primordial. ALTHougH sOme of thEse Claims oF hiGh dEutEriUm Have been cAlled intO qUeStIoN (TyTler, BURles, & KirkMaN 1997), HoGaN (1997) anD SongAIla (1997) argUe thaT the SpEcTRa oF other aBSoRBIng sYsTeMs reQuiRe High D/h (e.g., WEBb eT al. 1997). If thEse higher AbuNDancEs ArE correcT, then D and
 the abundance data (cf. C opi, Schra mm, &  Tu rne r1995 b).The nature ofs ucherrors is unclear, and  this  r e main s  c ontro versial .  O t h erau th ors  h a ve  reac ted  to the  impending  cr is is in self-c o ns istency by  si mply omittin g o ne ormo reo f the  fo ur nu clides in mak ing the f it (Dar 1 9 95; Oli v e  &  Tho mas 1997; Hata et al .  1996, 1997; F ieldset al . 199 6). 

This con tr overs y  has be e ns h a rpe n ed by new obs ervations g i vin g thede ute r ium ab undan ce s  on  various li nesof sightto hig h -redshi f t QSOs.  These  da tashou l dyi eld  t h e p r im ord i alD abunda nc e,  butcurr e n t resu lts  spa n anorder of magn itu de.T helow v alues , D/ Hby nu mber $ \appr ox  2 \times 10^{- 5}$(Tytler,Fan ,& B ur les 1 9 96; Bu rle s &  Tytler  1996), cor re s p o nd ing to $\eta_{10}\a p p ro x 7$ inthe st a nd ar d  model,ha vebeen r evise d sl i gh tly upwa rd \[D / H$\ approx(3 -4) \t im es 
1 0^{-5 } $ (B urles& Tytler  1997 a ,b,c); $\eta_{ 1 0} \approx 5$ \ ], b ut it s til l seems imp ossi b le t o re c on cil e  theinfer re d  a b undance of $^4$He \ [Y $_{\rm  P} \ approx 0.234$ ; Olive &S t e igman 19 95 ( O S) \ ] with standar d BBN  for thisl arge val ue of  $\eta_{ 10}$ (whi c h  implies  Y$ _{\ rmBBN }  \approx 0.247 $ )  unl es s there  ar e large  sy ste mat icer rors in t he $^4$H eda ta  ( cf.  Izot o v, Thuan ,& L ip ove tsky1 994, 1 997).  Suc hlo w  D/ H value s  h a v e al so  b eencha ll enged  ono bse rvation al ground s b y  Wam pl er  (1996)  and by Songa il a, Wampler ,and  Cowie ( 1997), a nd deuterium abundances nearlyanorder  ofmagnitude  hi gher,D/H $\appr ox 2\t imes1 0^ {-4 } $ , hav e be encl aimed by C a r swe ll et  a l. ( 1994),Songaila et al. (1 9 94) , and Rugersand  Hog a n  ( 199 6 )f orot h erh i gh-redshift sys tems withme t al  abundance s  eq ua lly clo se to p rimor d ial. Al though so me of the se  cla i m s o f high deu terium h ave beenc alled in to qu est ion (T yt ler , Bur les, & Kir kman1997),  H ogan ( 1997)  a nd Songa ila (1997) argue that t he spe ctraofother abs orb i ngsystems r equi re high D/ H ( e.g ., We bbe t al.  199 7 ).  If these  hig h er abunda n ce s a r e  c orrect, the n D  an d
 the_abundance data_(cf. Copi, Schramm, &_Turner 1995b)._The_nature of_such_errors is unclear,_and this remains_controversial. Other authors have_reacted to the_impending_crisis in self-consistency by simply omitting one or more of the four nuclides in_making_the fit_(Dar_1995;_Olive & Thomas 1997; Hata_et al. 1996, 1997; Fields_et al._1996).

This controversy has been sharpened by new observations_giving_the deuterium abundances_on various lines of sight to high-redshift QSOs. These_data should yield the primordial D_abundance, but current_results_span_an order of magnitude._The low values, D/H by number_$\approx 2 \times 10^{-5}$ (Tytler, Fan,_& Burles 1996; Burles & Tytler 1996),_corresponding to $\eta_{10} \approx 7$ in_the standard model, have been_revised slightly_upward \[D/H $\approx (3-4) \times_ 
10^{-5}$ (Burles_& Tytler_1997a,b,c); $\eta_{10} \approx_5$\], but it still seems impossible_to reconcile the_inferred abundance of $^4$He \[Y$_{\rm P}_\approx_0.234$; Olive &_Steigman_1995_(OS)\] with_standard BBN for_this_large value_of_$\eta_{10}$ (which implies Y$_{\rm BBN} _
\approx_0.247$) unless there are large systematic errors_in the $^4$He data_(cf._Izotov, Thuan, & Lipovetsky_1994, 1997). Such low D/H_values have also been challenged on_observational grounds_by Wampler_(1996) and by Songaila, Wampler, and Cowie (1997), and deuterium abundances_nearly an order of magnitude higher,_D/H $\approx 2\times10^{-4}$, have_been claimed_by_Carswell et al._(1994),_Songaila et_al. (1994), and Rugers and Hogan (1996)_for other_high-redshift systems with metal abundances equally_close to primordial. Although_some_of these claims of high deuterium_have been called into question (Tytler,_Burles, & Kirkman 1997), Hogan_(1997)_and_Songaila (1997) argue that the_spectra of other absorbing systems require_high D/H (e.g.,_Webb et al. 1997). If these higher_abundances_are correct, then D and