Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA-Less 'Red Rain' Cells Reproduce At 121 C

Posted by timothy on from the that-beats-most-hot-tubs dept.

eldavojohn writes "A new paper up for prepublication from the controversial solid-state physicist Godfrey Louis claims that the cells Louis collected from a Keralan red rain incident divide and produce daughter cells at 121 degrees Celsius. While unusual, this is not unheard of as the paper recalls cells cultivated from hydrothermal vents are known to reproduce at 121 C as well. Of course, caution is exercised when dealing with the possible explanation surrounding the theory of panspermia but the MIT Technology Review says researchers 'examined the way these fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy. One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.'"

8 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. "Up for prepublication"? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does that mean? Has it been peer-reviewed yet? Has it been accepted? Or is it just at the stage where the author's submitted it, and those other steps still need to happen? The linked page only says its "submitted".

    If it hasn't been accepted, posting it here is rather silly on a lot of counts. Not to mention that, with some journals, doing something like that can result in the paper being summarily rejected (e.g Nature, Science).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by DamienRBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of this guy's (Godfrey Louis) stuff on the subject seems to be peer reviewed. It is all just up on arXiv. I think he is more interested in getting publicity than getting his facts checked. Now that last statement is an ad hominem, so it doesn't say anything about his research one way or the other. But I think it does give a few clues.

    2. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't really an ad hominem at all. If you say "This guy is a loon, therefore his arguments are crap" then that is an ad hominem, but if you say "This guy's arguments are crap, therefore he's a loon" it isn't. His being a loon doesn't necessarily make his arguments crap, but just saying his arguments are crap or even calling him a loon isn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a specific type of logical fallacy, it is not a general insult.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was me, I would make sure that every i was dotted and t was crossed. I would keep it damned quiet, and ask anyone I shared the data with to do the same. I would probably spend six months just running through it all again, and maybe once more after that.

      The one thing I wouldn't do is leak it, or fantastically optimistic interpretations of it to the press. When things appear first in the media and then in peer-reviewed journals or at conferences, people begin to think strange thoughts like "Hyperbole" or, sometimes even "Fraud". Researchers who leave the confines of accepted publishing and announcement practices are taking a big chance that they're going to undermine the whole damned thing.

      But how many times, folks, have we been bit by incredible announcements in the press "New Discovery Will Rewrite biology/astronomy/physics/neurology/whatever" only to find out that the actual paper is considerably more mundane.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not peer reviewed. I took a look at it and in its current form it is unlikely to pass muster for peer review (at least in a molecular biology journal). There are a number of clear flaws. Cells of some species will often show a characteristic doubling time. In this case, the "cell" population appears to less than double from 30 to 60 minutes. Then from 60 to 90 more than double before any increase in cell number stops. This odd behavior is consistent with micelles treated at high heat breaking apart into smaller micelles before reaching a stable size (which, assuming these data are not falsified, seems to be what is occurring here).

    5. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow I suspect we would not be discussing this if a crackpot was not involved.

      The wiki article pretty much nails it down to spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia, plentiful in the area where the red rain was found, as well as many other places in the world.

      Yet, we are now treated to the suggestion that because the same wave lengths of light as are found in some remote part of the galaxy can be induced when samples are bombarded with some (conveniently unspecified) light source..

      The clear implication being that we should all believe that some extraterrestrial life has chosen this particular part of India, (and no where else) to fall in rain for a solid month, totally ignoring high winds aloft.

      I wager my rear end could be made to fluoresce certain shades of red found in other parts of the galaxy given the right form of bombardment.

      Thank you sir, Mr Louis needs another.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:"Up for prepublication"? by yyxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The wiki article pretty much nails it down to spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia, plentiful in the area where the red rain was found, as well as many other places in the world.

      Spores don't divide at 121C or 300C.

      Yet, we are now treated to the suggestion that because the same wave lengths of light as are found in some remote part of the galaxy can be induced when samples are bombarded with some (conveniently unspecified) light source..

      Fluorescence doesn't work that way.

      Somehow I suspect we would not be discussing this if a crackpot was not involved.

      Well, what defines a "crackpot"? The people described their materials, methods, and results. Those are not consistent with spores. There are three possibilities: (1) the experiments were carried out incorrectly, (2) the authors deliberately lied, or (3) the experimental results are as described.

      How can one proceed? Peer review may uncover gross errors in their experimental procedures, in which case they would have to go back and redo their experiments.

      If there are no gross errors, there's no reason not to publish the results; they are still implausible, but not obviously wrong.

      The only way to figure out what's going on is to try and replicate the experiments a few times. Once people do that, we'll know. Until that's done, the issue is simply unresolved. There's no need to call people "crackpot" over it, but there's no reason to believe the results either.

  2. Re:Just sequence them.. by ElektronSpinRezonans · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, youngling, you have many years until you have that PhD in your hand. What you're suggesting is a negative results, caused from "not seeing what we wanted to see", which can be rebutted in a million different ways, most of which you probably do not know yet. This is one of the reasons the peer review process exists. I personally do not believe anything I read on a non-peer reviewed paper, unless of course it is coming from well documented, well funded full professors.