Slashdot Mirror
War Over Arsenic Based Life
Antipater writes "Slashdot readers may remember the announcement and ensuing controversy six months ago over the NASA discovery of microbes that can supposedly incorporate arsenic into their DNA. Now, The Washington Post reports that Science has published a collection of eight scathing critiques of astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, her methods, and her conclusions. Wolfe-Simon is starting to fire back and gather her own allies — one wonders if we're in for another cold-fusion style science war."
Fighting? Sigh... bruised egos? What?
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
One of the basic principles of the scientific method is the ability for peers to independently reproduce results. If this is not the case, then this is not science.
http://www.slate.com/id/2295724/
Any healthy science has this type of debate going on. It weeds out the incorrect conclusions while strengthening the correct ones.
Yet, when it comes to climate science there is almost none of it at all. It is as though nobody is interested in challenging the conclusions of anyone else. I never understood this.
You might want to try to read the literature?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It could be a war WITH arsenic-based life!
Imagine an arsenic-based microbe invasion. How would a 'host' native to Earth fare?
This could get interesting.
But I would venture a guess that the scientists who are so vocal about her findings are the very same scientists that rationalize silly things like God and Creationism in their own minds. After all, the existence and viability of arsenic-based life would be an affront to their own distorted views on the origins of life as we know it today.
We're not, because the organisms are just a variant on the same theme as other life. It was an over-the-top unsustainable claim, a bunch of molecular biologists who actually are experts in the field caught it, and that's that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Care too elaborate...? If not, then I take it this is a troll?
Because challenging them is very dangerous to the challenger.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Scathing critiques, building of allies and preparation for WAR!!!11!1!!
Because 'Scientists question results of experiment, suggest other possible conclusions and additional tests' doesn't pull enough eyeballs? And we all know there's nothing we need more than over the top sensationalism in the news.
Come on! Spock had copper-based blood and his vulcan father and earthan mother were able to combine DNA and produce him.
Better Science Through TOS
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Sagan
The claim of arsenic based life form is fairly extraordinary, it is normal to expect critique.
Although arsenic based life form isn't "that" extraordinary (compared to string theory). I think NASA/media blew it up out of proportion.
Only time will tell if the claim will withstand the test.
Because It's judgement time!!!!! Everyone here ( including me ) will have VIP tickets to hell:) So why pander over important topics anyhow.?
If anyone else can replicate it, she's vindicated. If nobody else can, it never happened.
Your wit is scalding. Now how about learing some facts, so you can use it to some useful end? Starting point: The scientific community does not give a rats arse about Al Gore or the left. Don't burn yourself on those strawmen.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They're over there with the scathing critiques of Relativity and Evolution.
Since the models based on hypothesis cannot predict the future, nor the past without a lot of tweaking, they are not therefore valid.
Yet they are being claimed valid and final - hence current GW studies are mostly not science, but political PACs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Arsenic adaptable
All the comments about reproducing the results are classic misdirection. The problem is not that the results are miraculous, it is that the conclusions drawn from them are excessive. I read this paper when it came out, and the issue can be reduced to this: If you are going to make an extraordinary claim, you better give extraordinary evidence. X-ray crystal structure or GTFO!
You are correct, we are the ones who are searching so we should be chary of making any rules about what we should find.
But I would venture a guess that the scientists who are so vocal about her findings are the very same scientists that rationalize silly things like God and Creationism in their own minds. After all, the existence and viability of arsenic-based life would be an affront to their own distorted views on the origins of life as we know it today.
I fixed the subject line for you.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ah, Proof by First Post. Clever move, but not clever enough. I rebut with Proof by Downmod.
Don't worry, if we did have a war with arsenic-based lifeforms, we could just kill them with head and Shoulders shampoo. It's their cyanide, afterall.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Not to mention the iron breathing bacteria in blood falls.
Extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence. Disregard personal attacks on Wolfe-Simon, consider comments and considerations on the methods, etc of the work itself, and allow a few years for additional research to support or refute. Most of all keep calm, it's not war, it's just science.
I actually read the paper. There was no evidence whatsoever that the bacterium in question was metabolizing arsenic, just that it had a high tolerance to arsenic in its environment. The experiments were all things that I wouldn't doubt the reproducibility of, they just didn't show any evidence for the conclusion.
However, papers in Nature, Science, and Cell, which in the field we refer to as "vanity journals", are more often like this than not.
Uh, you do realize those "man made rules" are based on observation. Extensive and thorough observation. Basically, the need for oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus to sustain life has been demonstrated not just at the organismal level, but also at the molecular level, with predictable and repeating patterns in every life form ever studied. That is the definition of a "Law" in science. Something that is assumed to be a fact because exceptions have never been observed. It, of course, doesn't mean there is no possibility of a life form that "breaks the Law", but the probability is low and such claims are rightfully met with a healthy dose of skepticism. As long as the right controls are done, though, and alternative explanations ruled out, it will eventually be accepted by the scientific community, most likely with a lot of enthusiasm. Findings such as these typically raise more questions than they answer, and a lot of scientists will surely be interested in the underlying enzymology and such, if it holds up to the current scrutiny.
Biology is a branch of natural science. Study of biological structure, function, occurrence and development of the law. And biological relationship with the surrounding environment of the science. Biology from the natural history, has experienced experimental biology, molecular biology and systems biology into the period. http://www.cheaptoryburchshop.com/ http://www.sexytoyslove.com/ http://www.edhardygo.com/
allow a few years for additional research to support or refute. it's not war, it's just science. http://www.ruposhibangla.net/
How is anybody going to attempt reproducing the results when the samples are so scarce they are handed only to "4-5 colleagues"?
Any lab in the world could refute the existence of bacteria on Moon or Mars rocks/meteorites if they could lay their hands on any. Since they can't, all we can do is ponder on the (hidden or not hidden) agendas that cause such scarcity.
Same story since the dawn of shamanism and the dark arts: a vicious circle of secrecy, scarcity, knowledge, money and power which are necessary but not sufficient for locating any traces of truth. And to link to a previous /. article today, such truths are most probably related to national security so I'd better discipline myself and shut up.
Although you are an empiricist, you missed the most important step. If there's no money/power incentive, the experiment is not going to take place. This means that Step 1 has to be amended:
Step 1. Formulate a hypothesis that has a potential for money/profit and find business partners
"Wolfe-Simon is starting to fire back and gather her own allies — one wonders if we're in for another cold-fusion style science war."
Well, no. I read the second article and to me it looks like it's proper science happening. "We need to get back there and get more evidence", and then there's talk of new experiments and other researchers working with her original strain of bacteria.
I would not deny that CO2 has an effect on climate. But something is really wrong with the way the result of these models are communicated.
In the public media we read that the model predicts an increase of the average global temperature by 1 dot something degrees. But what these people don't say is that there is an uncertainty in these values. Stating a range of uncertainty might be unscientific because there are too many known systematic errors and most likely other unknown systematic errors in the model. But without stating such a range people are taking these predictions as absolutely certain values. Climatologists should state clearly that, while it is obvious that there is an effect, their preditions are not certain, and that we do not really know what the earth will be like in the future.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"From an article about a sociologist and anthropologist who studies science and technology, Bruno Latour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour
"In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. To an untrained outsider, Latour and Woolgar argued the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy." "
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
This will be interesting to watch as events unfold.
Ah, humanity. We may not be able to agree on what it is, but you can always depend on us to fight about it. Or, if we're journalists, give it an exciting belligerent name. Perhaps this war will see battles as great as the Huxley-Wilberforce debate.
"Was it through your lack of rigor or your poor lab conditions that this DNA acquired arsenic?"
"I would not be ashamed to have DNA incorporating arsenic, but I would be ashamed of a scientist who used his phosphorus-containing genes to obscure sound research."
when these academics start killing each other, then you can call it war