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."

Comments

Scientific Method

[NFN_NLN]

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.

Re:Scientific Method

[MightyMartian]

Multiple teams have confirmed global warming. What are you talking about?

Re:Scientific Method

[sumdumass]

It's easier to shoot the messenger then the message. But it's even easier to shoot the message then carry it on if you don't like change. Peer review has seemed to of went form, "Yes, we did it too", or "no, it didn't work for us", or even a "we saw something a bit different when we tried it", to an "I agree or disagree, let's take a vote on it". At least in some things anyways.

While you are right, that's how science works and if it isn't working that way, it isn't science, but this non-science is happening within the science arena by people claiming to be scientists doing doing science. For a vast majority of people, what is real science or not will be subject to who has the loudest opinion similar to how history is always written by the victor.

In other words, the vast majority of people will end up reading it in a text books somewhere based on who gave up for whatever reason last.

Re:Scientific Method

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Washington Post article:

"Further, Wolfe-Simon has provided samples of the supposedly arsenic-loving microbes to “four or five” independent scientists, she said, who are now trying to prove her wrong — or maybe just show that she was right."

This looks to me the scientist is giving out samples of the said bacteria to other scientists to try reproducing the findings.

Re:Scientific Method

[Ruke]

In this case, it looks like Wolf-Simon published her results, and some peers fired off some immediate critiques of her methods, while others raised questions based off of what is already known of molecular biology. Wolf-Simon is responding to 8 of these criticisms in the latest publication of Science. As far as I can tell, no one has attempted (and succeeded or failed) to reproduce Wolf-Simon's results. There hasn't been a whole lot of time to do the necessary studies.

As far as I can tell, this is science, as she is performed. You publish controversial/novel results, people immediately try to pick your results apart, and you respond to them. In an ideal world, everything would be done with the same level of rigor as these results are being handled, not just the "hard sciences".

Re:Scientific Method

[DRJlaw]

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.

You presume that the critics have attempted to independently reproduce the results. They have not. They are merely identifying potential sources of false positives. While the original team would be wise to explain how these potential sources of error were already addressed, and if necessary to run additional experiments addressing lapses or unconsidered factors, hypothetical arguments as to why an experiment cannot have worked do not prove that the results cannot be reproduced and/or are actually caused by other mechanisms.

"The exchange does not put forth new data on the matter, but centers on the original experiments in which Wolfe-Simon isolated bacteria from arsenic-laden Mono Lake, California, and then tried to grow them in cultures with large amounts of arsenic and no phosphorus, which is typically required for growth."

Nobody has tried to reproduce the result.

"University of British Columbia microbiologist Rosie Redfield, the blogger most critical of Wolfe-Simon both personally and professionally, asserts in one of the Technical Comments that Wolfe-Simon did not go far enough in purifying DNA from GFAJ-1 before testing it for its arsenic components."

Valid criticism, but not proof of irreproducability or alternate mechanism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. On the other hand, scientists claiming that things are impossible have routinely been proven wrong. Unless something is shown to violate well established laws, hypothetical criticism is usually far less valuable than actual experimentation and reproducible alternate explanation.

Re:Scientific Method

[empiricistrob]

I'm so tired of people saying this -- if you can't replicate an experiment with the same starting conditions then it's not science -- that it total and complete bullshit.

Science works like this:
Step 1. Formulate a hypothesis.
Step 2. Test the hypothesis.
Step 3.
If hypothesis checks out, repeat step 2. After sufficient iterations call it a theory.
If hypothesis doesn't check out, throw it out and formulate a new hypothesis.

*no where* in the above does it require you to have the same starting conditions. In the case of global warming the hypotheses are of the form "Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures". There are *many* ways you can test these hypotheses -- you don't need to have a model earth to play with.

Re:Scientific Method

[Mindcontrolled]

Nice way of showing that you didn't remotely follow the science there. Protip: Watts is not part of it. There are multiple data sets, multiple models, a strong, controversial discussion about the building of said models - and still, a consensus on the basic facts, because they are bloody obvious by now. If you think reproducibility means "taking two different earths", you don't have the slightest grasp about what science actually is. This is actually so exceedingly dumb that i fail to grasp how someone can come up with that argument.

Re:Scientific Method

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, the fact that we never get identical conditions is covered by the theory of errors. Don't see how similar conditions are not present in climate science. The basic point is, after all, to make a prediction and see if it comes true. That's what is happening.

Re:Scientific Method

[empiricistrob]

But what do you mean "under similar conditions"? Over interpreting "under similar conditions" is equivalent to throwing away induction.

And if you're willing to throw away induction then we need to say goodbye to all of science. Past experiments show that apple's fall to the ground, but none of these experiments have been conducted in the year 2012. Therefore saying that apples will continue to fall to the ground in 2012 is an unscientific statement.

I'm sorry, but I prefer all of the knowledge that science has gotten us, and that includes empiricism *and* inductive reasoning.

Re:Scientific Method

[NeutronCowboy]

blah blah scientific theory blah blah taking two different planet Earths blah blah reproducable manner blah blah scientific method blah blah

You don't have a clue. You don't need a different planet to figure out that increasing CO2 concentrations in an air sample increases its absorption of IR wavelengths. Plenty of tests that can verify that.

Your standard of what constitutes science is so ridiculously far out there that it would be impossible to figure anything out about anything that is bigger than a science lab. Thankfully, most scientists have figured out that lab experiments provide a nice basis with which to predict larger phenomena.

And if you really think that that's the only way that discoveries can be made about planet-wide phenomena, please ignore weather reports, tsunami warnings, volcano warnings, earthquake reports, oil discovered through seismic evidence.... yeah, scientists who don't have a second earth to work with have really not contributed anything to society.

Re:Scientific Method

[GrumpySteen]

Global warming isn't a science. Climatology is a science.

Re:Scientific Method

[i.am.delf]

It is not even a matter of reproducible results. This whole affair is a logic exercise, the experiments performed cannot rule out other trivial explanations for the results. Science does not only require an experiment showing the plausibility of one explanation, but also the implausibility of alternative reasonable explanations.

Re:Scientific Method

[Mindcontrolled]

At this point, I would not conclude that anything is wrong with the original research - only that more experiments are needed. Pretty standard. No peer reviewer tries to reproduce experiments, usually. They just offer methodological criticism. And the criticism offered so far could pretty much be overcome by some discussion with the reviewer. The original research is not the strongest, but neither is the criticism. It is interesting enough stuff to publish it, if only to get the discussion going and more people interested in picking up the subject. I see no failure there. Business as usual.

Re:Scientific Method

[Black Parrot]

This conduct on the part of the science community is pretty non-scientific, IMHO. If you have doubts, attempt to reproduce the original results. In doing so, you will either reproduce them and if not, you may stumble upon scientific proof of precisely why the original experiment is flawed. If the original research stands to overturn a century of accepted theory, then you had *better* bloody well attempt to verify or contradict the original research using the *scientific method* instead of using 100 years of possibly flawed theory as a shield against new knowledge and insight. Personal attacks? Are you kidding me? Are these people children?

Carl Sagan is turning in his grave.

Peer review does not normally involve attempting to replicate someone's results. It involves reading carefully to see whether they did their homework, whether the (purported) observations support the claims, whether they forgot to take something important into account, etc.

If you do publish something that is new or surprising, other researchers will jump all over it. But everyone has more to do than they can finish in one lifetime, so no one is going to run out and try to replicate results until some case has been made that they are plausible.

You could waste lifetimes trying to reproduce results you have doubts about.

Re:Scientific Method

[TapeCutter]

For global warming, it means taking two different planet Earths, adding CO2 to one and not the other, and then measuring the temperatures. Can you show me the referreed journal article that describes that experiment being done even once, much less in a reproducable manner as required by the scientific method?

So according to your logic, Newton was just bullshitting when he said the Moon causes the tides because he did not have a control version of the Earth, not only that but every scientist since the 1600's has unquestioningly swallowed Newton's unscientific theory about tides.

But even if your "logic" made sense, it is moot since there are many independent data sets, and there is a physical explaination that you can test yourself with some cheap lab equipment. If the physical explaination is wrong then it means spectroscopy is wrong, which in turn means much of quantum mechanics is wrong, astronomy is wrong, ect. And if you really want to look at other planets (as climate scientists such as Hannsen already have), then please explain to us why the surface of Venus, (AKA our sister planet), is hot enough to melt lead.

The other major faw in your post, is that you don't seem to realise the physics came first (Fourier 1824), then the prediction of AGW based on the physics came in the 1890's, then strong evidence of increased CO2 forcing was found in the temprature records in the late 50's. Then computer models started making many other predictions about the effect of increased CO2 such as polar amplification and stratospheric cooling that have since been confirmed by observations.

I put it to you that you are acting no differently to a creationist when you choose to denigrate an entire branch of science based on ill informed assumptions and your own personal definition of the scientific method, or perhaps your just further evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Re:Scientific Method

[Obfuscant]

You are aware that there is not only a statistical connection between CO2 concentration and temperature, but also a physical mechanism that you can test in the laboratory?

I'll take it from this question that you disagree with my proven hypothesis that you are the cause?

Yes, I am well aware that in the laboratory you can prove quite a lot of things. What you cannot do in the laboratory is test all of the competing and counteracting systems involved in something as large as the earth. A three foot sealed box in the lab does not map well into an experimental domain as large as the planet.

In your analogy - the tribesman actually took a look at the wiring of the car and found that the radio is not wired into the starter circuit?

He didn't have to. It was trivial to fully test the hypothesis that the radio had to be on for the car to run. Simply turn it off. Being able to do that is a critical part of proving or disproving the hypothesis that "radio must be on for car to run", just as being able to measure any potential temperature rise is a critical part of proving that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Simply saying that "I see no possible connection between the radio and the other operations of the car" isn't proof, and could easily be overlooking any of a number of things, some of which you have no idea exist. E.g., if you have no idea what a CAN bus is and that the radio may be connected to one that communicates with the car's computer, and that there may be a computer bug that includes "radio on" as part of the starting sequence, you'd spend a year looking at the wiring and not see what was wrong. The only way to truly test your hypothesis is to perform the control experiment. Does the car start with the radio off?

I can measure the IR spectrum of CO2, actually, I, personally DID measure it. Physical chemistry lab II, back then, before the war.

I've run IR spectrometers a few times, myself. Very nice rotational and vibrational lines from CO2. But that does not prove a hypothesis that "increased CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere will cause increased temperatures". That's only one tiny part of an immense system.

If you think we know everything there is to know about the earth/air/ocean/sun system, then we're wasting our time doing further research, right? If you want to claim that there is no other possible mechanism for any observed global warming than CO2 trapping IR, then you must know what all possible mechanisms are, and all possible counteracting mechanisms that would balance that effect.

As to the Mindcontrolled causes global warming hypothesis - first, you cannot propose any mechanism.

Of course I can. You gave me the mechanism. You emit CO2. You also emit infrared radiation. There has to be something special about your CO2 emissions, just like there is something special about anthropogenic CO2 that makes it the cause and not any of the other CO2 sources on the planet.

Second, you cannot deliver any correlation - global warming started before I was born.

1. So your parents are also to blame.

2. It has gotten worse since you were born. We're in the upward part of the "tricky" hockey-stick, you know.

3. I predict it will go critical if you live another year. Are you really telling me you'd risk the entire planet just so you can keep reading /.?

Please step into the disintigrator chamber, it is the only way to protect the planet and all of the life (other than yours) thereon. If you don't, the other side will start sending real bombs and all kinds of bad things will happen. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, don'tcha know? Please don't make me come up with even more ST references.

Re:Scientific Method

[mapkinase]

"so no one is going to run out and try to replicate results "

I would. That's why I am no longer doing science: nobody will pay you to replicate somebody else's result.

Re:Scientific Method

[sycodon]

The problem is that the defenders of AGW are saying we should cut back on CO2 emissions through a complex scheme of geo-political government control of people's activities. In effect, creating a world government:

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or.one invented for the purpose."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

A better article on what happened

[lucian1900]

http://www.slate.com/id/2295724/

Re:Where are the scathing critiques of climatology

[Mindcontrolled]

You might want to try to read the literature?

Re:Just a hunch

[NEDHead]

Actually, my son the recent PhD in Biophysics, and an atheist, believes the research is flawed in detail and in conclusion. He has no agenda other than truthiness.

Re:Just a hunch

[Anonymous Coward]

They are just doing their job as scientists. Science is supposed to embrace new ideas slowly. Otherwise we'd be running around believing in N rays and whatnot. Granted, this is a cruel environment to come up with new ideas in, but it's still very much a necessity.

Re:Really?

[blair1q]

What is best in science?

To crush your colleagues, see them refuted before you, and to hear the lamentation of their post-docs.

Re:Just a hunch

[pnot]

Thank you; I was about to point this out. Mod Parent Up, as the saying goes.

This is how science works, and how it has always worked. You hang your theory out and the rest of the scientific community goes for it with machetes and chainsaws, which either kills it or makes it stronger. That's how we sift the truth from the wishful thinking (and, more rarely, deliberate fraud). That's also why the idea of a "vast conspiracy of scientists" occasionally mooted by (cough) certain persons is so hilarious. It's about as feasible as throwing a dozen pissed-off cats into a large sack and finding that they all decided to enter into a conspiracy.

And thanks for reminding me about the N-rays; I read the famous Nature paper the other week, and (being a scientist) had great fun watching the poor bastards' theories being shredded in deceptively bland scientific prose.

Re:Exactly, not science

[TapeCutter]

Since the models based on hypothesis cannot predict the future

Get out of your armchair and actually look at examples of the models predicting unknown phenomena, I'll give you a head start, polar amplification, stratospheric warming.

current GW studies are mostly not science, but political PACs.

Give me one example of a political PAC actually creating a model, I would be especially interested in seeing an anti-AGW PAC's computer model since AFAIK no such beast exists. Hint: The IPCC is not a PAC nor does it do any reasearch beyond assesing the published litrature.