Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

War Over Arsenic Based Life

Posted by Unknown on from the sewer-shark-comes-true dept.

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."

6 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Scientific Method by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Scientific Method by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Scientific Method by Ruke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    3. Re:Scientific Method by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Scientific Method by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  2. Re:Really? by blair1q · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is best in science?

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