Doubts Brew About NASA’s New Arsenic Life

[n2doc]

By Lisa Grossman December 7, 2010




An arsenic-loving microbe found in a salty lake, which was touted last week as a potentially new form of life, is under heavy fire from the scientific community.

The microbe, a bacteria called GFAJ-1, can apparently use arsenic instead of phosphorous to build its DNA, a trick no other life form has ever managed.

A team of astrobiologists pulled the bacteria from Mono Lake in eastern California and starved it of phosphate, the molecule most organisms prefer for building their DNA backbones, while force-feeding it arsenate, the analogous form of arsenic.

The bacteria continued to grow despite the poisonous diet, prompting the researchers to assert that the microbes had successfully swapped arsenic for phosphorous. The team, led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, published their results in Science Dec. 2, accompanied by a very excited NASA press conference.

But other biologists started raising red flags almost immediately, questioning the methods the team used to purify the DNA and asking why the researchers skipped certain tests.
more

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/arsenic-life-under-fire/

Was talking to an Astrobiologist colleague today, this is really roiling the community.

[Duer 157099]

1. The time for those questions was during the peer review process

Science isn't exactly an easy journal to get published in, and there's a rigorous peer-review process.

How did all of the reviewers miss this, I wonder? Good ole boy network, maybe?

:shrug:

In any case, not a good sign for Science (the journal) if true.

[n2doc]

2. You might be surprised

Science, and Nature, love a good story above all else. If this story ends up being wrong, it would not be the first time for either journal. Editors there have a huge amount of latitude in picking what articles to accept.

[Duer 157099]

3. But they still must send it to reviewers

Been there, done that.

[n2doc]

4. But the editors get to choose the reviewers

And believe me, they know who the "positive" ones are and whom are the curmudgeons.

[caraher]

5. Science and Nature fasttrack flashy results

Read Plastic Fantastic for a revealing look at just how easily shoddy science can appear in the most prestigious publications. I'm not sure how much these journals have reformed their process since the Schon scandal, but the same pressures to rush dramatic results into print still exist in for-profit scientific publishing.