Posted on 12/08/2010 4:54:14 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I gave it the front-page treatment when the big announcement was made, so now the big skeptical response gets front-page treatment too. Simply devastating — so much so that I wonder why it fell to an outfit like Slate to put it together. Did the Times or WaPo not have enough of an inkling about NASA’s discovery to survey naysayers before writing up their reports on the “discovery”? This information would have come in a lot handier when everyone was still paying attention to this story.
As soon Redfield started to read the paper, she was shocked. “I was outraged at how bad the science was,” she told me.
Redfield blogged a scathing attack on Saturday. Over the weekend, a few other scientists took to the Internet as well. Was this merely a case of a few isolated cranks? To find out, I reached out to a dozen experts on Monday. Almost unanimously, they think the NASA scientists have failed to make their case. “It would be really cool if such a bug existed,” said San Diego State University’s Forest Rohwer, a microbiologist who looks for new species of bacteria and viruses in coral reefs. But, he added, “none of the arguments are very convincing on their own.” That was about as positive as the critics could get. “This paper should not have been published,” said Shelley Copley of the University of Colorado…
In fact, says Harvard microbiologist Alex Bradley, the NASA scientists unknowingly demonstrated the flaws in their own experiment. They immersed the DNA in water as they analyzed it, he points out. Arsenic compounds fall apart quickly in water, so if it really was in the microbe’s genes, it should have broken into fragments, Bradley wrote Sunday in a guest post on the blog We, Beasties. But the DNA remained in large chunks—presumably because it was made of durable phosphate. Bradley got his Ph.D. under MIT professor Roger Summons, a professor at MIT who co-authored the 2007 weird-life report. Summons backs his former student’s critique.
But how could the bacteria be using phosphate when they weren’t getting any in the lab? That was the point of the experiment, after all. It turns out the NASA scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate. It’s possible, the critics argue, that the bacteria eked out a living on that scarce supply. As Bradley notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures.
The authors of the study declined to address the criticisms when contacted by Slate, but even a dummy like me wondered whether the bacteria might simply have been surviving like camels on tiny amounts of phosphorus instead of incorporating arsenic into its DNA. The theory proposed by at least one skeptic, in fact, is that the arsenic isn’t being incorporated at all; it’s simply adhering to the phosphorus that forms the framework of the DNA double-helix like gum on the bottom of a shoe.
Follow the link and read the whole thing. It’s essential if you tracked the story last week when it first broke. Exit question one via Greg Pollowitz: Did NASA have any financial motive in hyping this discovery? Exit question two: Should the GOP hold hearings if the study falls apart? C’mon — C-SPAN testimony on freaky deaky microbes would be riveting television.
NASA’s the same agency that’s hot and heavy on Global Warming.
This is pitiful.
Whenever I drive along Route 1 around Titusville I can almost feel the ghosts of the glory days of NASA...and it’s a wonder- such great men- such great times they were. Hard to know what’s going on there now- if it’s The Left Stuff or a corruption of The Right Stuff.
Well, it can be pretty fun spending lots of other people's money to find out something doesn't work.
The downside is you don't get laid a lot.
AMEN Brother!
Sorry...I missed seeing that!
When contacted for a response, a NASA official was heard to chant allah akbar and complain about how this was going to affect the self esteem of disenfranchised children around the world.
Well then, I missed my true calling, because I would have been a perfect fit.
anyway, I am sensing a pattern with NASA: first, they become a de facto muslim outreach service, and now they claim to find a life form that benefits from arsenic. Since it has been shown that society benefits from feeding muslims liberal doses of arsenic, I sense some kind of sinister plot.
Or an awesome solution. Whatever.
Thank you, because your Son has the Right Stuff.
I think some reconstructive surgery is needed at NASA.
Theres always been guesswork and extropolation. The dino example you used would have been extrapolated from depth of the print,the likely condition of the soil at the time,other better understood or shall i say better known dinos with greater historical records. Its not scientific method with repeatable results but its the best that can be done with the information available.
I was trying to figure out how this discovery helped NASA in their primary mission of promoting Islam. Maybe the Islamists want us to live on arsenic, and NASA is helping.
Remember when NASA was there to explore space? Seems so long ago.
It’s really kind of heartbreaking, isn’t it? I mean they weren’t perfect- but they were seekers and doers and didn’t hesitate to tried the new, the untested. Most of the country has no idea how enormously our everyday lives have benefited from NASA.
Well- NASA before arsenic ;)
P.S. will pass your thanks to my Screaming Eagle
Clue?! Peer review IS evaluation and discussion. It is an exercise in logical thinking. The science itself may not be done over the internet. That’s obvious. Of course the study should be replicated. But science is not about doing the same experiment and getting the same results. It’s about figuring out what those results mean - the search for truth. So yes, the experiments should be replicated, but the issues brought up in review also should be addressed.
Are you saying the posters are “not qualified” to review the science? On what basis?
IMHO the more peers reviewing the science the better. Whatever perspective they bring to the table. Internet discussions have been a great advance in the free exchange of ideas in science. Bouncing ideas off others is precisely how the strengths and weaknesses of the findings are determined in order to be tested more convincingly.
If the best that can be done with the information available is nothing better than guesswork, then I think it ought to be kept in the lab until such time as it is more mature. Science should be about known results which can be repeated and verified. Those results should be published. The results which are simply guesswork should be held back.
But it's all about the grants. Having a fancy theory based on almost no data is a fine thing to publish and make some noise. Afterall, if it's the best that can be done with the information available, then you can get A for effort.
But I consider it more Creative Writing than Science.
more bad science from NASA... not shocked
” Gone are the days of the nerdy black rimmed glasses, white short sleeve dress shirt, and regulation pocket protector. “
If you ever watched the “Universe” series on the History Channel, you couldn’t help but be struck by how many drop-dead-gorgeous astrophysicists there are.....
;)
No need to apologize my friend. I could have been wrong. But somehow I didn’t think so because of all the lies by which we are surrounded every day.
My best wishes to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.