Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Prior claims on arsenic-based bacteria may now have been refuted
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Steven L.
Jul 9, 2012, 8:00:41 AM7/9/12
to
Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper
By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
Washington Post
Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
some of its major findings.
The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported
that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic
and very low phosphorus — one of the six elements known to be present in
all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms
now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a
universal rule of biology.
But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not
grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the
original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced
phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically
central parts of the organism.
“Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the
bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,”
the journal concluded in a formal statement.
“The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules
of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had
interpreted her group’s data.”....
[For the rest of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?wprss=rss_national
or
http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
]
--
Steven L.
By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
Washington Post
Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
some of its major findings.
The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported
that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic
and very low phosphorus — one of the six elements known to be present in
all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms
now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a
universal rule of biology.
But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not
grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the
original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced
phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically
central parts of the organism.
“Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the
bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,”
the journal concluded in a formal statement.
“The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules
of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had
interpreted her group’s data.”....
[For the rest of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?wprss=rss_national
or
http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
]
--
Steven L.
John Harshman
Jul 9, 2012, 8:19:28 AM7/9/12
to
Steven L. wrote:
For values of "may" approaching "have".
> Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper
> By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
> Washington Post
>
> Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
> California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
> say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
> some of its major findings.
For values of "some" approaching "all". Except for the bit about their
being unusually arsenic-tolerant.
> The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported
> that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic
> and very low phosphorus — one of the six elements known to be present in
> all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms
> now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a
> universal rule of biology.
>
> But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not
> grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the
> original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced
> phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically
> central parts of the organism.
>
> “Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the
> bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,”
> the journal concluded in a formal statement.
>
> “The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules
> of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had
> interpreted her group’s data.”....
>
>
> [For the rest of the article:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?wprss=rss_national
>
>
> or
>
> http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
I went to Rosy Redfield's talk at the Evolution meeting in Ottawa
yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
was fine.
For values of "may" approaching "have".
> Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper
> By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
> Washington Post
>
> Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
> California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
> say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
> some of its major findings.
being unusually arsenic-tolerant.
> The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported
> that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic
> and very low phosphorus — one of the six elements known to be present in
> all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms
> now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a
> universal rule of biology.
>
> But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not
> grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the
> original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced
> phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically
> central parts of the organism.
>
> “Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the
> bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,”
> the journal concluded in a formal statement.
>
> “The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules
> of life, contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had
> interpreted her group’s data.”....
>
>
> [For the rest of the article:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html?wprss=rss_national
>
>
> or
>
> http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
was fine.
pnyikos
Jul 9, 2012, 1:48:19 PM7/9/12
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
On Jul 9, 8:19 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Steven L. wrote:
>
> For values of "may" approaching "have".
>
> > Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper
> > By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
> > Washington Post
>
> > Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
> > California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
> > say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
> > some of its major findings.
>
> For values of "some" approaching "all". Except for the bit about their
> being unusually arsenic-tolerant.
It's good of you to call a spade a spade in this way.
> Steven L. wrote:
>
> For values of "may" approaching "have".
>
> > Journal retreats from controversial arsenic paper
> > By Marc Kaufman, Published: July 8
> > Washington Post
>
> > Two new studies of controversial research on a bacterium found in
> > California’s arsenic-rich Mono Lake led the journal Science on Sunday to
> > say that the 2010 paper it published on the microbe was incorrect in
> > some of its major findings.
>
> For values of "some" approaching "all". Except for the bit about their
> being unusually arsenic-tolerant.
> > The original research, which also had been highlighted by NASA, reported
> > that the bacterium could live in an environment with very high arsenic
> > and very low phosphorus — one of the six elements known to be present in
> > all living things. It consequently raised the possibility of life forms
> > now or previously on Earth that break what had been accepted as a
> > universal rule of biology.
> > But two new studies of the bacterium, GFAJ-1, reported that it could not
> > grow without the presence of phosphorus. The papers also challenged the
> > original finding that small amounts of arsenic compounds had replaced
> > phosphorus compounds in some DNA, membranes and other biologically
> > central parts of the organism.
>
> > “Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the
> > bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,”
> > the journal concluded in a formal statement.
>
> > “The new research shows that GFAJ-1 does not break the long-held rules
> > of life,
be?
> > contrary to how [lead author Felisa] Wolfe-Simon had
> > interpreted her group’s data.”....
>
> > [For the rest of the article:
>
>
> > or
>
> >http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
>
> I went to Rosy Redfield's talk at the Evolution meeting in Ottawa
> yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
> researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
> reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
> was fine.
This reminds me of a quote from one of Arthur Conan Doyle's short
> > or
>
> >http://is.gd/Dm1U2E
>
> I went to Rosy Redfield's talk at the Evolution meeting in Ottawa
> yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
> researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
> reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
> was fine.
stories, where Sherlock Holmes says,
"Apart from [long list of amazing "observations"] I can
deduce nothing."
Anyway, thanks for bursting the balloon at the end of the following
paragraph from the article:
“A very flawed paper was published and received an inordinate amount
of publicity,” she wrote in an e-mail. “But other researchers
responded very quickly. . . . Now refutations of the work by two
independent research groups are appearing in the same high-profile
journal, and the refutations are being well publicized. This is how
science is supposed to work.”
"she" was Rosemary Redfield of the University of British Columbia.
"She was one of the first and most vocal critics of the original Wolfe-
Simon paper"-- in this way, _The Washington Post_ tried to justify
that balloon that you burst.
What we have, instead of "how science is supposed to work" is a strong
hint that the whole peer review process in science is deeply flawed.
We mathematicians have always had the advantage of being able to
"duplicate almost all experiment-analogues" free of charge, by going
over what the author[s] of the submitted article purport to be proofs.
It is very rare to be able to duplicate experiments without incurring
big unexpected charges, so perhaps _Science_ was justified -- by
custom if not by common sense -- in publishing the paper without this
kind of verification.
On the other hand, the _Science_ editors should have been mindful of
the adage, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and
in the future, this kind of thing should be published at first as a
"Research announcement," as in PNAS articles, and actual publication
of the details should only be done when the research has been
corroborated.
Sidelight: PNAS labels research announcements "advertisements" because
they have NOT been subjected to this kind of scrutiny.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
John Harshman
Jul 9, 2012, 10:01:32 PM7/9/12
to
except for all the others. The peer review of this paper wasn't how
science is supposed to work. But the quick response by other scientists
is how it's supposed to work, and that's what she was talking about.
> We mathematicians have always had the advantage of being able to
> "duplicate almost all experiment-analogues" free of charge, by going
> over what the author[s] of the submitted article purport to be proofs.
>
> It is very rare to be able to duplicate experiments without incurring
> big unexpected charges, so perhaps _Science_ was justified -- by
> custom if not by common sense -- in publishing the paper without this
> kind of verification.
duplicate the paper's result as part of the review. How could you
imagine such a thing?
> On the other hand, the _Science_ editors should have been mindful of
> the adage, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and
> in the future, this kind of thing should be published at first as a
> "Research announcement," as in PNAS articles, and actual publication
> of the details should only be done when the research has been
> corroborated.
have been told that the reported results weren't merely extraordinary
but impossible.
Paul Ciszek
Jul 10, 2012, 1:29:15 AM7/10/12
to
It seemed that the entire blogosphere was pointing out the weaknesses
in this work from the get-go.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
in this work from the get-go.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Walter Bushell
Jul 12, 2012, 4:31:08 PM7/12/12
to
In article <M9idnZdEluD...@giganews.com>,
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I went to Rosy Redfield's talk at the Evolution meeting in Ottawa
> yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
> researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
> reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
> was fine.
"Aside from that Widow Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
> I went to Rosy Redfield's talk at the Evolution meeting in Ottawa
> yesterday. There's been gross negligence on the part of the primary
> researcher, her supervisor, her coauthors, the (still anonymous)
> reviewers, the editors of Science, and NASA. Aside from that, everything
> was fine.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
0 new messages