4 ms·

"Verification of a real phenomenon would be massive and immediate" Incorrect. Something involving alien life, comets, etc? Scientists run the other way. In

by marze 16y ago

"Verification of a real phenomenon would be massive and immediate" Incorrect. Something involving alien life, comets, etc? Scientists run the other way. In a sense, this publication is verification by scientists in the UK of a previous paper by Dr. Louis that described the cells/particles/whatever reproducing at high temperature. If the cells are of extraterrestrial origin and are not DNA-based, this will be the scientific discovery of the century. One would hope that other labs will step forward and attempt to reproduce the work.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
You've misunderstood me. Take any of the phenomenon described, say "organisms that reproduce at 121 degrees" Send samples out, samples are reheated, other independent scientists verify this cause and effect. Sure, the entire set of wild claims would take a heckuva lot of verification. But any one of the claims? Dead simple. Why don't we have independent verification of dead simple things? Probably because there is no verification to be had, sadly.
- marze 16y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the Cardiff group spent six months on the research and three years getting the paper accepted. Agreed, it would have been nice if the Dr. Louis had sent samples to any lab that would take them, but instead he sent them to just one lab. Besides a possible lack of labs volunteering, perhaps he was motivated to retain as much credit for what he felt would be an important discovery. In any case, I still would like to see some other facilities step forward and attempt to verify the work.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Arxiv is not a peer-reviewed journal where papers need to be accepted or not; it's more like HN for scientists, where anyone can present a result for consideration. Without digging into the history in detail, it's worth noting that one of the co-authors on this paper is at the University of Sheffield, and was vocally critical of an earlier paper on the same subject; his co-authorship may be a signal to other labs.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  The paper making these claims was only presented (not published) this week, presumably with the intention of allowing other labs to try reproducing the results. Quite a few places should have samples of the liquid already; this research team has no monopoly on them, and the rainfalls excited a fair amount of scientific curiosity. The analytical methodology presented is not especially complex or exotic, so if their observations are founded in fact then I would expect multiple independent verifications. You seem to think that the normal practice is to get widespread experimental confirmation before publication of any kind. It isn't. The point of scientific publishing is to make a result available for verification or invalidation by people who have no connection with the original experimenter. In peer-reviewed journals the referees serve this purpose, but there is nothing wrong with offering up the result for testing by others, especially since the required equipment is available in just about any biology lab. Your original comment complaining about 'nine years with no verification' suggests you thought the scientists in question had been making these claims since the red rain fell back in 2001. this is not the case either.
carbocation 16y ago
"In a sense, this publication is verification..." I don't think that Dr. Louis gets to verify his own work.
jacquesm 16y ago
> Something involving alien life If you find it on earth there is a bit of problem with right away drawing the conclusion that it is alien in nature. You could say the same thing about any other life on earth, or at least the initial life forms that gave rise to all the others. Just because it 'rained down' doesn't make it alien right away (rain contains tons of bacteria, in fact bacteria play a large role in the formation of rain! http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99093.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99093.php). There exists such a thing as an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile , an organism that lives in conditions not normally associated with life. These are quite fascinating, but still use 'our' DNA, it would not be too farfetched to suggest that an even earlier branch of life, split off before DNA was nailed down managed to live in some forgotten corner of our biosphere. Most - but not all - geneticists agree that before we had the current 4 base DNA there may have been one using only 2 bases, so the evolutionary machinery itself is evolving as well. It could be that if you go another step backwards, that you end up with cell like structures that have no DNA but that can still replicate. Certain clays have this capability, as Richard Dawkins noted in 'the blind watchmaker', and there are other variations on this theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

by marze 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

You've misunderstood me. Take any of the phenomenon described, say "organisms that reproduce at 121 degrees" Send samples out, samples are reheated, other independent scientists verify this cause and effect. Sure, the entire set of wild claims would take a heckuva lot of verification. But any one of the claims? Dead simple. Why don't we have independent verification of dead simple things? Probably because there is no verification to be had, sadly.

marze 16y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the Cardiff group spent six months on the research and three years getting the paper accepted. Agreed, it would have been nice if the Dr. Louis had sent samples to any lab that would take them, but instead he sent them to just one lab. Besides a possible lack of labs volunteering, perhaps he was motivated to retain as much credit for what he felt would be an important discovery. In any case, I still would like to see some other facilities step forward and attempt to verify the work.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Arxiv is not a peer-reviewed journal where papers need to be accepted or not; it's more like HN for scientists, where anyone can present a result for consideration. Without digging into the history in detail, it's worth noting that one of the co-authors on this paper is at the University of Sheffield, and was vocally critical of an earlier paper on the same subject; his co-authorship may be a signal to other labs.
anigbrowl 16y ago
The paper making these claims was only presented (not published) this week, presumably with the intention of allowing other labs to try reproducing the results. Quite a few places should have samples of the liquid already; this research team has no monopoly on them, and the rainfalls excited a fair amount of scientific curiosity. The analytical methodology presented is not especially complex or exotic, so if their observations are founded in fact then I would expect multiple independent verifications. You seem to think that the normal practice is to get widespread experimental confirmation before publication of any kind. It isn't. The point of scientific publishing is to make a result available for verification or invalidation by people who have no connection with the original experimenter. In peer-reviewed journals the referees serve this purpose, but there is nothing wrong with offering up the result for testing by others, especially since the required equipment is available in just about any biology lab. Your original comment complaining about 'nine years with no verification' suggests you thought the scientists in question had been making these claims since the red rain fell back in 2001. this is not the case either.

carbocation 16y ago

"In a sense, this publication is verification..." I don't think that Dr. Louis gets to verify his own work.

jacquesm 16y ago

> Something involving alien life If you find it on earth there is a bit of problem with right away drawing the conclusion that it is alien in nature. You could say the same thing about any other life on earth, or at least the initial life forms that gave rise to all the others. Just because it 'rained down' doesn't make it alien right away (rain contains tons of bacteria, in fact bacteria play a large role in the formation of rain! http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99093.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99093.php). There exists such a thing as an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile , an organism that lives in conditions not normally associated with life. These are quite fascinating, but still use 'our' DNA, it would not be too farfetched to suggest that an even earlier branch of life, split off before DNA was nailed down managed to live in some forgotten corner of our biosphere. Most - but not all - geneticists agree that before we had the current 4 base DNA there may have been one using only 2 bases, so the evolutionary machinery itself is evolving as well. It could be that if you go another step backwards, that you end up with cell like structures that have no DNA but that can still replicate. Certain clays have this capability, as Richard Dawkins noted in 'the blind watchmaker', and there are other variations on this theme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis