7 ms·

Arsenic-microbe gets toxic response from scientific community

34 points by roadnottaken 16y ago

hartror 16y ago
Some better (IMO) write ups on the scientific controversy: * http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/ http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/ * http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/07/and-the-skeptics-keep-chiming-in-george-cody-on-arsenic-life/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/07/and-the-sk... Also the original discussions on the news: * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1962846 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1962846 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1963990 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1963990
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I know it is just your opinion but I find the nature piece to be easily on par with the 'slate' coverage (and of course that's just my opinion ;) ). Nature typically does not go for spectacle, and the fact that they highlight the total lack of response to criticism from Wolfe et. al is quite telling. If you pick a forum to present your claim you should be willing to defend your claim in that forum. As far as I can see this will soon be a scientific career ruined not so much by doing bad science but by crawling under a rock to avoid the fall-out, it is my guess that if they could produce the evidence from mass spectrography after isolating the dna that they would have done so by now. That would conclusively put to rest a lot of the criticism.
  - hartror 16y ago
    Could be my preference in writing style or familiarity with the author or both.
  - bhickey 16y ago
    I disagree with your assessment. There's no evidence of malfeasance, just poor judgment with regards to publicity and possibly some oversights in the lab. It wouldn't be reasonable to deeply fault the authors on a technical basis -- it's the job of peer review to catch mistakes before unfounded or embarrassing claims are made. I've seen disputes over conclusions unfold in two ways: 1. The party disputing the finding contacts the corresponding author with specific objections and suggests followup work that would meet those objections. If the objections appear substantive, the author('s lab) may then attempt to validate the finding. In the case I observed, the lab had fallen victim to a technical artifact. My PI suggested an approach for remedying the error. At the end of the process, he ended up co-authoring a retraction with the author. 2. Someone with specific objections writes to the publication. Generally the publication will give the author an opportunity to produce a rebuttal piece. This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match.
    - bbgm 16y ago
      Why should post-publication peer review be limited to working through Science. That will happen in due course (e.g. Rosie Redfield has already written a letter), but it is perfectly fine for scientists to dispute the paper via their blogs, etc. We live in an era where you do have to be ready for post-publication peer review, especially if you make far reaching claims and choose to do them in a very public manner
      - bhickey 16y ago
        I never claimed that it should be. I was just pointing out those cases that I am familiar with. What they did (press-conferences, etc.) was in poor form.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match. I think that is a direct consequence of how the initial findings were presented, it suggests that the peer review process was fast tracked in order to present these results as fast as possible and with as much fanfare as possible instead of going the slow and cautious route. I may be wrong about that but it certainly seems strange to read about this wide and far in the mainstream press before the results have been thoroughly vetted. It smacks of cold fusion all over again.
      - bhickey 16y ago
        Oh! I'm sorry for causing confusion. "This" referred to the example I was giving, rather than the situation at hand. I think that the NASA team is getting every bit they deserve. The only claim I dispute is the bit about their careers being ruined.
    - Gatsky 16y ago
      3. Someone publishes research, holds a self-congratulatory press conference, ignores criticism. Eventually evidence is refuted and the scientist disgraced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ for an example.
  - Estragon 16y ago
    Nature typically does not go for spectacle Bwahaha, what led you to believe that? Check out "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees" some time.
amichail 16y ago
A bit off topic, but does anyone hate the way the public is being brainwashed into thinking that science is more important than creative endeavors? Why is nature more interesting than the human imagination? And why would someone become a scientist, essentially playing a lottery that they will discover something huge even though such discoveries are extremely rare?
- Devilboy 16y ago
  I don't see how you can come to that conclusion at all. What makes you say that? I see creative achievements in the news much more often than I do science stuff. As for your anti-science sentiment, I'm not going to comment on that. People become scientists because they love science, they love learning about the world and they love the intellectual challenge. They don't do it to win a Nobel Prize or whatever. Science is it's own reward.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think the parallels between scientific discovery and creative endeavors are bigger than the differences. Both revolve around individuals that would rather do than talk, and both have a long tradition of passing on their knowledge to the next generation. If you think science is a lottery then I think you are taking the word 'discovery' a bit too literally, think of it as having a hunch and then trying to find out if that hunch is correct or not. A nice way to see the progression of arts through to science and back again is this chain: cave paintings -> oil paintings -> photograpy -> photography as art. At ever 'stage change' science was the midwife that gave artists new tools.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    I always like to think of a scientist 'discovering' something like a coal miner finding a vein. They didn't just stick a pick in the ground and start digging anywhere. First they saw an odd concentration of coal fragments on top of the soil, they routed through the top soil and found even more. When they dug deeper they found bigger fragments so they staked a claim. They got some buddies together and dug a test shaft and found a vein of coal. It wasn't a lottery, someone was actually out looking for coal, found coal on the dirt and started to dig a little deeper until they found a vein.
dannyb 16y ago
As others have commented here, I find it very telling that maximum publicity was sought when the article was first published, but the lead author seems to dislike the scrutiny brought about by these claims. Due diligence was not done and this paper is not up to Science's usual standards. The shame of it is that this will wind up being another black eye for NASA.

34 points by roadnottaken 16y ago

Some better (IMO) write ups on the scientific controversy: * http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/ http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/ * http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/07/and-the-skeptics-keep-chiming-in-george-cody-on-arsenic-life/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/07/and-the-sk... Also the original discussions on the news: * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1962846 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1962846 * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1963990 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1963990

jacquesm 16y ago
I know it is just your opinion but I find the nature piece to be easily on par with the 'slate' coverage (and of course that's just my opinion ;) ). Nature typically does not go for spectacle, and the fact that they highlight the total lack of response to criticism from Wolfe et. al is quite telling. If you pick a forum to present your claim you should be willing to defend your claim in that forum. As far as I can see this will soon be a scientific career ruined not so much by doing bad science but by crawling under a rock to avoid the fall-out, it is my guess that if they could produce the evidence from mass spectrography after isolating the dna that they would have done so by now. That would conclusively put to rest a lot of the criticism.
- hartror 16y ago
  Could be my preference in writing style or familiarity with the author or both.
- bhickey 16y ago
  I disagree with your assessment. There's no evidence of malfeasance, just poor judgment with regards to publicity and possibly some oversights in the lab. It wouldn't be reasonable to deeply fault the authors on a technical basis -- it's the job of peer review to catch mistakes before unfounded or embarrassing claims are made. I've seen disputes over conclusions unfold in two ways: 1. The party disputing the finding contacts the corresponding author with specific objections and suggests followup work that would meet those objections. If the objections appear substantive, the author('s lab) may then attempt to validate the finding. In the case I observed, the lab had fallen victim to a technical artifact. My PI suggested an approach for remedying the error. At the end of the process, he ended up co-authoring a retraction with the author. 2. Someone with specific objections writes to the publication. Generally the publication will give the author an opportunity to produce a rebuttal piece. This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match.
  - bbgm 16y ago
    Why should post-publication peer review be limited to working through Science. That will happen in due course (e.g. Rosie Redfield has already written a letter), but it is perfectly fine for scientists to dispute the paper via their blogs, etc. We live in an era where you do have to be ready for post-publication peer review, especially if you make far reaching claims and choose to do them in a very public manner
    - bhickey 16y ago
      I never claimed that it should be. I was just pointing out those cases that I am familiar with. What they did (press-conferences, etc.) was in poor form.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match. I think that is a direct consequence of how the initial findings were presented, it suggests that the peer review process was fast tracked in order to present these results as fast as possible and with as much fanfare as possible instead of going the slow and cautious route. I may be wrong about that but it certainly seems strange to read about this wide and far in the mainstream press before the results have been thoroughly vetted. It smacks of cold fusion all over again.
    - bhickey 16y ago
      Oh! I'm sorry for causing confusion. "This" referred to the example I was giving, rather than the situation at hand. I think that the NASA team is getting every bit they deserve. The only claim I dispute is the bit about their careers being ruined.
  - Gatsky 16y ago
    3. Someone publishes research, holds a self-congratulatory press conference, ignores criticism. Eventually evidence is refuted and the scientist disgraced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ for an example.
- Estragon 16y ago
  Nature typically does not go for spectacle Bwahaha, what led you to believe that? Check out "Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees" some time.

amichail 16y ago

A bit off topic, but does anyone hate the way the public is being brainwashed into thinking that science is more important than creative endeavors? Why is nature more interesting than the human imagination? And why would someone become a scientist, essentially playing a lottery that they will discover something huge even though such discoveries are extremely rare?

Devilboy 16y ago
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion at all. What makes you say that? I see creative achievements in the news much more often than I do science stuff. As for your anti-science sentiment, I'm not going to comment on that. People become scientists because they love science, they love learning about the world and they love the intellectual challenge. They don't do it to win a Nobel Prize or whatever. Science is it's own reward.
jacquesm 16y ago
I think the parallels between scientific discovery and creative endeavors are bigger than the differences. Both revolve around individuals that would rather do than talk, and both have a long tradition of passing on their knowledge to the next generation. If you think science is a lottery then I think you are taking the word 'discovery' a bit too literally, think of it as having a hunch and then trying to find out if that hunch is correct or not. A nice way to see the progression of arts through to science and back again is this chain: cave paintings -> oil paintings -> photograpy -> photography as art. At ever 'stage change' science was the midwife that gave artists new tools.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  I always like to think of a scientist 'discovering' something like a coal miner finding a vein. They didn't just stick a pick in the ground and start digging anywhere. First they saw an odd concentration of coal fragments on top of the soil, they routed through the top soil and found even more. When they dug deeper they found bigger fragments so they staked a claim. They got some buddies together and dug a test shaft and found a vein of coal. It wasn't a lottery, someone was actually out looking for coal, found coal on the dirt and started to dig a little deeper until they found a vein.

dannyb 16y ago

As others have commented here, I find it very telling that maximum publicity was sought when the article was first published, but the lead author seems to dislike the scrutiny brought about by these claims. Due diligence was not done and this paper is not up to Science's usual standards. The shame of it is that this will wind up being another black eye for NASA.