View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

Science Criticism at Work- Arsenic Life

Discuss Science, Alternative Science and Suppressed Research.

Science Criticism at Work- Arsenic Life

Postby really? » 06 Jan 2011, 23:16

This is a topic for those that believe that the imagined powers that be keep the status quo status quo.
Science is self-correcting: Lessons from the arsenic controversy
Recent attention to NASA’s announcement of ‘arsenic-based life’ Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser! Articles NASA Astrobiology has provided a very public window into how science and scientists operate. Debate surrounds the announcement of any controversial scientific finding. In the case of arseno-DNA, the discussion that is playing out on the blogs Of arsenic and aliens: What the critics said | The Loom | Discover Magazine is very similar to the process that usually plays out in conferences and seminars. This discussion is a core process by which science works.

The arseno-DNA episode has displayed this process in full public view. If anything, this incident has demonstrated the credibility of scientists, and should promote public confidence in the scientific establishment. #

The story begins with a long-standing scientific consensus backed by an enormous amount of data: DNA is made with a phosphate backbone. Alternative backbones, such as arsenate, have long been considered unlikely for theoretical reasons Why nature chose phosphates | Science/AAAS. #

Nonetheless, despite this consensus, reputable scientists have promoted the study of alternatives challenging the prevailing view. And NASA has willingly funded these studies The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. #

Lesson one: Major funding agencies willingly back studies challenging scientific consensus. #

The research team, Dr. Felisa Wolfe-Simon Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues, behind this study collected data and concluded that they had sufficient evidence to demonstrate incorporation of arsenate into bacterial DNA. Although the data were preliminary in nature, Science A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus | Science/AAAS accepted the manuscript (pdf) . With a high profile, potentially groundbreaking paper about to be published, NASA announced a press conference to publicize the findings. #

Lesson two: Most everyone would be thrilled to overturn the consensus. Doing so successfully can be a career-making result. Journals such as Science and Nature are more than willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary – and funding agencies are willing to promote these results. #

Within days of the arsenic paper’s publication, strong criticism of the study began to appear on scientific blogs. These blogs attracted the attention of the mainstream scientific press. Soon thereafter, media reported the wide skepticism within the scientific community – with some scientists going so far as to say that the paper should not have been published The NASA study of arsenic-based life was fatally flawed, say scientists. - By Carl Zimmer - Slate Magazine. #

These scientific criticisms opened the door to those wishing to discredit science and the peer-review process, with the contrarian blogs suggesting that this study demonstrates that peer-review is “broken”. A comment on Watts’ blog summarizes their thinking: #

It’s amazing how fast the scientific community came out to attack NASA for what they claim is plainly flawed science. Then again, NASA isn’t funding any of the attackers. #

In the Climategate mess however, we still have heard very little from an awful lot of so-called scientists who should have been saying a lot more about flawed science but are too afraid to lose their grant money. #

This raises an interesting question: just who is critiquing the NASA study? It turns out that many of the critics are also NASA-funded. In fact, many prominent critics of this study are funded by the NASA Astrobiology Institute – the very same program that funded the arsenic study. #

Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Science Criticism at Work- Arsenic Life

Postby Paradox » 14 Feb 2011, 05:20

I'm not sure how to answer your question about the critics. Science has always been divided into the mainstream and fringe portions. Just look at the Big Bang Theory. Then you have Eric Lerner and his critique 'The Big Bang Never Happened' in trying to push more support for his Plasma Current Theory of the universe. There are even secular arguments against humans evolving from lower life forms. There are even secular agruments (without religion or Spiritualism) for the existence of the paranormal. I do suspect that many scientists could lose their funding, credibility and support if flaws were found in their theories or research. Not all critics of a mainstream scientific position are motivated by religious propaganda.

I havn't fully researched the issue you brought up here but I will try to read more about this and get back to you on this one when my time permits.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
User avatar
Posts: 66
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 05:03
Location: Pennsylvania

Return to Science / Alternative Science / Suppressed Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests