"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
Hat tip: jashapiro (@jashapiro)
Hat tip: jashapiro (@jashapiro)
Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues will give other scientists samples of the bacterium that is claimed to have these extraordinary properties and those scientists will have a chance to verify Wolfe-Simon's claims. If Wolfe-Simon's claims turn out to be right, textbooks will be rewritten, and all of us will have to think differently about the chemistry of life. If her claims turn out to be wrong, only a few specialists will remember that the paper was ever published.Now those samples are in the hands of Wolfe-Simon's critics. Experiments, data, and analysis will now vindicate either Wolfe-Simon or her critics
Compare that lengthy, tortuous process of debate and review among experts to the "debate" that intelligent design creationists want to have in high school textbooks. Which process do you think is most likely to help kids understand their world?


Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Basically, [the paper] doesn't present ANY convincing evidence that arsenic has been incorporated into DNA (or any other biological molecule)There was such an uproar that the paper, which was published online in Science Express, has yet to appear in print. Links to a lot of information about the paper and critiques of it appeared on Twitter with the hashtag #arseniclife.
For those of us who have been tracking #arseniclife since last Thanksgiving, however, today comes as an anticlimax. There's not much in the letters to Science that we haven't read before. In the past, scientists might have kept their thoughts to themselves, waiting for journals to decide when and how they could debate the merits of a study. But this time, they started talking right away, airing their criticisms on the Internet. In fact, the true significance of the aliens-that-weren't will be how it helped change the way scientists do science. (emphasis added)

Compare that lengthy, tortuous process of debate and review among experts to the "debate" that intelligent design creationists want to have in high school textbooks. Which process do you think is most likely to help kids understand their world?Much the same could be said about climate science. In fact, the folks at RealClimate have a post showing how the debate about arsenic-based life demonstrates three things:
This is the key lesson to take from this incident, and it applies to all scientific disciplines: peer-review continues after publication. Challenges to consensus are seriously entertained - and are accepted when supported by rigorous data. Poorly substantiated studies may inspire further study, but will be scientifically criticized without concern for funding opportunities. Scientists are not "afraid to lose their grant money".But you should go read the whole thing.


Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Formal peer review does give criticized authors time to think critically and carefully, and it is a good way to filter out rubbish. But in this case, much of the criticism was already coming from the researchers' peers. And it should be remembered that peer review as conducted by journals is itself full of differing opinions, and is not the only way to crystallize truth from such disputes. In this instance, a prompt and explicitly provisional response from the authors would have been a better approach, particularly given the way they encouraged the original attention.Blogging is no substitute for peer review. But peer review doesn't stop when a paper is published. If they're any good, papers are argued about in graduate seminars, in hallways, and at conferences. None of those discussions are peer reviewed, though they may lead to experiments or observations that are peer reviewed. By holding a press conference to announce a new finding, scientists invite a broader audience to hear what they have to say. They also invite a broader audience to hear what their critics have to say.
...
In the end, the scientific truth will prevail, as it usually does. In the meantime, researchers must accept some harsh truths about the speed and spread of digital criticism.

substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. Our data show evidence for arsenate in macromolecules that normally contain phosphate, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. (from Wolfe-Simon et al.; reference below; click through at the bottom)
"This is a very impressive and exciting discovery," says Barry Rosen, a biochemist at Florida International University in Miami. "The implication of this work is that life can be quite different from what we know," agrees [Clara] Chan, [a geomicrobiologist at the University of Delaware.To understand which the discovery would be so impressive, if it turns out to be right, just remember that the backbone of DNA is composed of bonds between phosphorous atoms. The claim that Wolfe-Simon and her collaborators make is that phosphorous can be replaced with arsenic in DNA. In fact, if that claim turns out to be right, it won't be merely "impressive" or "exciting". It will be truly astounding.

filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over, by 26 July, all available documents, computer code and data relating to [Michael] Mann's research on ... five [federal and state] grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails -- from 1999 to the present -- between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics.His motivation? He claims that Mann may have violated the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, an act used to prosecute those who defraud the Commonwealth of Virginia by "[k]nowingly mak[ing], us[ing], or caus[ing] to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Commonwealth" (source).
Cuccinelli's actions against Mann hark back to an era when tobacco companies smeared researchers as part of a sophisticated public relations strategy to raise doubts over the science showing that tobacco caused cancer, and delayed the introduction of smoking curbs for decades. Researchers found themselves bogged down in responding to subpoenas and legal challenges, which deterred others from the field. Climate-change deniers have adopted similar strategies with alacrity and, unfortunately, considerable success.Certainly data on global climate should be made widely accessible, and much of it already is. I pointed out last November that the folks at RealClimate.org have compiled a list of publicly accessible data sets that everyone, including the attorney general of Virginia, is welcome to examine to their hearts content.
Scientific organizations must respond quickly and forcefully any time political machinations threaten to undercut academic freedom. And, rather than complying, the University of Virginia should explore every avenue to challenge the subpoena.
The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.