NASA's arsenic-eating life form gets a second look

Dec 15, 2010 by Kerry Sheridan
A 2007 photo shows a bird at a Lake in Lee Vining, California. Earlier this month, NASA-funded researchers announced they had found a new life form that thrives on arsenic and lives in the depths of a California lake. Soon after the announcement, critics took to the blogosphere with skeptical views and downright insults.

Soon after NASA-funded researchers announced this month they had found a new life form that thrives on arsenic, critics took to the blogosphere with skeptical views and downright insults.

"I don't know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda," wrote Canadian microbiologist Rosie Redfield in a blog that ignited the web furor.

The criticism spread with lightning speed, sparking a wide debate over what exactly is in the alleged arsenic-eater's DNA, but also what role bloggers should play in a field long dominated by peer-reviewed journals.

And resolution may be months or years away, as scientists wait to obtain samples of the same bacteria to try and replicate the findings led by Felisa Wolfe-Simon and published December 2 in the prestigious journal Science.

The journal's editors have "received about 20 technical comments and letters responding to the article," the magazine said in a statement sent to AFP on Tuesday.

"Responses will undergo review, and Wolfe-Simon's team will then be asked to formally address their peers' questions in a future edition of Science," it said.

"It is hoped that the paper-responses and the authors' replies can be published in January 2011."

Wolfe-Simon and have declined to respond directly to media queries asking for a response to the critics, but she did post a statement on her website saying she and colleagues "welcome lively debate."

"My research team and I are aware that our peer-reviewed Science article has generated some technical questions and challenges from within the scientific community," she wrote.

"Our manuscript was thoroughly reviewed and accepted for publication by Science; we presented our data and results and drew our conclusions based on what we showed. But we welcome lively debate since we recognize that scholarly discourse moves science forward."

She added that she and her colleagues were working on a list of "'frequently asked questions' to help promote general understanding of our work."

Asked for further comment on Tuesday, study co-author Paul Davies at the University of Arizona told AFP he'd prefer to wait until the FAQs list is finished.

"It would make sense to hold off until we have a comprehensive picture," Davies said.

After Redfield's blog was swamped with visitors, another blogger also pointed to potential errors, including that the DNA that researchers said was built with actually contained phosphate.

"There's been a lot of hype around the news of GFAJ-1, the microbe claimed to substitute arsenate for phosphate in its DNA," wrote scientist Alex Bradley on blog We Beasties, which is maintained by graduate students studying microbes at Harvard University.

"In particular, one subtle but critical piece of evidence has been overlooked, and it demonstrates that the DNA in question actually has a phosphate -- not an arsenate -- backbone."

Since then, various US media sites, including Wired, Slate, ABC News and the Columbia Journalism Review's blog, The Observatory, have all carried versions of the story.

"The controversy surrounding this organism is quite fascinating," Peter Gilligan, a professor of Microbiology-Immunology at the University of North Carolina told AFP in an email.

"First, the work was published in one of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals, Science. A sharp rebuttal that was peer reviewed by no one appears in a blog written Rosie Redfield," he wrote.

"What I find fascinating as a journal editor and senior scientist is how information can be disseminated so quickly globally and how at least in some quarters it seems, that peer reviewed information and blogging can be given equal weight," he added.

"It remains to be seen who will be proven to be correct."

Gilligan said that in his view, Wolfe-Simon "maintained the high ground in this controversy by offering the organisms she has studied to other investigators via the typical channels."

Blogger Heather Olin, who writes for We Beasties, told AFP she did not "know of anyone currently working on replicating the Wolfe-Simon findings," though she was aware that "many people have requested the strain of bacteria from Wolfe-Simon so that they can begin to do that type of work."

"However, these things tend to move slowly, and it is hard to know when that will happen," she said.

Explore further: Jumping hurdles in the RNA world

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Critics raise doubts on NASA's arsenic bacteria

Dec 09, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA’s announcement last week that bacteria had been discovered that appeared to replace phosphorus with arsenic and thrive even in the most poisonous environments, has now come under ...

Searching for Alien Life, on Earth

Oct 05, 2009

If you spend an afternoon walking along the muddy shore of Mono Lake, with the eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada mountains looming majestically in the background, you’ll no doubt discover, as others have ...

Recommended for you

Jumping hurdles in the RNA world

Nov 21, 2014

Astrobiologists have shown that the formation of RNA from prebiotic reactions may not be as problematic as scientists once thought.

New computer model sets new precedent in drug discovery

Nov 18, 2014

A major challenge faced by the pharmaceutical industry has been how to rationally design and select protein molecules to create effective biologic drug therapies while reducing unintended side effects - a challenge that has ...

Finding new ways to make drugs

Nov 18, 2014

Chemists have developed a revolutionary new way to manufacture natural chemicals and used it to assemble a scarce anti-inflammatory drug with potential to treat cancer and malaria.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jack23
not rated yet Dec 15, 2010
Considering that the particular journal this paper was published in is not available to the public without a fee, it is not surprising that conversations in blogs have dominated over their peer-reviewed information. How are people who are rightly surprised by the apparent conclusions of this research supposed to pay more attention the peer-reviewed paper if they can't read it?
ormondotvos
not rated yet Dec 16, 2010
I'm so happy that all the armchair scientists are enjoying their turn in the spotlight's glare.

The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on...
Patrick_Hadley
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
Get used to it ormondotvos. Thanks to the internet when the spotlight shines on the armchairs of the scientists their dogs bark and the NASA caravan screeches to a halt, turns round and goes back to Science to submit a correction.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.