This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astrobiology

NASA's Big Arsenic-Based Life Claim Was Wrong (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 3, 2012
Filed under , ,

‘Arsenic-life’ bacterium prefers phosphorous after all, Nature
“Tawfik says that he was shocked by how good the proteins were at discriminating between the essential phosphate and the deadly arsenate. This does not mean that arsenate does not get into the bacteria, he points out. “It just shows that this bacterium has evolved to extract phosphate under almost all circumstances.” The exceedingly high preference for phosphorous found in the key proteins in that species represent “just the last nail in the coffin” of the hypothesis that GFAJ-1 uses arsenic in its DNA, says Tawfik.”
The molecular basis of phosphate discrimination in arsenate-rich environments, Nature
NASA’s Big Arsenic-Based Life Claim Was Wrong, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

8 responses to “NASA's Big Arsenic-Based Life Claim Was Wrong (Update)”

  1. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    If the scientists think laterally they may be able to develop a method of purifying water by filtering the arsenic out.  Methods of refining arsenic and/or phosphorus may also be useful.

  2. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Alarm bells went off for me during the press conference. I was actually cringing from what I saw. I’ve spent three decades around a university (even though I’ve never even audited a coarse there) and I know the kind of personality I saw in the lead investigator. I’ve seen it often enough. Arrogant and misguided are the kindest things I can say.  When publication becomes more important than good research, it’s bad for science. The worst of it is, folks like that stay in academia and research, creating havoc on whatever project they’re involved in. Real research is where you approach a problem to see if it can be solved, not look for a nice hole in the literature and do everything you can to fill it. A harsh call, but I’ve seen too much collateral damage, grad students and post docs lead or lorded down the wrong path, grant money fights where the most charismatic one wins. Academia can be brutal!

    That she somehow got attached to NASA is a fine example of a ladder climber, not a problem solver.

    If the premise of the whole project had been to prove that arsenic life couldn’t exist, it would have been valid research and good science with a useful lesson. Looked at that way, would it have been worth a paper in a major publication? Hmm…

    tinker  

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I dunno, Tinker,  this just seems a little mean-spirited to me? Could anyone, from watching TV, distinguish ‘arrogance’ from just plain nervousness, especially in someone never met personally?

      I’ll agree that academics in general can be a bit arrogant but on the other hand they are smart. 

      Stephen King: “A little arrogance (or even a lot) isn’t such a bad thing, although your mother undoubtedly told you different. Mine did. “Pride goeth before a fall, Stephen”, she said… and then I found out – right around the age that is 19 x 2 – that eventually you fall down, anyway.” 

      In other words, nobody is right all the time. Some of us learn early. I didn’t.

  3. Geoffrey Landis says:
    0
    0

    Right.
    I’m quite a bit bemused by glee with which people are shouting “NASA was wrong!”
    This is the way science is done, everybody: you put it out in the world and see if other scientists can shoot holes in it.  The only way to never be wrong is to never be daring enough to discover anything.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Where is the “glee”?  As a biologist I am rather disappointed that this was not true and hoped that corroborative evidence would be found. I am annoyed that NASA PAO did not do due diligence on this before over hyping its announcement – and then avoiding commenting when doubts emerged.  This makes it harder for other teams who have done their homework to get things released.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Not from you, Keith; your comments have always been directed to PAO.

        But, oh, yes, there’s glee in the air, and why not? Anti-science is all the rage these days from so many quarters. Many will use this finding to support the thesis that “Science? just wait a minute! You’ll get a different conclusion!”, justifying the anti-science attitude while not realizing what has just happened here is science at its finest.

        And freedman is exactly right. Science marches on, and I hope that this young talented scientist will take this setback in the same spirit. Memo to her bosses: give her another chance.

      • bdunbar_nasa says:
        0
        0

        “Due diligence” from PAO on a biology paper? I’ve worked with Dwayne Brown, the lead PAO on the story, for more than 20 years. No one works harder at getting the agency’s news out. But he’s not a biologist.

        He was presented with a paper that was obviously newsworthy. The paper had been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by Science. The press release went through the usual review by the science team and the Science Mission Directorate, who signed off on it. 
        The findings were presented at a news conference by the science team, not by Dwayne. Where was the due diligence missed? Was he supposed to conduct his own alternative peer review?

        Brian Dunbar
        NASA Office of Communications

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          This whole episode points to a chronic lack of expertise on the part of NASA PAO when it comes to understanding science much less coordinating its release to the public. Just because a civil servant is in the same position for 20 years doesn’t mean that they have the expertise required to do the job today.