Advertisement

Arsenic-based Life Challenged Again

An attempt to regrow the infamous GFAJ-1 bacteria, reported to incorporate arsenic into its DNA backbone, has failed.

By | January 24, 2012

image: Arsenic-based Life Challenged Again Mono Lake, California. Flickr, Andreas Naurath

Mono Lake, CaliforniaFLICKR, ANDREAS NAURATH

Not even a year ago, microbiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, then a NASA astrobiology research fellow, and her colleagues published their now-infamous Science paper reporting evidence that bacteria discovered in California’s Mono Lake could replace the phosphorus in its DNA backbone with arsenic.

The study was widely questioned and criticized, and yesterday, a group of scientists declared that they had tried and failed to replicate the results.

“Their most striking claim was that arsenic had been incorporated into the backbone of DNA, and what we can say is that there is no arsenic in the DNA at all,” Rosie Redfield, microbiologist at the University of British Columbia and ringleader of the project,  told Nature.

The debate about the science of these bacteria, dubbed GFAJ-1, has been couched in an entirely separate debate: one about peer review and open science. Redfield was one of the first scientists to publicly doubt Wolfe-Simon’s work, and she has been writing about her research since the original paper came out on her blog RRResearch. And, in stride, the new data were published on the blog and not in an academic journal.

The NASA researchers throughout the process have derided criticism that is not peer-reviewed, and they again told Nature that they “hope to see this work published in a peer-reviewed journal, as this is how science best proceeds.”

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: David A. Sanders

David A. Sanders

Posts: 1457

January 24, 2012

The text of the original Science article misrepresents the data (Supplementary Table 1, for example) as does the authors’ Response to the Technical Comments. The authors have committed misconduct both in the original publication and in their persistence in their pseudoscience after it has been demonstrated incontrovertibly that they provide no evidence for their claims.

Avatar of: Jordan Berg

Jordan Berg

Posts: 3

January 24, 2012

"Ringleader"? Is that her official title?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 24, 2012

The text of the original Science article misrepresents the data (Supplementary Table 1, for example) as does the authors’ Response to the Technical Comments. The authors have committed misconduct both in the original publication and in their persistence in their pseudoscience after it has been demonstrated incontrovertibly that they provide no evidence for their claims.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 24, 2012

"Ringleader"? Is that her official title?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 24, 2012

The text of the original Science article misrepresents the data (Supplementary Table 1, for example) as does the authors’ Response to the Technical Comments. The authors have committed misconduct both in the original publication and in their persistence in their pseudoscience after it has been demonstrated incontrovertibly that they provide no evidence for their claims.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 24, 2012

"Ringleader"? Is that her official title?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 25, 2012

You can't prove a 'negative', after all, so saying their claims are false would be unprovable. If they have committed misconduct they should be brought up on charges before the NIH board or by their institution's scientific review board. Also don't think blogposts are a good place to refute the work of others. Peer review is necessary of BOTH research groups in order to critically evaluate their claims.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

January 25, 2012

You can't prove a 'negative', after all, so saying their claims are false would be unprovable. If they have committed misconduct they should be brought up on charges before the NIH board or by their institution's scientific review board. Also don't think blogposts are a good place to refute the work of others. Peer review is necessary of BOTH research groups in order to critically evaluate their claims.

Avatar of: Lynn

Lynn

Posts: 1457

January 25, 2012

You can't prove a 'negative', after all, so saying their claims are false would be unprovable. If they have committed misconduct they should be brought up on charges before the NIH board or by their institution's scientific review board. Also don't think blogposts are a good place to refute the work of others. Peer review is necessary of BOTH research groups in order to critically evaluate their claims.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement