I thought NASA discovering life based on arsenic (link: 2 Dec 2010) fairly interesting. It seemed just one step away from confirming the existence of the acid-blooded monster Sigourney Weaver had to deal to in the "Alien" series of movies.
The astrobiology finding revealed the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using arsenic, suggesting that NASA could start to look for life on planets previously ignored.
NASA scientists found bacteria living in arsenic in a California lake, a discovery that will impact the search for extraterrestrial life forms. The finding, presented by NASA at a press conference today, was preceded by intense media speculation about the possibility that the U.S. agency would announce that it had found life in outer space.
But was it really a genuinely game changing discovery or just dodgy science?
Dr Redfield has come up with an analysis of that startling discovery that I find more convincing.
Here's Dr Rosie Redfield's post here on NASA's alien life forms: Arsenic-associated Bacteria
Here's one of the many NASA related articles: Arsenic and Old Lace
The astrobiology finding revealed the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using arsenic, suggesting that NASA could start to look for life on planets previously ignored.
NASA scientists found bacteria living in arsenic in a California lake, a discovery that will impact the search for extraterrestrial life forms. The finding, presented by NASA at a press conference today, was preceded by intense media speculation about the possibility that the U.S. agency would announce that it had found life in outer space.
But was it really a genuinely game changing discovery or just dodgy science?
Dr Redfield has come up with an analysis of that startling discovery that I find more convincing.
NASA's shameful analysis of the alleged bacteria in the Mars meteorite made me very suspicious of their microbiology, an attitude that's only strengthened by my reading of this paper. Basically, it doesn't present ANY convincing evidence that arsenic has been incorporated into DNA (or any other biological molecule).Mind you, I'm not a scientist, but Dr Redfield most certainly is. It also raises some interesting flaws in the peer review process. Opening up the data to the internet enables informal peer reviews to be triggered and debated, as is the case here. It's a powerful option, and may be far better than cloistered reviews falling into the group-think traps we saw hinted in ClimateGate. Just another reason for open access to information can only help advance science, not hinder it.
Here's Dr Rosie Redfield's post here on NASA's alien life forms: Arsenic-associated Bacteria
Here's one of the many NASA related articles: Arsenic and Old Lace