A10
Politics & The Nation
EZ RE
KLMNO
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2010 Study on arsenic-based life takes a beating on theWeb
Criticism may have implications for vetting of future research
BY MARC KAUFMAN Two weeks after the release of
amajor study about the possibili- ty of arsenic-based life in Califor- nia’s Mono Lake, a torrent of criticism in the blogosphere has turned awidely reported scientif- ic triumph into a scientific foot- ball — with much-discussed im- plications for how research will be evaluatedandpresentedinthe future. After remaining largely silent
to the critiques — which came from respected scientists as well as ill-informed posters — the researchers, their NASA funders and the prestigious journal that published the article responded Thursdaywith promises to better explain the work and answer formal criticism. But in the fast-changingworld
of the Internet, it was also clear that those involved are not really sure how to respond without compromising their scientific methods and values. Speaking at a panel discussion
at a San Francisco science confer- ence, convenedspecifically todis- cuss the arsenic research and the online response, study co-author Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey defended his silence as an integral part of the tried-and-true scientific research process. “I was trained to go to the lab
and conduct my experiments, to send them to journals if they merited that, and to hope that theymade it past peer review,” he said.He can respond to critics, he said,when they present scientific arguments and data. He said that when people
launch online attacks on the work done by him and biochem- ist FelisaWolfe-Simon, he doesn’t really know who is behind them. “I don’t want to get involved in what can end up in a Jerry Springer situation, with people throwing chairs,” he said. Yet not only was Oremland on
the panel Thursday because of the blogging, but the research team also put out a series of answers to questions frequently asked about their work, and promised to respond by next month to more than 20 letters and e-mails sent to the themaga- zine Science questioning their work. The team announced as well that it would make samples of themicrobes available to other scientists for their research. Science spokeswoman Ginger
Pinholster said that the journal hoped to publish the letters and responses inMarch. She said that while other Science papers have brought out challenges and criti- cism, the speed and intensity of the blogosphere response to the arsenic research was unusual, if not unique. Active online discussion of the
paper began even before it was released. Based on a NASA an- nouncement about release of an upcoming study that had impli- cations for astrobiology and “ex- traterrestrial life,” some bloggers were predicting news of life on the moon Titan or elsewhere in the solar system. Instead, the discovery involved
microbes fromMono Lake, Calif., which were grown in a way that replacedmost of the phosphorus in the organism (long held to be essential for life) with the gener- ally toxic element arsenic. Using some of the most sophisticated instruments available, the team then determined the arsenic had replaced phosphorus in the DNA and other key molecules of the bacteria — creating a formof life long thought to be impossible. The NASA news conference
that presented the study includ- ed a skeptic, respected chemist Steven Benner, but that didn’t stop bloggers from accusing NASA of both hyping the story and unquestioningly presenting flawed research. The first major blog attacking theworkwas post- ed by University of British Co- lumbia zoology professor Rosie Redfield. “Basically, it doesn’t present
ANY convincing evidence that arsenic has been incorporated intoDNA (or any other biological molecule),” she wrote. She ac- cused the Wolfe-Simon team of sloppy lab work and not testing whether their results were cor- rect. “Bottom line: I don’t know
whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they’re un- scrupulously pushing NASA’s ‘There’s life in outer space!’ agen- da,” she wrote. In an interview, she said
Thursday that hers is an obscure blog and that she didn’t expect the response she has gotten — with more than 100,000 visitors. She said that response was a sign
of the “anger” in the community. Redfield was soon joined by
dozens of other criticswho, often very harshly, challenged the methods and conclusions in the Science paper. They also ques- tioned the peer reviewers who vetted the research for Science, and some claimed that blogo- sphere review was the peer re- viewof the future—following the lead of online critiques in law, medicine and other academic
pursuits. Redfield disagrees with the notion that peer review should be abandoned, but de- fends the blogosphere outpour- ing as an important tool for researchers. Wolfe-Simon, at 33 a young
researcher to be making such a potentially important discovery, also didn’t reply except to put out a statment that “Our manuscript was thoroughly reviewed and ac- cepted for publication by Sci-
ence; we presented our data and results and drew our conclusions basedonwhatwe showed.Butwe welcome lively debate since we recognize that scholarly dis- coursemoves science forward. ” Linda Billings, a GeorgeWash-
ington University research scien- tist and NASA consultant on me- dia issues, said that based on the mountainof blogs and comments she has collected, one of the central concerns appears to be
NASA’s use of the word “extrater- restrial” in its initial release. “The fact is that NASA is in-
volved in the search for extrater- restrial life, and this research had some possible implications for it,” she said. “But clearly, that word brings out strong emotions, and we have to be careful about that.” Whilemuch of the online com-
mentary has been critical, one anonymous poster on Redfield’s
site saw it differently. “Science isn’t an exact science,
we can’t always know the best way to proceed,” the posterwrote. “Obviously several experts, and the people reviewing for science are indeed experts, felt this paper was worthy — did you consider that fact at all, before you essen- tially denounced these scientists as a step belownincompoops and a step above frauds.”
kaufmanm@washpost.com
EXTRASHOPPINGHOURS! supersaturday
THE SALEYOU ASKEDUSTO BRINGBACK
PREVIEWDAYTODAY! when you use yourMacy’s Card or savings pass!
TAKEANEXTRA uuse
use ths$1O %OR15%
SALE 12.99
★WebID 493923
Reg. 39.99. KitchenTrend 4-qt. stainless steel chafing dish.
SALE 79.99
††
Reg. 159.99. The Sharper Image shiatsu massage cushion.
#MSI-CS270H ethiis $1Osavings pass Friday or Saturday ti 2O%OR 15%OFF
ALL FINE JEWELRY
30%-50% OFF +10% OFF
SELECTIONS Diamonds, rubies, emeralds and more. For example: Reg. $200-$8000. Final cost $90-$5040.
† spass! †Exclusions apply, see pass. sapply,see spassFridayorSaturday‘‘t 1pml1il pm
Savingsoff reg. prices. ††Doesnot include watches, designercollections, Donatella™, fashion jewelry or diamond engagement rings. Extrasavings are takenoff already-reducedsaleprices; "final cost"prices reflectextra savings; does notapply to EverydayValues, superbuys, specialsortrunk shows.
SALE 7.99
Reg. 19.99. Only at Macy’s. Grand Chef 8-qt. aluminum stock pot.
SALE 39.99
SALE 7.99
Reg. 109.99. Pandigital 9" digital photo frame. #P19001DW
Reg. $20. Only at Macy’s. Holiday Lane jewelry, boxed to give.
50% OFF
Sale 2.50-$15. Reg. $5-$30. Only at Macy’s. Gift Shop stockings, stocking stuffers and novelty gifts.
FREEONLINE SHIPPINGon any$99 purchase nowthrough 12/20/10. Visit
macys.com today. Usepromo code: GIFTS. Exclusionsapply.
Free item is at time of purchase; customers may mix or match by mfr; free item must be of equal or lesser value than purchased item; returns must include purchased and free items. REG. & ORIG. PRICES ARE OFFERING PRICES, AND SAVINGSMAY NOT BE BASED ON ACTUAL SALES. SOME ORIG. PRICES NOT IN EFFECT DURING THE PAST 90 DAYS. SUPER SATURDAY PRICES IN EFFECTNOWTHROUGH 12/18/10. MERCHANDISE WILL BE ON SALE AT THESE AND OTHER SALE PRICES NOWTHROUGH 1/8/2011, EXCEPT AT NOTED. *Intermediate price reductions may have been taken. Fine jewelry at select stores; log on to
macys.com for locations. Almost all gemstones have been treated to enhance their beauty and require special care, log on to
macys.com/gemstones or ask your sales professional. Some coats will remain on sale after this event. Advertised merchandise may not be carried at your local Macy’s and selection may vary by store. Prices and merchandise may differ at
macys.com. Electric items shown carry warranties; to see a manufacturer’s warranty at no charge before purchasing, visit a store or write to: Macy’s Warranty Dept., PO Box 1026 Maryland Heights,MO63043, attn Consumer Warranties. 6111195 For store locations & hours, log on to
macys.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112