Apparently the science behind the discovery wasn't so good. Interesting.
As for now, I say "Bad, NASA! Bad! Go sit in the naughty spot and think about what you did wrong!"
Well... lets hope they try again and do better this time.
Still, I'm certain there will be attempts to reproduce the experiment. We'll see how it pans out.
Still, I'm certain there will be attempts to reproduce the experiment.
Of course. The scientific method requires it.
Edit: That is assuming that the opinions of the scientists in this article are accurate.
I think the important question is if it was just shotty science or a stupid attempt to garner publicity. Either way, people probably deserve to lose their jobs.
Edit: That is assuming that the opinions of the scientists in this article are accurate.
I don't think it should be that harsh.
I don't think it should be that harsh.
Eh, I'm a pretty harsh person.
But its either really bad science which brought lots of embarassment to NASA and questions their scientific integrity OR its a delibrate attempt to garner attention by sending out false findings. Either way, people majorly screwed up and hurt NASA's name.
But its not like I have anything invested in it =P
I think the important question is if it was just shotty science or a stupid attempt to garner publicity. Either way, people probably deserve to lose their jobs.
Edit: That is assuming that the opinions of the scientists in this article are accurate.
I could see them getting fired if it was a willful misrepresentation of the data. If it was ignorance or a methodological mistake that they were not aware of (I think the article mentions that experts in biological sciences weren't consulted), they should be reprimanded. More than likely, they will be losing funding for future research. The loss of funding will probably result in a few people losing their jobs.
I don't think it should be that harsh.
Bad science can be very dangerous.
A scumbag named Andrew Wakefield (formerly Doctor Andrew Wakefield) falsified the results of a study about vaccinations causing autism in order to manufacture supporting evidence for a lawsuit. Some people believed vaccinations caused autism and were suing the manufacturer of the vaccine in question despite there being no scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claim. In lieu of dropping the case, their lawyers paid Wakefield to invent the evidence they required. The results of the falsified study were published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal and quickly spread worldwide, creating the while "vaccinations cause autism" mania.
Even though The Lancet retracted the article and Wakefiled was charged and stripped of his license, many very, very stupid people continue to believe the lies he fabricated and refuse to vaccinate their children, which is a recipe for the resurgence of a number of truly terrible diseases which were previously close to eradication.
I don't think it should be that harsh.
Bad science can be very dangerous.
A scumbag named Andrew Wakefield (formerly Doctor Andrew Wakefield) falsified the results of a study about vaccinations causing autism in order to manufacture supporting evidence for a lawsuit. Some people believed vaccinations caused autism and were suing the manufacturer of the vaccine in question despite there being no scientific evidence whatsoever to support their claim. In lieu of dropping the case, their lawyers paid Wakefield to invent the evidence they required. The results of the falsified study were published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal and quickly spread worldwide, creating the while "vaccinations cause autism" mania.
Even though The Lancet retracted the article and Wakefiled was charged and stripped of his license, many very, very stupid people continue to believe the lies he fabricated and refuse to vaccinate their children, which is a recipe for the resurgence of a number of truly terrible diseases which were previously close to eradication.
right, but this is simply neglect of procedure, they're not purposely falsifying results because that would get them in deep
Good thing the Lancet finally retracted it. Too bad it took so long to do so.
right, but this is simply neglect of procedure, they're not purposely falsifying results because that would get them in deep
Oh I know. I doubt the NASA folks falsified anything, and their results may bear up under further review of the data and study, I was just addressing the idea that bad science is not something that cannot merit severe punishment.
Sadly, to this day, there are still people out there who believe in the Wakefield findings. I think Jenny McCarthy was one of the celebrities who touted Wakefield's study as proof that vaccines caused autism.
Good thing the Lancet finally retracted it. Too bad it took so long to do so.
Yeah. I've never understood why stupid people are so willing, even anxious, to embrace lies but so unwilling to accept the truth.
right, but this is simply neglect of procedure, they're not purposely falsifying results because that would get them in deep
Oh I know. I doubt the NASA folks falsified anything, and their results may bear up under further review of the data and study, I was just addressing the idea that bad science is not something that cannot merit severe punishment.
Okay, I understand
[link]
Apparently the science behind the discovery wasn't so good. Interesting.
Actually, it was the same thing that happens every time science and media hype meet. The media blows the discovery out of proportion and runs wild with it, making claims that the scientists weren't. And when that turns out to be the case, the media blames the **** up on the scientists, and five to ten years later, some **** crea-tard (ie. Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Carl Baugh, etc.) warps the media hype, and blames THAT on the scientists, as if that was actually a point against it, but unlike the media, they make it sound like it was some plucky creationist who caught the mistake, and not other scientists.
And typically, when the media reports on mistakes in science, no matter how slight, they make it sound equally catastrophic as when they originally blew it out of proportion. So, while the discovery is cool, its not as significant or let alone as earth shattering as the media hyped it up to be. And while the scientists made mistakes, it wasn't as bad as the media is making it sound now. That's just how pop-science reporting goes. Popular news sites often don't have science advisors, and often popular science news sources blow discoveries out of proportion, and can sometimes report on things incorrectly. They aren't held to the same standards as peer review journals, and aren't beholden to retract anything if it turns out to be wrong. Magazines like Discover and popular news sources are out to make money first, and educate second. They're looking for views, ratings, to sell magazines, newspapers, and the occassional book. Unless you actually read it out of a peer review journal for yourself, and have the skills to read scientific literature from a peer reviewed source, take what the media says about science with a grain of salt.
The reality about the discovery was that the bacteria was still using phosphorous in its biochemistry (your DNA is held together by a sugar-phosphate backbone, as are your RNA and a number of other biochemicals, such as Adenosine Triphosphate), and only used some arsenic in the place of some of its phosphate. The bacteria were bloated, due to the swollen vacuoles (typically a sign of some kind of toxin). Arsenic also messes up your biochemistry, sometimes stopping it altogether (imagine a biochemical wrench in the spokes). The bacteria, as a result, while they were able to live and reproduce, were only able to do so once every 2 to 10 days, when typically they can reproduce once every 20 minutes. On top of that, there was typically 26 times more phosphorous in the bacteria than arsenic.
Also, chemical substitution in biochemical pathways isn't as uncommon as the media made it sound. Scientists believe that the Glycolytic pathway evolved in such a way, starting with the electron transport chain, then evolving various steps of the Kreb's cycle, and eventually Glycolysis itself. In the 1950's, scientists were able to get DNA to replicate using heavier isotopes of the same atoms typically found in the DNA molecule (an isotope is a version of an atom with either excess or missing neutrons). The difference between the DNA experiments of the 1950's and this is literally the difference of excess protons vs neutrons in the atoms. There have been various experiments done to get bacteria to utilize different chemicals in their biochemistry, such as the evolution of nylonase in nylon eating bacteria, or getting Pseudomonas flourescens to thrive on different chemicals in broth deficient in certain nutrients that the bacteria normally needed (two new species, "Fuzzy spreader" and "Wrinkly spreader," were also the evolutionary end results of that experiment).
Whenever something like this happens in biochemistry, it typically does a somewhere between poor and mediocre version of the same job, but it gets it done. Doing a mediocre or even poor version of the same task is better than not being able to do it at all and going extinct as a result. So, this says absolutely nothing about life on other planets, this isn't going to turn biochemistry on its head, and there is no "shadow biosphere." All of that is nothing short of hype. And the scientists involved, even though there were apparently errors in their research, or even if the media reported it incorrectly, the scientists involved aren't necessarilly liars or dishonest, and don't necessarilly need to be punished. In science, you occassionally get things wrong, and if you're not making mistakes at least from time to time (so long as you learn from said mistakes), you're doing something wrong. Hence the whole process of peer review in the first place. Being wrong and admitting it is a good thing, even having to go back and be more concise in your conclusions in order to defend them is good. Better to know you're wrong and know why than to keep spouting falsehoods and look like an ass.
Btw, I'm a Biochem major, so my future career depends on me knowing this stuff. :D
And my sympathies on your field... (I'm kidding)
Btw, I'm a Biochem major, so my future career depends on me knowing this stuff. :D
Ahh ... an unbiased opinion, then. ;)
Anyhoo, I agree the media blows things out of proportion. In this case, though, the scientists have not done themselves any favors by clamming up after being challenged. But yeah, the media sucks.
But I don't know if that's what happened here or not, so I'll reserve judgement.
Seeing as Paul Cameron's research is still being quoted, I'm not so sure I'm inclined to be kind to anyone that purposefully practices bad science...
But I don't know if that's what happened here or not, so I'll reserve judgement.
That's just it. There's no evidence of it being "purposeful," at least as far as the NASA paper. From what I understand, the errors come from some miscalculations and no control group (to see if they could get other bacteria species to incorporate arsenate into their biochem), more unintentional mistakes than anything.
But yes, its indeed wise to withhold accusations of dishonesty until proven otherwise. Even if untrue, the scientists bare a certain social stigma, just from the accusation alone. We need only look at the climate scientists at East Anglia whose e-mails were hacked for an example of what can happen.