New Life — well, maybe not.

Remember when we were so excited so long ago — well, last week — about the prospect of arsenic-based life forms?

Yeah. Turns out the science wasn’t that good.

Bottom line: Lots of flim-flam, but very little reliable information.  The mass spec measurements may be very well done (I lack expertise here), but their value is severely compromised by the poor quality of the inputs.  If this data was presented by a PhD student at their committee meeting, I’d send them back to the bench to do more cleanup and controls.

There’s a difference between controls done to genuinely test your hypothesis and those done when you just want to show that your hypothesis is true.  The authors have done some of the latter, but not the former.  They should have mixed pregrown E. coli or other cells with the arsenate supplemented medium and then done the same purifications.  They should have thoroughly washed their DNA preps (a column cleanup is ridiculously easy), and maybe incubated it with phosphate buffer to displace any associated arsenate before doing the elemental analysis.  They should have mixed E. coli DNA with arsenate and then gel-purified it.  They should have tested whether their arsenic-containing DNA could be used as a template by normal DNA polymerases.  They should have noticed all the discrepancies in their data and done experiments to find the causes.

I don’t know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they’re unscrupulously pushing NASA’s ‘There’s life in outer space!’ agenda.  I hesitate to blame the reviewers, as their objections are likely to have been overruled by Science’s editors in their eagerness to score such a high-impact publication.

You can read the full article at the link, but now you know: don’t trust the press! Not even the scientific press!

…Wait? You knew that before?

Well, I’ll just go mope in the corner, then.

One thought on “New Life — well, maybe not.

  1. Not to toot my own religious horn (okay, it’s for exactly that purpose) some of the best science of human history has been performed by the likes of Linnaeus and Newton: avowed Christians, or at least pseudo-Christians. Newton was an antitrinitarian. I’m not fond of the flack Christians catch for being anti-science, while these enormous oversights fly under the radar for weeks.

    I am disappoint. 😡

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s