In “Science Papers Challenge Claims that ‘Alien’ Bacteria use Arsenic Instead of Phosphorous,” Casey Luskin (Evolution News & Views, June 11, 2011) discusses the recent challenges to the claim that bacteria have been found that are so far out that they may shed light on extraterrestrial organisms. The science media loved the story; another step to proving the naturalistic origin of life in outer space:
the paper had reported “arsenic-based life” which is “very alien in terms of how it’s put together” and “NASA has, in a very real sense, discovered a form of alien life” (io9)
“you can potentially cross phosphorus off the list of elements required for life” (Nature)
But
soon after the original Science paper was published, credible scientists began critiquing the paper’s claims. In the June 3, 2011 issue of Science, several of those scientists have published comments critiquing the original paper. Many of their criticisms focus on the claim that the original paper did not establish or rule out the possibility that the bacteria are not still living off of phosphorous.
He offers a review of the criticisms, observing that no other lab has offered to try to replicate the findings. If a number of reputable labs tried and failed, identifying the points where they failed (but should have succeeded, if arsenic were really there), the case for rejecting the pro-arsenic paper would be strengthened. Perhaps enough to put the matter to rest.
So why not do it? Among other reasons, we hear a hint of a familiar problem:
“If you extended the results to show there is no detectable arsenic, where could you publish that?” asks Simon Silver of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who critiqued the work in FEMS Microbiology Letters in January and on 24 May at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. “How could the young person who was asked to do that work ever get a job?”
Some wonder if he is saying that the young scientist mustn’t spend time reducing support for a naturalistic origin of life theory except when she is shoring up a competing one. That of her supervisor, perhaps? In that case, of course, her mission can be explained as professional rivalry, not forbidden thoughts. Not a desire to establish that no such theory is plausible in principle.
See also “Arsenic-based biochemistry: Turning poison into wine” Cornelius Hunter, and “Running on immunity against disproof.” Robert Deyes