Is NASA trustworthy still?

[Numinous]

I am not allowed to link to anything until 15 posts, but has anyone read that scientists are coming out to say NASA's recent "discovery" about life eating arsenic, was faulty and should have never been published?

It seems, they can save face a little, if they redo the experiments with the recommended modifications with the experiment.

Anyone interested in that topic?

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Numinous

I am not allowed to link to anything until 15 posts, but has anyone read that scientists are coming out to say NASA's recent "discovery" about life eating arsenic, was faulty and should have never been published?

It seems, they can save face a little, if they redo the experiments with the recommended modifications with the experiment.

Anyone interested in that topic?

Start posting furiously, so that you can post your link.

[Numinous]

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101208/sc_yblog_thelookout/scientists-poking-holes-in-nasas-arsenic-eating-microbe-discovery

I think if you type "h t t p://" without the spaces, before the above long string you can see the story.

[Revoltingest]

It sounds like there is much work still to be done. The arguments will likely settle down.

[Numinous]

From what I could gather that phosphates were removed from NASA, so that only arsenic remained. However, they failed to mention they then fed back phosphates (mind you minuscule amounts) that could have been the cause for life sustaining.

It is a situation that makes one sigh... Realizing the possible desperation of institutions that might resort to things like this hoping for more funding. I hope that is not what they have done.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Numinous

From what I could gather that phosphates were removed from NASA, so that only arsenic remained. However, they failed to mention they then fed back phosphates (mind you minuscule amounts) that could have been the cause for life sustaining.

It is a situation that makes one sigh... Realizing the possible desperation of institutions that might resort to things like this hoping for more funding. I hope that is not what they have done.

It seems to me that some university (or many) will carry on this research.

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think one ill-conceived paper should tarnish everything NASA produces. They have their hand in an enormous amount of outstanding research in all areas of science, if not directly then at least through funding and grants.

[Nepenthe]

Yep, Rosie has presented the most detailed and critical analysis of NASA's study in her blog here. It's really good imo. NASA has been dismissive of the criticisms though despite what I see as valid questions. As usual Zimmer gives the best review of what's going on over the whole controversy and he's posting the reactions of several microbiologists to the issue (like Rosie Redfield, Shelley Copley has also been a major critic of the paper): Of arsenic and aliens: What the critics said | The Loom | Discover Magazine

It reminds me of sample ALH84001 back in the day, though not as epic.

[Numinous]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

It seems to me that some university (or many) will carry on this research.

Can you elaborate? I mean if the initial work was faulty, are you saying universities will try to recreate the experiment, or run with the faulty data?
On the surface it seems this could blow up in NASA's face, and the money spent on their work will be shown to be a waste of money for one, and a desperate attempt to bolster their search for life elsewhere in the universe.

Do you think there is merit in what they did if it turns out to be indeed faulty science work?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Numinous

Can you elaborate? I mean if the initial work was faulty, are you saying universities will try to recreate the experiment, or run with the faulty data?

On the surface it seems this could blow up in NASA's face, and the money spent on their work will be shown to be a waste of money for one, and a desperate attempt to bolster their search for life elsewhere in the universe.

Do you think there is merit in what they did if it turns out to be indeed faulty science work?

It just seems to me that it warrants further study - it's at least a question that a Master's or doctoral student can research. There are far more wacky stuff that universities are researching these days.