Latest news with #ArielAnbar
Yahoo
28-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Science journal pulls controversial study about bizarre life form
A microscopic discovery in a Californian lake ignited significant scientific debate over a decade ago. Researchers claimed to have found bacteria utilising arsenic – an element lethal to known life forms – for growth. If validated, this would have profoundly expanded life's known parameters, on Earth and beyond. However, numerous research groups failed to replicate the findings, arguing it is biologically unfeasible for an organism to use such a toxic element for DNA and proteins. Some scientists have since suggested the original experiments were compromised by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider.
The Independent
27-07-2025
- Science
- The Independent
Science journal pulls controversial study about bizarre life form
A microscopic discovery in a Californian lake ignited significant scientific debate over a decade ago. Researchers claimed to have found bacteria utilising arsenic – an element lethal to known life forms – for growth. If validated, this would have profoundly expanded life's known parameters, on Earth and beyond. However, numerous research groups failed to replicate the findings, arguing it is biologically unfeasible for an organism to use such a toxic element for DNA and proteins. Some scientists have since suggested the original experiments were compromised by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider.
Indian Express
26-07-2025
- Science
- Indian Express
#arseniclife: Story of a viral study & a contentious retraction
Fifteen years ago, a group of scientists made the bold claim of having discovered a microorganism that could survive using chemistry different from any known life-form. On Thursday, the journal Science, where these findings were reported, formally retracted the 2010 paper, saying it was fundamentally flawed. While there is broad scientific consensus against the study's findings, the retraction nonetheless is contentious, and potentially opens a pandora's box for academic publishing. Living beings typically rely on a number of common elements, including carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, to build biomolecules such as DNA, proteins and lipids. In 2009, researchers collected a microbe from Mono Lake, a salty and alkaline body of water in California. In the lab, they claimed to have found that this microbe could replace phosphorus with arsenic, an element that is typically toxic. Phosphorus is essential to the structure of DNA and RNA and to the function of the energy-transporter molecule ATP. If confirmed, the discovery would change scientists' fundamental conceptions about life on Earth, and possibly beyond. Naturally, the study received a lot of attention, and travelled well beyond the typical terrain of academic conferences and scientific journals. Many scientists around the world expressed serious concerns with the study's methodology and conclusions. Most notably, the discovery was picked up by the Internet. On the then nascent Twitter, it trended with the hashtag #arseniclife. The study's authors also faced extreme scrutiny into their personal lives. Science has not accused the paper's authors of misconduct or fraud, and instead cited its latest standards for retractions, which allow it to take down a study based on 'errors' by the researchers. The decision was made after The New York Times last year reached out to Science for a comment on about the legacy of the #arseniclife affair. That inquiry 'convinced us that this saga wasn't over, that unless we wanted to keep talking about it forever, we probably ought to do some things to try to wind it down,' Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science since 2019, told The NYT. 'And so that's when I started talking to the authors about retracting.' But the paper's authors disagree with the decision. Their defenders, including officials at NASA, which helped fund the original research, say the move is outside the norms of what usually leads to the striking down of a published paper. Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University and one of the paper's authors, has said that the data itself is not flawed, and if disputes about 'data interpretation' were acceptable standards for retraction, 'you'd have to retract half the literature'. As justification for the retraction, the Science statement cites the technical objections published alongside the paper, and failed replications of the findings in 2012. But the original paper's authors have responded to the objections and criticised replication experiments. Anbar has accused Science of not providing any 'reasonable explanation' for the retraction. Ivan Oransky, a specialist in academic publishing, told Nature that this retraction raises an interesting question. There are plenty of debunked papers in the literature that could be retracted, he says. Will other publishers get on board with trying to clean up the scientific record? And if so, 'where do you start?' INPUTS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
CTV News
25-07-2025
- Science
- CTV News
A science journal pulled a controversial study about a bizarre life form against the authors' wishes
A microscopic discovery in a California lake sparked buzz and controversy more than a decade ago when it was first revealed. Scientists said they'd discovered bacteria that used the element arsenic — poisonous to life as we know it — to grow. If true, it expanded the possibilities for where life could exist on Earth — or on other worlds. Several research groups failed to replicate the results, and argue it's not possible for a living thing to use something so toxic to make DNA and proteins. Some scientists have suggested the results of the original experiments may have been skewed by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, wrote Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider. —- The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Adithi Ramakrishnan, The Associated Press
Yahoo
25-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
A science journal pulled a controversial study about a bizarre life form against the authors' wishes
NEW YORK (AP) — A microscopic discovery in a California lake sparked buzz and controversy more than a decade ago when it was first revealed. Scientists said they'd discovered bacteria that used the element arsenic — poisonous to life as we know it — to grow. If true, it expanded the possibilities for where life could exist on Earth — or on other worlds. Several research groups failed to replicate the results, and argue it's not possible for a living thing to use something so toxic to make DNA and proteins. Some scientists have suggested the results of the original experiments may have been skewed by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider. —- The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Solve the daily Crossword
