The journal Science retracts 15-year-old paper that proposed arsenic as basic element of life
The death of science: Though numerous later research had rejected the conclusions of a 2010 research paper that had suggested a bacteria found at Mono Lake in Californa was using arsenic instead of phosphorus in its DNA, the journal Science that published that paper has now retracted it.
In a blog post accompanying this week’s retraction notice, Science’s current Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp and Valda Vinson, executive editor of the Science family of journals, emphasize there is no suggestion of foul play in the GFAJ-1 paper. Instead, pointing to subsequent commentary and research that suggest some of the paper’s findings stem from contamination, not arsenic use by bacteria, they write: “Science believes that the key conclusion of the paper is based on flawed data.”
Speaking with Science’s News team, which operates independently from its research arm, study co-author and Arizona State University geochemist Ariel Anbar says the team disputes that assessment and has already addressed the referenced criticisms. “We stand by the data,” he adds.
Anbar added this in this report at Nature:
By contrast, one of the paper’s authors, Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, says that there are no mistakes in the paper’s data. He says that the data could be interpreted in a number of ways, but “you don’t retract because of a dispute about data interpretation”. If that’s the standard you were to apply, he says, “you’d have to retract half the literature”.
This action underlines the decline in open-mindedness in the academic field. It did not suffice to simply demonstrate in later papers that the paper’s conclusions were questionable. It was necessary to cancel it entirely, to airbrush it from history.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
The death of science: Though numerous later research had rejected the conclusions of a 2010 research paper that had suggested a bacteria found at Mono Lake in Californa was using arsenic instead of phosphorus in its DNA, the journal Science that published that paper has now retracted it.
In a blog post accompanying this week’s retraction notice, Science’s current Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp and Valda Vinson, executive editor of the Science family of journals, emphasize there is no suggestion of foul play in the GFAJ-1 paper. Instead, pointing to subsequent commentary and research that suggest some of the paper’s findings stem from contamination, not arsenic use by bacteria, they write: “Science believes that the key conclusion of the paper is based on flawed data.”
Speaking with Science’s News team, which operates independently from its research arm, study co-author and Arizona State University geochemist Ariel Anbar says the team disputes that assessment and has already addressed the referenced criticisms. “We stand by the data,” he adds.
Anbar added this in this report at Nature:
By contrast, one of the paper’s authors, Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, says that there are no mistakes in the paper’s data. He says that the data could be interpreted in a number of ways, but “you don’t retract because of a dispute about data interpretation”. If that’s the standard you were to apply, he says, “you’d have to retract half the literature”.
This action underlines the decline in open-mindedness in the academic field. It did not suffice to simply demonstrate in later papers that the paper’s conclusions were questionable. It was necessary to cancel it entirely, to airbrush it from history.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
That’s nothing
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-science.html (get a screen-shot somebody!)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-025-09635-1
“Lying increases trust in science, study finds”
by Bangor University
“Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, looked at the role of transparency in fostering public trust in science.”
“The paper, published in the journal Theory & Society, starts by outlining the “bizarre phenomenon” known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust.”
“Hyde argues that, to find a solution to this paradox, it is important to consider what institutions are being transparent about.”
“The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it.”
“Therefore, one possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde points out is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), by for example making sure bad news is hidden and that there is always only good news to report.”
Now, this could go in one of two ways–
A.) This is evidence that some scientists don’t like being questioned
B.) Some bloody fool young-earther creationist crank or other snuck this past–which is also galling, and proof that the gatekeepers are letting garbage through either way
I think this proves that they don’t want to do the work. They want their ideas to go forward without having to prove … anything.
In contrast to this generations of the past wanted truth. They would work hard to find and then prove some new discovery and then hope that others would throw everything they could at it – and it would stand. ANd if it didn’t then, it didn’t; and the world was better for the truth was revealed.
I think this proves that they don’t want to do the work. They want their ideas to go forward without having to prove … anything.
In contrast to this generations of the past wanted truth. They would work hard to find and then prove some new discovery and then hope that others would throw everything they could at it – and it would stand. ANd if it didn’t then, it didn’t; and the world was better for the truth was revealed.
I am less upset about the arsenic deal.
Instead of carbon and water, silicon and ammonia might work.
We breathe oxygen and eat carbon fuels. On Titan–maybe life breathes carbon but eats oxygen/water?
Arsenic is a useful chemical–and not just for those with Old Lace.
I even remember a book that talked about how a Jack-the-Ripper suspect ate arsenic –and stopping would have killed him.
Revealing the truth doesn’t make you rich and famous (even if we’re talking about the relatively limited sphere of science.) You get rich and famous (err… grants and prestige!) by getting published and then cited. If it works the way it is supposed to, then the two are synonymous.
If you can get into a pile of anti-social nerds and geeks and social engineer ‘success…’
This affair says a great deal about the current state of science – none of it good – and also about how long said sad state has been in effect.
The obvious way to settle this controversy was to replicate the bloody work and to make extra sure the glassware was all clean to a very high standard first. Neither the original research team nor, it seems, any of their detractors, have seen fit, in the intervening 15 years, to do this obvious thing.
I am given to understand that replication of results is considered passe these days in much of the “scientific community.” Everyone wants to do original work, not mere replication – and to do the original work only once, apparently.
Things have gotten so bad in certain fields – notably psychology and sociology – that attempted replication of iffy results – of which there is no shortage in both fields – is now obtaining a status roughly equal to that of “original” research given how often the results of the replication diverge consequentially from those reported in the original publications.
The “harder” sciences would, it seems, also benefit from such a reformation movement. But “hard” science research is typically a lot more expensive than psychology or sociology research. With all of the grant money at stake, the motives of academic grifters to keep their grifts going handily exceeds the motivation of honest researchers to keep things honest. That is especially true given that the grifter class also tends to pretty much be the tenured boss researcher class.
One hopes that the Trump administration’s fist-in-the-face approach to reforming academe bears some significant fruit in this regard, but given the extent of the rot, it is difficult to be more than quite cautiously optimistic in that regard. We shall see what we shall see.
Dick Eagleson wrote, “The obvious way to settle this controversy was to replicate the bloody work and to make extra sure the glassware was all clean to a very high standard first. Neither the original research team nor, it seems, any of their detractors, have seen fit, in the intervening 15 years, to do this obvious thing.”
This is not true. In my post I linked to two studies that attempted to replicate the findings and failed. That is where the matter should have ended. The original research was interesting, but it had not been confirmed.
That the scientists don’t feel satisfied with this entirely good scientific result speaks badly of the science field. As you say, they no longer see research as the solution. Instead, they prefer to rely on authority and blacklisting.
It could very well be that dirty glassware actually *had* some arsenic-loving bug in it and cleaner glassware wasn’t able to replicate it.
Ball lightning—if it exists—may be very difficult to reproduce.
Social sciences should get zero public funding—but I think all kids need to go to vocational school whether people like it or not.
Failure to replicate should not mean you *never* revisit a topic. A lot of discoveries come from stubborn people.
so, are they saying arsenic can’t replace phosphorus? or they just don’t like this paper?
one of the biggest problems in finding ET life is that despite some very inventive science fiction, in 2025 we know a lot of chemistry and it appears increasingly unlikely anything other than amino groups can be easily manipulated into storing the information necessary to hold the instructions to build a self-replicating organism
The discovery of smokers on the sea floor gave the would-be exobiology community fresh hope.
Years ago, the consensus of the severe weather researchers was that the twister from The Wizard of Oz would not sweep side-to-side as seen on the film.
A NOVA broadcast featured Howard Blue Stein, a tornado researcher. There was footage of a substantial rope tornado…..whose bottom end kept stretching away from the road–while the base stayed rather still.
Just this year, there was striking footage of a tornado that writhed more violently than the windsock used in Wizard-