Microbiologist turns a skeptical eye on Mono Lake arsenic eaters

Microbiologist Rosie Redfield explains why she, and other researchers, are critical of the ostensible discovery of arsenic-loving bacteria in California's Lake Mono. This is a nice, technical explanation, which digs into some flaws in the research methodology. Short story: We know the now semi-infamous paper isn't about alien life. But Redfield says it doesn't show solid evidence of bacteria incorporating arsenic into their DNA, either.

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.

Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.

MORE: Science

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

Jonathan Badger

I’m a microbial genomicist/ecologist/evolutionist, and while I can’t comment on the experimental techniques (my work is computational/theoretical), one thing that Rosie mentions that was even mentioned in the paper *itself* is that the bug is a gammaproteobacterium. That is, in the same group as E.coli. Not some exotic “new branch of life” with “alien-like” biochemistry as many news outlets are presenting it as.

Assuming that the arsenic incorporation is real, a more likely interpretation is that, rather than GFA-1 being unique in this ability, that many other bugs have this ability as well — we just haven’t tested them for it.
uricacid

I’ve been an on-and-off reader of Dr. Redfield’s blog for quite some time. She strikes me as an extremely careful scientist, who has some balls in terms of discussing what appears to be preliminary steps of her research on a blog.

Not that this supports or invalidates her review of Wolfe-Simon et al. But basically I don’t think she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Anonymous

This was a story created to divert attention from Wilileaks headlines.
cratermoon

The author raises excellent, and scientifically necessary, questions. Peer reviewed or not, her critique is that of an expert in the field and echoes some of what was hinted at even in the press conference that NASA held.

As for whether or not the association with attempts by NASA to stave off budget cuts is correct, I can only offer this lay-persons observation: For a relatively subtle and preliminary result in the research around organisms that may be able to utilize other elements in place of the usual ones that we know life depends on, it sure was a huge teaser of an announcement and much-hyped press conference for NASA astrobiologists.
grikdog

A bit of skeptical sanity is always welcome. The amazing thing is not that arsenic “replaces” DNA, but that alleged “alien life” would evolve a molecule so replete with standard DNA morphology.

Far more likely is the case that this arsenic-bearing DNA has simply evolved from garden variety microbiology. It is younger than, and inimately related to, the phosporous version of ordinary Earth life.

Of course, by broadening public perception of ubiquitous “Life,” one does provide yet another ingenuous argument for expanding the Man on Mars budget.
- grikdog
  
  Oops, replaces PHOSPHORUS, of course.
Anonymous

I work in a related field (virology). Rosie is concerned mainly about inappropriate/inadequate methodologies/controls and overinterpretation of the data, especially as it relates to the incorporation of arsenic into DNA and other biomolecules. On the face of it — I haven’t read the paper yet — her main criticisms seem valid and will certainly need to be answered. There are some good points raised in the comments too.
Xenu

NASA can tell us what elements are on the surface of Mars, but not what’s inside the nucleus of a cell?
kristenobacter

Let’s be fair: here it’s not “she and other researchers,” but “she.” This blog post was not peer reviewed, unlike the original Science article, which would have had at least 3 peer reviewers, and big splash articles like this often have closer to a dozen independent scientists reviewing the science. I’m all for thinking critically, but comparing a peer-reviewed article to a blog post is apples and oranges.
- The Faustian Man
  
  If we are going to assume fairness, we cannot call for the hallmark of peer-review as a suitable validity that the experiment was sound. That seal of endorsement should be left to Dr. Oz and the rest of “the doctors”.
  
  She is putting herself out there, and at the same time garnering publicity, yet it is in a way that may be harmful to her career.
  
  The idea of peer-review being anonymous or not is a moot point. It’s not like this work can be done and still remain on an anonymous scale. We can pretend a double-blind review is more “fair” but to think it quantifies into reliable research is an intuitive leap I am not comfortable making.
  
  The fact of the matter is, her point is easily available to the hoi polloi, be it for quick dismissal or pondering.
  
  It is nice to see there was someone to speak out against this. As the discovery comes too close on the heels of NASA funding and budget examination, and I am still quite uncertain how its implication with NASA is at all related.
  
  I for one, am going to give her a good listening to. Before NASA’s PR machine ramps up trying to save its astronaut core with more public appearances and press releases.
  
  Resistant or “lean” phosphorus and arsenic resistant bacteria has long since known to exist since the 1950s. If this research is flawed, my suspicions of NASA trying to save itself from budget cuts may not be proven, but will certainly be bolstered.
  - mdh
    
    my suspicions of NASA trying to save itself from budget cuts may not be proven, but will certainly be bolstered
    
    that’s quite a hat you’re wearing. Is that mylar?
- Anonymous
  
  “NASA can tell us what elements are on the surface of Mars, but not what’s inside the nucleus of a cell?”
  
  It’s easy enough to conclude that there’s a needle somewhere in a haystack. It’s something completely different to conclude exactly where it is and how many hay-strands it is touching.
  
  NASA can tell us that there is arsenic in the cells easily, but the question (and point of the critique) is whether that arsenic is in fact bound inside the DNA.
- Mark Dow
  
  True, but she is a peer, and she stated her opinion based on the text as any other reviewer would. The difference is she did it openly, in a way that everyone can understand.
  
  Maybe she’s wrong. But it deserves a quick response, not a plodding discussion in the editorial pages of a magazine that most everyone can’t afford.
  - Jonathan Badger
    
    Yes, typically peer reviews are not only non-public but anonymous — which, despite protecting negative reviewers from retaliation, has the drawback of the lack of accountability. There’s something to be said for someone who is willing to stand publicly behind a criticism of a paper.
silkox

I’m looking forward to reading both the Science paper and the blog post, but meanwhile I wonder if it would be possible to do a Meselson-Stahl-style experiment, looking at the density differences between DNA with As vs. DNA with P. The difference should be huge, much larger than the one in the original M-S experiment.