Ecolog:
I hope that Malcolm will continue to help us/me understand the details of
this paper. As a non-member of AAAS, I do not have access to it . . .
[24 hours access to this Science article for US $15.00 from your current
computer.
[Why Don't I Have Access?
[The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site
or Science Pay per Article purchase. To find out what content you currently
have access to - view your access rights. If you would like to recommend
that your institution subscribe to this content, please visit our Recommend
a Subscription page.]
. . . and I'll be damned if I will pay $15 or more (or less?) for access to
it, particularly as my tax money supports NASA, and the sources of funding
for the paper are not cited.
Neither can I, or any other unaffiliated person afford to pay for every
paper I might like to review (I/we unwashed untouchables used to go to the
library and read the clay-paper version, then pay $00.15 per page for a
Thermofax(R) copy). Now the UnAmerican Dissociation for the Retardation of
Science has not only cloistered itself even more, along with certain
rapacious foreign publishers of "prestigious journals," which even very
large libraries like the University of California library can't afford. Not
only have the bean-counters in charge of academic institutions decided to
shit-can the time-honored custom of dissemination of knowledge at the lowest
possible cost if not "free," they now obviously consider that dissemination
to be just one more "profit center," now that a few clicks is all it takes
to upload a research paper to a web site, meaning profits far out of
proportion to any previously realized in the "old" days. And AAAS (not to
mention other organizations that just happen to be largely supported by my
taxes) want my support? They may get it, but it is growing more grudging by
the millisecond. Beyond this, these pound-of-flesh bureaucrats apparently do
not even understand fundamental pricing theory, much less morality,
fairness, nay, noblesse oblige and intellectual tradition.
Do you who are affiliated and can thus get this paper for free (even though
your institution's library must pay a huge ransom to provide it to you)
believe that there will be no ripple-effect upon you, your research, your
institution? Guess again. You who complain that "the public" is
"anti-science," "ill-informed," and anti-intellectual if not plain stupid,
must, then, strongly desire to have your "ivory tower" image enhanced in the
view of we, the untouchables. Do you wonder, then, that you are resented,
even if you are blameless?
Now, back to the issue. I must resort to speculation, puny abstracts, and
Tee-Vee publicity, so my basic ignorance will be magnified, but may I ask a
few ignorance-based questions?
1. Malcolm, why don't you post your comment to the NASA site? (I think I
know the answer, but just in case I'm jumping to unwarranted conclusions, I
would like to hear it from you; however, if you choose not to answer, I
fully understand and do not want to put you on the spot.)
2. Has the genome been done on this organism (GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae)?
3. Have the genomes from similar organisms been done?
4. How, specifically, do they compare?
5. Has the same experiment been "replicated" with other organisms under the
same conditions with negative results for arsenic?
6. If the extra-terrestrial "hook" is always considered necessary to appeal
to the "anti-intellectual" public, is that not an act of further dumbing it
down? Who's to blame for the public's attitude? Do you see the relationship
here to the opening rant?
I have other questions, but I'll hold 'em.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:56 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] life that uses Arsenic in place of phosphorus
For those who have not heard....
NASA today announced that research done through their exobiology
program discovered a that a bacterium living in Mono Lake, California
can use Arsenic in place of phosphorus. This is being pretty hyped in
the news as a new form of life. I think the aspect regarding its
impact on extraterestrial life is over-hyped and frankly a stretch.
We are not looking at an organism THAT USES Arsenic instead of
phosporus. We are looking at an organism that CAN OPPORTUNISTICALLY
USE Arsenic in place of phosphorus. This is pretty cool, and a huge
scientific finding. however, I guess our anti-intellectual society
would find it very difficult to appreciate that this is a big deal, so
we have to promote the least interesting component of the study, the
most speculative, and frankly the part that is hardly related to these
findings,...that extraterrestrial life could use Arsenic. In fact,
this DOES NOT REDEFINE our understanding of life, it REAFFIRMS our
understanding!!! This is another adaptation that evolved from species
with normal phosphorus-based physiology that resides in a high-arsenic
environment. We long believed that organisms should be able to do
this, and now they found one that could. Also, they have not
established whether these organisms do this in the environment, only
that they can do it in the lab.
Understand, I am not taking away from the extreme importance of their
findings, I just wish we would actually revel in their findings
instead of speculation that has not been established.
Here is a link to the NASA announcement:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3291 - Release Date: 12/01/10
07:34:00
