The author of the original paper speaks to criticisms:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/author-of-controversial-arsenic-.html?rss=1
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/12/author-of-controversial-arsenic-.html?rss=1Science
is making the paper freely available for the
Roger Critchlow wrote circa 12/06/2010 09:39 PM:
Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research:
http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
Very cool! Thanks, Roger.
http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.htmlVia
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:21 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic
Chemical
Roger Critchlow wrote circa 12/06/2010 09:39 PM:
Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research
Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 12/07/2010 08:53 AM:
You know, it wasn't SO long ago (i.e., I remember it) that SOME journals
thought of themselves as archival, and their reviewers* saw their role as
defending the pages of those journals against error. In that context,
getting published was
Russ, you had a small typo in your Shrödinger quote.
Instead of extracting energy, Schrödinger actually defined living systems
as extracting negative entropy from the environment:
the only way a living system stays alive, away from maximum entropy or
death is to be continually drawing from its
Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research:
http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
finding lots of places where they didn't do (or didn't report the results
of) additional experimental work she would have sent any graduate student
back to the lab to do.
Sounds like an extremely toxic research environment. Poisonous reviews...
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote:
Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research:
http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
finding lots of places
http://xkcd.org/829/
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Miles Parker milespar...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah -- staying out of the name the pill controversy ;) -- one neat little
tidbit in the I'm always amazed by how little I know and how little I've
thought about what I do know category. We think
I would have thought that FRIAM had already suffiently proven that life can
exist in a toxic environment...
--Doug
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Robert Holmes rob...@holmesacosta.comwrote:
http://xkcd.org/829/
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Miles Parker milespar...@gmail.comwrote:
!!!
*
-- Russ *
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
I would have thought that FRIAM had already suffiently proven that life can
exist in a toxic environment...
--Doug
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Robert Holmes rob...@holmesacosta.comwrote:
Russ Abbott wrote circa 10-12-02 08:14 PM:
Why so much defensiveness?
I don't think anyone was being defensive. Personally, I was just very
surprised by the question. Sorry if my answer was inadequate.
On a tangent, however, I found this article interesting:
Citizens Against Peer Review
I his 1944 What is Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%3F, Schrödinger
identifies
a fundamental characteristic of living beings as being able to retain a
relatively lower level of entropy by extracting energy from the environment.
Since As compounds are so much less stable than P
I presume most of you've seen this already, but just in case:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in
California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able
to thrive and
Other than the fact that this is the first time we have seen a life form
that uses arsenic as a chemical building block, why is this important? Is
there something about arsenic that is so incompatible with other forms of
life that it would seem to be impossible to do this?
*
-- Russ Abbott
This (from another
articlehttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57851/#ixzz16zxXUGXe)
looks like a significant part of the answer.
Arsenic falls directly below phosphorus on the period table, and thus has
many similar chemical properties. In contrast to relatively stable
phosphorus-based
Russ Abbott wrote circa 10-12-02 03:04 PM:
This (from another
articlehttp://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57851/#ixzz16zxXUGXe)
looks like a significant part of the answer.
[...]
In fact, its similarity to phosphorus and its instability partly explains
why arsenic is so toxic. The body
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella g...@tempusdictum.comwrote:
[*] FWIW, I find it odd for you to ask, of this particular article, why
is this important? Of all the obscure, mumbo-jumbo journal articles
out there (our discussion of PoMo aside ;-), it seems blatantly obvious
Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic
Chemical
Other than the fact that this is the first time we have seen a life form
that uses arsenic as a chemical building block, why is this important? Is
there something about arsenic that is so incompatible with other forms of
life that it would seem
Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic
Chemical
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella g...@tempusdictum.com
wrote:
[*] FWIW, I find it odd for you to ask, of this particular article, why
is this important? Of all the obscure
Of *Roger Critchlow
*Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:03 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With
Toxic Chemical
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella g...@tempusdictum.com
wrote
Hi, Russ!
One reason it is important is that it demonstrates that life as we
know it has a broader definition that previously thought.
It means that if we find an earth-like planet out there, except with
more arsenic than phosphorus -- in other words, a poisonous-to-us
planet -- we might still
Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built
With Toxic Chemical
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella
g...@tempusdictum.com mailto:g...@tempusdictum.com wrote:
[*] FWIW, I find it odd for you to ask, of this particular
article, why
Following Glen, Roger, and James, and also wondering why Nick is being a
pill
I believe the report is of interest for
showing an organism that uses arsenic in interesting ways, but it gets its
magical-shininess (i.e. Science worthiness) for showing an organism that does
not use phosphorous.
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic
Chemical
Strange set of comments. Why so much defensiveness? I
OK. Thanks. I actually did get that from the article but didn't think of it
as that far out. It probably reflects my biologically naivety rather than
scientific imagination, but it hadn't occurred to me that we wouldn't find
life with different chemistries than our own.
I think that
wait!
Nick
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:22 PM
To: Roger Critchlow
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built
Yeah -- staying out of the name the pill controversy ;) -- one neat little
tidbit in the I'm always amazed by how little I know and how little I've
thought about what I do know category. We think of Arsenic as a poison, but
the only reason we think of it as a poison is (duh) that it is bad for
27 matches
Mail list logo
