tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post396270996857854095..comments2024-02-13T21:22:02.522-08:00Comments on RRResearch: NASA's cowardly responses to their #arseniclife FAILRosie Redfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-73453152156469430632022-10-27T13:16:12.581-07:002022-10-27T13:16:12.581-07:00İlginç 😊İlginç 😊Hadımköy çilingirhttp://www.hadimoycilingir.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-68712710645739768252022-10-04T04:12:13.436-07:002022-10-04T04:12:13.436-07:00:(((( tuhafff:(((( tuhafffbeylikdüzü çilingirhttp://www.beylikduzu.cilingircisi.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-51250614946601950422016-10-14T02:52:16.697-07:002016-10-14T02:52:16.697-07:00:((((:((((başakşehir çilingirhttp://www.basaksehircilingir.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-64601866406533597942012-07-17T15:02:12.763-07:002012-07-17T15:02:12.763-07:00The main problem with that response is that this p...The main problem with that response is that this paper - and the NASA PR hype around it - wasn't just about an interesting new extremophile. It was supposed to be a major discovery that changed our definition of "life as we know it", with implications for where else we can expect to find life in the universe. <br /><br />*That* part of it has most definitely been refuted.<br /><br />But yes, GFAJ-1 is still an interesting little extremophile. Just like dozens of other interesting little extremophiles that did not get high-profile NASA press conferences and Science articles...PatrikDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10418562341697992459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-73123322506360525092012-07-13T13:23:25.338-07:002012-07-13T13:23:25.338-07:00:(((((((:(((((((Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-49291719465927106882012-07-13T13:22:09.559-07:002012-07-13T13:22:09.559-07:00The only spineless tool here is you, Anonymous.The only spineless tool here is you, Anonymous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-61908876609134328542012-07-13T13:18:57.466-07:002012-07-13T13:18:57.466-07:00yes. press officers concerned with trying to hold...yes. press officers concerned with trying to hold on to what little respect the general populace has for NASA are certainly being cowards...and definitely not doing their job--which is to keep something almost all scientists should be happy exists, existing.<br />what a bunch of spineless tools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-69189943476252382402012-07-12T12:55:14.047-07:002012-07-12T12:55:14.047-07:00Rosie, No response to FWS statement: "There i...Rosie, No response to FWS statement: "There is nothing in the data of these new papers that contradicts our published data"?<br /><br />Is she technically correct? Of course she made no mention of her "published interpretations"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-53298954407255055022012-07-11T03:54:25.505-07:002012-07-11T03:54:25.505-07:00Just to be clear, it's NASA's press office...Just to be clear, it's NASA's press officers I'm calling cowards, not the researchers.Rosie Redfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-73232383416893886402012-07-10T22:24:54.637-07:002012-07-10T22:24:54.637-07:00Anonymous, it is the loud yelling at a press confe...Anonymous, it is the loud yelling at a press conference on the part of the "Arsenic Life" authors that is the problem here. Had they not been talking about implications for the search for extreterrestrial life, and then following that up with a shoddy paper, the reactions would have been quite different.Thomas Barendshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563436899930811698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-86031183949807794402012-07-10T19:33:24.493-07:002012-07-10T19:33:24.493-07:00I'm glad that radical finds are challenged, bu...I'm glad that radical finds are challenged, but I'm really sad and upset at the way you are addressing this. It's bringing down discourse and sending science back to the days when those who yelled loudest were the ones who were believed. It's important to verify radical claims and be open, but insulting people hurts the entire field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-81227063770973963112012-07-10T13:14:50.118-07:002012-07-10T13:14:50.118-07:00I am pretty sure the geocentric enthusiasts were w...I am pretty sure the geocentric enthusiasts were wrong.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-17565788988093180602012-07-10T09:26:49.562-07:002012-07-10T09:26:49.562-07:00No one is ever wrong in science.No one is ever wrong in science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-70510876053909975442012-07-10T00:48:57.192-07:002012-07-10T00:48:57.192-07:00Yes, you can be wrong without being a bad, unscrup...Yes, you can be wrong without being a bad, unscrupulous and/or cowardly scientist, but for senior figures to pass the buck on to the first author who was a postdoc at the time is cowardly indeed.Thomas Barendshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563436899930811698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-101011672518775102012-07-09T21:05:33.103-07:002012-07-09T21:05:33.103-07:00scientists can be wrong without being "bad sc...<i>scientists can be wrong without being "bad scientists", "unscrupulous" or "cowardly".</i><br /><br />Yes, but only bad scientists would be sluggish to accept that they were wrong, which seems to be the predominant source of frustration here.Merenhttp://meren.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-90125535781158650772012-07-09T20:14:02.098-07:002012-07-09T20:14:02.098-07:00You know scientists can be wrong without being &qu...You know scientists can be wrong without being "bad scientists", "unscrupulous" or "cowardly". It's possible to discuss these things without being mean.David Grinspoonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-73363202116562300902012-07-09T18:59:34.409-07:002012-07-09T18:59:34.409-07:00Good point, I'll delete it.Good point, I'll delete it.Rosie Redfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06807912674127645263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-35192677240871036412012-07-09T18:18:53.767-07:002012-07-09T18:18:53.767-07:00The only problem I see with "Though these new...The only problem I see with "Though these new papers challenge some of the conclusions of the original paper, neither paper invalidates the 2010 observations of a remarkable micro-organism that can survive in a highly phosphate-poor and arsenic-rich environment toxic to many other micro-organisms." is refute may be a better word than challenge. But the second part is absolutely accurate. Neither of the new papers show that GFAJ-1 will not survive in a highly phosphate-poor and arsenic-rich environment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-45735997725789374592012-07-09T17:35:53.091-07:002012-07-09T17:35:53.091-07:00Will you make your paper available to the public a...Will you make your paper available to the public at some time in the future?Elijah Gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358167762554840378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-30958981257025851312012-07-09T16:29:24.811-07:002012-07-09T16:29:24.811-07:00I know that her email address is found elsewhere o...I know that her email address is found elsewhere on the Internet, but should it be published along with this article?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-32459344617675719852012-07-09T15:17:41.543-07:002012-07-09T15:17:41.543-07:00Neither paper invalidates the 2010 observations? E...Neither paper invalidates the 2010 observations? Echoing Isidor Rabi, "What more do you want? Mermaids?"Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32079676.post-73506781802767007672012-07-09T15:05:55.169-07:002012-07-09T15:05:55.169-07:00To me, the first response is appropriate (though i...To me, the first response is appropriate (though is no doubt a case of passing the buck). If I were an author on a paper that was not being replicated, I wouldn't want my institution or funding agency commenting on my paper.<br /><br />The second one bugs me. "(N)either paper invalidates the 2010 observations"? Come on.Zen Faulkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.com