In response to Malcolm McCallum's post on the NASA-funded study on bacteria
that live off
arsenic in place of phosphorus, I agree that the media has greatly hyped up its
conclusions.
Furthermore, I want to bring attention to the strong criticisms of the study
among many
microbiologists, one s
Regarding "arsenic life" - this work is currently under question due to
methods. The central methodological issues seem to be a lack of controls
and sloppy DNA extraction. I recommend you read Carl Zimmer's piece in
slate and the links therein, especially Rosie Redfield's critique
http://blogs.d
McCallum"
To:
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
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
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 regardi
