NASA's Arsenic Microbe Science Slammed

So, science from NASA might be bogus? As if they are trying to promote an agenda?

While it's entirely possible that this discovery may be tainted by bad science (as others besides Asst. Prof. Redfield are apparently claiming), it doesn't help Redfield's case that she uses loaded phrasing like "unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda".

If she has a disagreement with the science, then she should argue her objections with the science in a professional manner. For her to engage in personal attacks or imagined motivations does a disservice to the debate. And already I have read rebuttals from supporters of the discovery similarly attacking Redfield on presumed personal motivations. Enough!

No matter the outcome, the eventual "losers" (if any) will have more than enough egg on their faces without anyone having to toss a few rotten ones.

It wouldn't be the first time that sloppy science passed peer review. But in this case, since the story was launched to the media as a momentous discovery in astrobiology, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Redfield for getting the scientific issues out into the public view.

I wish this happened more often when sloppy science hits the media machine.

What's the fuss about?

Some researchers find something they think might be important - they rush to publish (and establish priority) - peer review only acts to weed out only the most unsupportable ideas - other researchers disagree/modify/ignore the ideas and suggest additional steps to improve/verify/falsify the original tests - this process goes on for a while and a newer more correct version of the "truth" is approached.

That's how science works. To suggest there's an agenda behind the first claim is a bit silly (after all everyone has an agenda) so long as everyone is allowed to have a say the system works.

Pro tobacco, anthropomorphic climate change deniers, flat earthers and creationists can take no comfort in this example.