Yesterday I wrote about the arsenic life saga, prompted by a long retrospective feature by Tom Clynes in Popular Science. While I recommend the piece, I expressed reservations because it passed along the “scientists besieged by bloggers” spin on the events, when the actual history doesn’t support that.
Clynes (whom I’ve never met) emailed me in the evening with this comments, which he allowed me to share:
Carl,
Thanks for your comment on my Popular Science feature on Felisa Wolfe-Simon’s arsenic-life saga. In some ways, I think you’re on target, though I would like to provide a bit of clarification: Throughout the story, when I convey an argument made by someone who’s on one side of the issue or another, it doesn’t mean that I necessarily buy into that argument.
To that end, I’d like to add a bit of context to a paragraph that you quote, regarding the storm of criticism and the paper’s authors going “underground.” You follow the excerpt with your comment that “Clynes has us believe that this barrage of extraordinary, brutal criticism (or perhaps questions from journalists) forced Wolf-Simon and her colleagues to go into witness protection.”
Actually, I don’t believe that, nor would I have my readers believe it. I think it would have been useful to your readers for you to have included my next paragraph, which makes it clear that I am in fact spotlighting both sides of a polarized dialogue regarding this particular point:
Microbiologist Jonathan Eisen of the University of California at Davis called the lack of response “absurd” and told Carl Zimmer from Slate, “They carried out science by press release and press conference. They are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature.”
Though I didn’t state my opinion in the story (better for readers to decide for themselves), I will here: I think that Eisen is on the money here.
Some other opinions: Do I think that the arsenic-life paper was flawed? Yes. Do I think it that some of its conclusions will be dissolved by further investigation? Yes. Do I believe that NASA’s hyped-up approach to publicizing what was actually a rather understated paper was ham-handed, and damaging to everyone involved? Big time.
Do I think the paper never should have been published? No. In a profession where young scientists are advised to avoid controversy as they build their careers, Wolfe-Simon pushed against a paradigm and sought answers to some very big questions. She passed through the same peer-review hoops (imperfect as they may be) at Science as other scientists must. Yes, her research was imperfect and yes, she likely overreached—but plenty of scientific papers are flawed, and many young researchers go too far. If scientists aren’t willing to subject themselves to the possibility of failure, science can’t possibly progress.
Critically, there’s nothing to indicate that Wolfe-Simon did anything unethical, which might have justified the shrill tone and sweeping proportions of the response—and the fact that she was singled out among the paper’s 11 authors. True, she was the lead author, and it was her hypothesis. But it’s surprising that Ron Oremland, the lab director and principal investigator, is rarely mentioned in the criticisms.
If my story has a bottom line, it’s in this quote by the University of Colorado’s Alan Townsend: “Absent major ethical violations, no junior scientist full of passion for an idea deserves crucifixion for a professional failure or two. If a paper is flawed, it should be dismissed. The scientist should not.”
Related Topics
Go Further
Animals
- These 'trash fish' are among Earth's most primitive animalsThese 'trash fish' are among Earth's most primitive animals
- These photos are works of art—and the artists are bugsThese photos are works of art—and the artists are bugs
- The epic migration of a 6-foot long, 200-pound catfishThe epic migration of a 6-foot long, 200-pound catfish
- Frans de Waal, biologist who studied animal emotion, dies at 75Frans de Waal, biologist who studied animal emotion, dies at 75
Environment
- Are synthetic diamonds really better for the planet? The answer isn't clear-cut.Are synthetic diamonds really better for the planet? The answer isn't clear-cut.
- This year's cherry blossom peak bloom was a warning signThis year's cherry blossom peak bloom was a warning sign
- The U.S. just announced an asbestos ban. What took so long?The U.S. just announced an asbestos ban. What took so long?
- The most dangerous job? Inside the world of underwater weldersThe most dangerous job? Inside the world of underwater welders
- The harrowing flight that wild whooping cranes make to surviveThe harrowing flight that wild whooping cranes make to survive
History & Culture
- Meet the powerful yokai that inspired the demon king in ‘Demon Slayer’Meet the powerful yokai that inspired the demon king in ‘Demon Slayer’
- A surprising must-wear for European monarchs? Weasels.A surprising must-wear for European monarchs? Weasels.
- Meet the woman who made Polaroid into a cultural iconMeet the woman who made Polaroid into a cultural icon
- Inside the observatory that birthed modern astrophysicsInside the observatory that birthed modern astrophysics
Science
- LED light treatments for skin are trendy—but do they actually work?LED light treatments for skin are trendy—but do they actually work?
- NASA smashed an asteroid. The debris could hit Mars.NASA smashed an asteroid. The debris could hit Mars.
- Humans really can have superpowers—scientists are studying themHumans really can have superpowers—scientists are studying them
- Why engineers are concerned about aging infrastructureWhy engineers are concerned about aging infrastructure
Travel
- Why you should try beach-hopping by boat around Paxos, GreeceWhy you should try beach-hopping by boat around Paxos, Greece
- Mansion museums show visitors the gritty side of the Gilded AgeMansion museums show visitors the gritty side of the Gilded Age
- 2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip2024 will be huge for astrotourism—here’s how to plan your trip