NASA was WRONG on arsenic-gobbling aliens, claim boffins
Weird Earth bacteria need their six a day
Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime
Scientists in Switzerland have blown apart the theory that some bacteria can live off arsenic, disproving a controversial 2010 study by NASA.
Felisa Wolfe-Simon, one of the space agency's astrobiologists, faced scepticism when she declared two years ago that she had discovered the snappily named GFAJ-1* microbe thriving in the arsenic-rich, phosphorus-depleted Mono Lake in eastern California.
It was a surprise find because phosphorus is one of the six essential ingredients for life as we know it, yet NASA's bug was apparently able to metabolise poisonous arsenic to grow.
Rather than back notions of unearthly lifeforms living off a toxic chemical element, two separate studies published in the past week have skewered the arsenic-loving bacteria conclusions. Findings from the University of Zurich suggest that GFAJ-1 is dependent on phosphorus and rather resistant to arsenic.
A second study from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, also reached the same conclusion. Its team leader, Dr Rosemary Redfield, said the original results may have been affected by phosphate contaminant in the arsenic.
Dr Wolfe-Simon of NASA's Astrobiology Institute said the latest findings do not nix her work.
"There is nothing in the data of these new papers that contradicts our published data," she said in an email to the Associated Press. Her team "continues to build upon its finding of the extreme resistance to arsenic poisoning".
GFAJ-1 Is an Arsenate-Resistant, Phosphate-Dependent Organism was published in Science on 8 July. ®
Bootnote
* GFAJ apparently stands for Give Felisa a Job, according to the Wall Street Journal.
COMMENTS
NO
Scientists in Switzerland have blown apart the theory that bacteria can live off arsenic...
NO THEY HAVEN'T. They have published research refuting the conclusion that a specific form of bacteria can live off arsenic.
Please stop writing science articles until you understand the difference.
Media
The media was responsible for making this such a big deal & they got it wrong/jumped the gun.
The original paper stated contamination of the samples was a significant possibility & the group made shed loads of samples available for that reason. The media really muddies the water for science because they don't understand the processes involved and end up forcing scientists into headline quotes: Most scientists are not equipped to deal with media sharks & it makes a poor impression on laymen. I often wish media would stay out of the journals as they rarely know what they're talking about.
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime
SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had
