From Newsgroup: talk.origins


https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/24/science-retraction-arsenic-life-nasa-astrobiology/

Fifteen years after publishing an explosive but
long-criticized paper claiming to describe a
microbe that could substitute arsenic for
phosphate in its chemical makeup, Science is
retracting the article, citing rCLexpandedrCY
criteria for retraction.

The authors stand by their findings and disagree
with the retraction, and contend the decision
doesnrCOt reflect best practices for publishers.

Many scientists, including David Sanders, a
biologist at Purdue University in Lafayette, Ind.
who has previously argued for the paperrCOs
retraction in posts for Retraction Watch, believe
the paperrCOs results were simply the result of
contamination of the authorsrCO materials. He told
us he was rCLgladrCY to see the retraction.

rCLThe problem was not that later research
undermined the conclusions,rCY Sanders said. rCLThe
problem was that the evidence presented in the
article was not supportive of the conclusions
from the start and that all the results were
based on the fact that the arsenate was
contaminated with phosphate.rCY

While the retraction notice does not explicitly
state the contamination concern as a reason for
the retraction, a blog post by the journalrCOs
editors does.
...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/1/2025 10:01 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:

https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/24/science-retraction-arsenic-life- nasa-astrobiology/

Fifteen years after publishing an explosive but
long-criticized paper claiming to describe a
microbe that could substitute arsenic for
phosphate in its chemical makeup, Science is
retracting the article, citing rCLexpandedrCY
criteria for retraction.

The authors stand by their findings and disagree
with the retraction, and contend the decision
doesnrCOt reflect best practices for publishers.

Many scientists, including David Sanders, a
biologist at Purdue University in Lafayette, Ind.
who has previously argued for the paperrCOs
retraction in posts for Retraction Watch, believe
the paperrCOs results were simply the result of
contamination of the authorsrCO materials. He told
us he was rCLgladrCY to see the retraction.

rCLThe problem was not that later research
undermined the conclusions,rCY Sanders said. rCLThe
problem was that the evidence presented in the
article was not supportive of the conclusions
from the start and that all the results were
based on the fact that the arsenate was
contaminated with phosphate.rCY

While the retraction notice does not explicitly
state the contamination concern as a reason for
the retraction, a blog post by the journalrCOs
editors does.
...

My take is that a lot of research isn't repeatable. Retractions don't
seem to apply in most of those cases. The research is just forgotten.
Just think of all the early human gene association work that wasn't repeatable. I do not think any of those papers were retracted. Genes
were associated with a lot of things, but very few like BRCA for breast
cancer panned out.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2