nasa news conference tomorrow

[USViking]

I could not agree more. The $467,000 the government spent on this useless research into life would have paid for at least two guidance fins of a drone missile that could have kept us safe from different-than-us lifeforms if properly guided and detonated.

Glad we are on the same page here.

 

We really do need to ensure ourselves a large supply of drone missiles

available for use against the Taliban and Al-Quaeda of the world.

 

If NASA wants to spend $476k (and not much more) on its not particularly

useful search for ET, then let that money be spent where ET is actually

supposed to reside- on such places as Mars.

[Winstonm]

Damn straight! The government should have carte blanche authority to do anything it wants at any time without fear of public disclosure or recriminations. We want to look forward, not back.

[USViking]

Damn straight! The government should have carte blanche authority to do anything it wants at any time without fear of public disclosure or recriminations. We want to look forward, not back.

I see you are the kind of person who is inclined to turn any thread

on any subject into one of your favorite soap-box shrills.

 

I have been through this particular subject to the tune of probably

100s of posts on several political boards. I am tired of it, and I will

not take the bait to go into any more here.

 

Briefly though, I am not sure how much else besides drone attacks

I would approve of, or under what circumstances I might limit disclosure,

but counterterror is the area where I would place the fewest restaints

on our operations.

[luke warm]

Damn straight! The government should have carte blanche authority to do anything it wants at any time without fear of public disclosure or recriminations. We want to look forward, not back.

I see you are the kind of person who is inclined to turn any thread

on any subject into one of your favorite soap-box shrills.

you think?

[helene_t]

Strangely, MASA (Martian version of Nasa) has announced today a similar finding, namely that it appears that life is possible even if that life survives on a diet of tweenkies, Ale 8-1, and big macs. This announcement shocked M-Span audiences until it was explained that intelligent life is not possible on that diet, however.

But life-forms on such a diet might still be able to turn random water cooler threads into rant-floods about US politics, though.

[luke warm]

looks like several qualified individuals are criticizing the so-called science used by nasa ... the author also has some choice words to say about the peer review process

[neilkaz]

We collect taxes from martians? Who knew!

Why shouldn't we? We'd probably allow their children to automatically become US citizens if born in our airspace.

[Winstonm]

looks like several qualified individuals are criticizing the so-called science used by nasa ... the author also has some choice words to say about the peer review process

 

Peer review complaints are in another thread.

[USViking]

looks like several qualified individuals are criticizing the so-called science used by nasa ... the author also has some choice words to say about the peer review process

Thanks for the blurb, here's a CBC link to comments by the critic:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/12/06/arsenic-microbe-dna-nasa-wolfe-simon.html?ref=rss#ixzz17P6UT100

 

Some quotes:

 

"I don't know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're unscrupulously pushing NASA's 'There's life in outer space!' agenda," wrote University of British Columbia Prof. Rosie Redfield on her blog about the study...

 

Redfield described the study led by astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon as "lots of flim-flam, but very little reliable information..."

 

Redfield (said)...that the paper "doesn't present ANY convincing evidence that arsenic has been incorporated into DNA (or any other biological molecule).

 

Redfield said the methods used by the researchers were so crude that any arsenic they detected was likely from contamination...

 

She also questioned why the researchers analyzed the DNA while it was still in the gel, making the results more difficult to interpret: "No molecular biologist would ever do that."

 

Redfield also disagreed with the paper's conclusion that the bacteria had to rely on arsenic to build molecules such as DNA because there wasn't enough phosphate (a form of phosphorus) available in the samples with the lowest levels. Her arithmetic showed that in fact, there was enough phosphate to account for the amount of bacteria that grew...

 

"That shocked me," she said.

 

Redfield added that there was actually very little arsenic in the DNA of bacteria grown in an environment high in arsenic and low in phosphorus. In fact, the amount was only twice that of the cells grown without arsenic: "That's a level of difference that could be easily explained by very minor contamination..."

 

She suggested that perhaps the reviewers may not have had an expertise in microbiology. Another possibility is that the reviewers raised some concerns, but the editors of Science didn't think they were serious or were "motivated by the coup of getting this very high-profile article..."

[Winstonm]

looks like several qualified individuals are criticizing the so-called science used by nasa ... the author also has some choice words to say about the peer review process

 

From NASA

 

"It's called peer review and it is one of the most important safeguards of the scientific method. Without thorough and ruthless peer review, people are free to simply make outrageous claims and expect to be believed. That's how religion works."

[luke warm]

From NASA

isn't that the point? those who are doing the criticizing are saying there was no "... thorough and ruthless peer review ..."

[USViking]

NASA appears to me to have been accused by several qualified authorities

of non-conformance with scientific standards, or, to put it another way, of

unprofessional behavior.

 

In my opinion this serious charge needs to be addressed transparently and

immediately, and there are sure to be acceptable means available other than

exchange in peer reviewed scientific journals. Also, besides being too slow

to accomodate the needs of this issue, typical peer review is unacceptable due

to the anonymity of the reviewers: the point has been reached where both the

defendants and the public deserve to know who the judges are.

 

I also think there is some validity to the objection that with all its garish tease

and hype NASA itself stepped outside the peer review process which it is now

trying to use to hide behind.