home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.origins      Evolution versus creationism (sometimes      142,579 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 141,190 of 142,579   
   RonO to Pro Plyd   
   =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_After_15_years_of_contro   
   02 Aug 25 07:42:33   
   
   From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   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 “expanded”   
   > criteria for retraction.   
   >   
   > The authors stand by their findings and disagree   
   > with the retraction, and contend the decision   
   > doesn’t reflect best practices for publishers.   
   >   
   > Many scientists, including David Sanders, a   
   > biologist at Purdue University in Lafayette, Ind.   
   > who has previously argued for the paper’s   
   > retraction in posts for Retraction Watch, believe   
   > the paper’s results were simply the result of   
   > contamination of the authors’ materials. He told   
   > us he was “glad” to see the retraction.   
   >   
   > “The problem was not that later research   
   > undermined the conclusions,” Sanders said. “The   
   > 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.”   
   >   
   > While the retraction notice does not explicitly   
   > state the contamination concern as a reason for   
   > the retraction, a blog post by the journal’s   
   > 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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca