A NASA spokesperson has dismissed a major critique of the Science arsenic bug paper based not on the criticism’s merits, but on its venue — it appeared in a blog rather than a peer-reviewed journal. Apparently ideas are valid (or not) based not on their content, or even the reputation of the author, but on where they’re published.
NASA spokesperson Dwayne Brown expressed these rather anti-empirical notions in a CBC News story about the substantive and detailed reservations about the Science paper raised by University of British Columbia researcher Rosie Redfield in her blog, which I covered here night before last. As I noted then, Redfield’s criticisms were quickly echoed by other qualified researchers. But Brown sets aside Redfield’s critique without even referring to its substance or merits.
From “NASA’s arsenic microbe science slammed,” at CBC News:
When NASA spokesman Dwayne Brown was asked about public criticisms of the paper in the blogosphere, he noted that the article was peer-reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals. He added that Wolfe-Simon will not be responding to individual criticisms, as the agency doesn’t feel it is appropriate to debate the science using the media and bloggers. Instead, it believes that should be done in scientific publications.
This is a call to pre-Enlighentment thinking. Brown is telling us to judge utterances not by their content, not even by the integrity, reputation, and experience of the individuals who deliver them, but by whether they’re delivered from the proper place in the proper building — in pre-Enlightenment days, the Church of Rome; in Brown’s post-arsenic days, the Church of the Peer-reviewed Journal.
It’s an extraordinary dismissal. Rosie Redfield is a full-bore member of the academy and a researcher in the field under question. She is — to extend the metaphor — a priest. But though Redfield wears the proper robes, Brown wants to dismiss her because she’s not standing on the proper altar.
Even the best peer-reviewed journals make mistakes. Hype can take over. Groupthink can rule. People screw up. And sometimes journals defend mistakes by refusing to publish sharp critiques of them. All this stuff happens, and not just once in a blue moon. Peer review — and especially so in the sort of artificially and arbitrarily constricted sense that Brown gives it here.
What he fails to see or refuses to acknowledge is that Rosie Redfield is a peer, and her blog is peer review. NASA has bungled its presentation of this paper from start to finish. It makes worse by trying to dismiss critiques this way. This is the wrong stuff.
It seems that NASA is taking some heat about its’ arsenic critters, or rather whether they’re actually arsenic at all.
My beef is that NASA sensationalized this (of course they deny it) before the study was released last week that the microbes were “alien” and could be part of a shadow ecology.
I don’t know, it seems a lot of work to jump through fiery hoops in order to prove other life exists in the Universe and a lot of work is committed to prove it only exists here on Earth. Hmm..
On December 2nd, 2010, NASA scientists released a press conference about discovering “alien” life in Mono Lake, California. This life-form, instead of incorporating phosphorus into its DNA structure incorporated arsenic instead, which is a deadly poison to most life-forms on Earth, (including us!).
The theory here is that if there’s a possibility of a “shadow” ecology existing on this planet, life throughout the Universe must be very common and could incorporate a variety of chemicals in their various DNAs in order to exist.
Of course the word is still out whether there’s a shadow ecology on Earth and many are disputing the NASA scientists findings, but there’s no doubt this raises more questions than answers. And that’s the nature of science.
The NASA Mono Lake Discovery