Mmm, arsenic

[ugly_boy]

OOOOOOOMG ARSENIC-BASED LIFE!!!!111

Eh, not quite. To quote PZ: “…researchers have found that some earthly bacteria that live in literally poisonous environments are adapted to find the presence of arsenic dramatically less lethal, and that they can even incorporate arsenic into their routine, familiar chemistry.” He points out in an addendum that

Comments

the narrative problem...

[flw]

Science journalism has a problem, just like all journalism. The problem is the need for a compelling narrative. Not a narrative that is compelling to other scientists, but rather a narrative that is compelling to scientific illiterates who often have power over the journalists. Ironically, the people who are lured in by the headlines are the same people who will feel betrayed by the content. So making these phony headlines is not helping. But why do scientists and journalists feel compelled to generate these phony headlines?

I suspect science has a "problem" as well. Every time I read "Cure for Cancer!", "Alien Life!", or "Invisibility Cloak!" in a headline I know that someone's funding somewhere is under serious threat. Honestly, this latest story from NASA had this response in my thoughts, "Wow, NASA is paying people to do this?" And when I watched the press conference, with the strained, desperate smiles... It was all I needed to see. This whole department is facing the ax, and they needed an ace-in-the-hole to keep the gravy-train running. That's just my guess. So, grab some headline space, get a slew of journal papers and start sending out your C.V.

But the real problem that is inherent to science is...

Imagine that there is a problem with 100 possible solutions, but only one possible RIGHT solution. Each possible solution will require a decade of dedicated research to determine if it is correct or not. There is no way of knowing if any of the solutions are better or worse than any other until you reach the end. So 100 scientists set off down each of the 100 blind alleys. One finds the solution. Now, in our current way of viewing things, the scientist who finds the "right" solution is rewarded beyond all measure, and the 99 who ended in "wrong" solutions are rewarded with associate professorships at Bowling Green Community College (not that there's anything wrong with that! Which is ANOTHER problem with science and academia).

Now, I know in the real world, things are messier. But "getting the right answer" is over-valued. Which is a weird thing to say. Getting a wrong answer the right way is often just as great a contribution to a field of knowledge as the "right" answer. In fact, all the "wrong" answers are part of the right answer.

The problem is that people are too stupid to see the value of basic research, filled as it is with esoterica and "useless" trivia. But who is going to say that at a press conference?

Re: the narrative problem...

[ugly_boy]

I think you've really hit on something with the funding issue. This is especially true for NASA projects, which are wholly funded and operated by the government. If your project is housed at a university, even if it's a public one and your research is directly supported by federal grants, you probably don't have to justify your existence to the public the same way that something kooky sounding like astrobiology at NASA does. But I wonder, do stunts like this really work? Does Joe the Plumber hear about “arsenic-based life” and decide taxes aren't so bad, after all?

I fear that the only thing this can accomplish is to compound many of our current problems. It decreases the public's understanding of science rather than increasing it. This is true both for specifics, like some basic principles of biochemistry and evolution that are relevant to this discovery, and more generally any media blitz about a single study gives the wrong impression about science actually works. I think it also leads to a gradual deterioration for the trust that people have in science, and support for public funding. I'll go out on a limb and say we're not likely to discover extraterrestrial life in the next, say, 10-20 years, and so if anybody does remember this they're likely to think, “Gee, that didn't pan out.” It's easy to get the impression that the all science has done is made a bunch of unfulfilled promises-where are our jet packs, and why haven't you cured cancer? I don't think stories like this are helping.

As for academic science, I agree there are problems, but they're not necessarily a factor in this story. The research was backed by NASA and published in Science; (poor) coverage on the evening news won't make the lead author's C.V. any stronger. I think individual working scientists do appreciate the value of negative studies, at least in principle, but there are a lot of systematic things in place that devalue negative findings. It's unfortunate, because you're right, finding out how something does not work can be incredibly valuable. “OK, we know this medication doesn't work. We still don't know what does, but we can stop wasting money and risking side effects by prescribing this crap.”

Re: the narrative problem...

[flw]

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/nsf-youcut-review

Re: the narrative problem...

[ugly_boy]

This can't be good… I wish I could sit here and say that of course people should be interested and get involved, but I think it's obvious to both of us why this could turn into a huge disaster, if it goes anywhere. I'm reminded of an excellent Carl Sagan quote: “It is suicidal to create a society dependent on science and technology in which hardly anybody knows anything about science and technology.” I'm afraid this is even worse than people living in passive ignorance.