

Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? No. - araneae
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

======
xd
" _consists entirely of a crude and ugly website that looks like it was sucked
through a wormhole from the 1990s_ "

Is it just me or is that comment just a tad childish? I'm finding it hard to
take this guy seriously, let alone the other guy.

~~~
tokenadult
Making comments like that is part of the shtick

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shtick>

of PZ Myers when he writes blog posts. Most of his conduct in writing posts on
his blog would not be considered civil or decorous conduct here on HN, but he
knows his biology, and his reply to the biological aspects of the recently
reported claim should be taken seriously. PZ Myers also had one of the first
good analyses on the Web of the claim that a different scientist affiliated
with NASA had found an "arsenic-based" life form. Not so, as PZ aptly pointed
out.

Anyway, PZ continues in his blog post to write, "So let's look at the paper,
Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: Implications to Life
on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus." He then comments that he can't even count
on links to the website for the article staying valid, because of the way the
website is administered, but he proceeds to analyze the content of the paper,
and to find it below the usual standard of biology papers about newly
discovered microorganisms.

In other words, it is not always valid in either direction to judge a message
by its messenger or its medium. Sometimes good factual points are made with
less than ideal decorum.

~~~
waterlesscloud
"In other words, it is not always valid in either direction to judge a message
by its messenger or its medium."

Even though that's precisely one of the things the author does.

~~~
arbitrarywords
PZ Myers has a fair bit of credibility. After years of helping deal with
torrents of nonsense, I'm prepared to cut the guy a little slack on the snark
front.

Also I think the key word in "it is not always valid in either direction to
judge" is "always". Would you feel wrong incorporating the fact that someone
had submitted a resume in badly formatted handwriting as part of your
assessment of their application?

------
jagtesh
The author of the published paper in question is the Astrobiology Group Leader
at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (<http://spie.org/x17397.xml>)

Why would he risk his career and put his reputation at stake?

~~~
ffumarola
He has made similar claims before that didn't pan out. Why is it risking his
career if he truly believes it? It may just be a case of seeing what he wants
to see.

We'll see!

~~~
jagtesh
My point is, why would NASA employ him as a Group Leader if he were, dare I
say, delusional?

There's got to be _some_ truth in it.

~~~
aheilbut
Because NASA is a big government bureaucracy, and he's been working there
since 1966.

Instead of thinking that there's got to be _some_ truth to it, think that when
there's a whiff of BS and it looks like the work of a bunch of delusional
cranks publishing in their own vanity journal, it's nonsense and should be
ignored.

~~~
_delirium
Strangely, it's not just him, though I agree it doesn't seem particularly
likely to be true. The journal's editorial board seems to have people who do
reasonably respectable work when it comes to their work that _doesn't_ involve
panspermia. The journal's editor-in-chief, for example, is a well-respected
director at Harvard's observatory, and his "normal" papers (reporting on finds
via the telescope) get published in normal journals.

~~~
aheilbut
It is pretty strange that there are so many big names playing along. On the
other hand, there's quite a long tradition of eminent, tenured, (and often
aging) scientists going a little bit off the deep end, especially in areas
outside of their actual expertise.

People say things for all kinds of weird reasons, which may range from pet
theories to hawking books and getting speaking gigs.

~~~
apl

      > On the other hand, there's quite a long tradition of
      > eminent, tenured, (and often aging) scientists going a
      > little bit off the deep end, especially in areas outside
      > of their actual expertise.
    

Look no further than Watson _and_ Crick.

------
ffumarola
<http://journalofcosmology.com/>

Not to judge a book by its cover, but... seriously?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I thought, trying to be charitable - "it's [<http://journalofcosmology.com/>]
not that bad, OK - not the worst, table based, outset borders, kinda
minimalist maybe". Then \ _BAM\_ the background loaded and assaulted my visual
cortex.

------
jarin
While it is strange that he would publish his paper in the Journal of
Cosmology, it doesn't change the validity (or non-validity) of the facts. I'm
looking forward to seeing some serious analysis of the paper instead of snarky
ad hominem attacks like this article.

~~~
SpikeGronim
Yeah, it opens with snark. But then the article goes through the arguments and
figures in the paper and refutes the hypothesis, so it's not empty snark.

Publishing a paper in a fake journal does damage the validity of the claims.
Papers with sufficient evidence for their claims can get published in journals
with strict peer review policies. By choosing such a crap journal the authors
are essentially admitting that Nature or Science would never accept their
arguments.

~~~
jarin
The only objective criticisms I saw in the article were about the SEMs not
being to scale and the preservation state of the "organisms". Other than that,
it seems like it was snark at the beginning, snark in the middle, and snark at
the end.

~~~
SpikeGronim
He directly addresses their key evidence: the pictures of the supposed
organisms. He interprets the images as inorganic and and calls the paper's
claims pareidolia. If outside observers look at the same data and don't see
what you're arguing for, you're not making your case successfully.

------
dools
At first while I was reading this article I was really REALLY bummed out. I
was so excited when they discovered extra terrestrial life that, even though
the initial link posted on HN came from Fox News and the second came from
Yahoo!, I still believed it. I'm just that big an optimist.

This guy put me in my place, though. The Journal of Cosmology does look like a
complete and utter joke of a website. Fox may as well just take to syndicating
Nexus magazine.

It's not all bad news though! Just as I was beginning to get seriously down in
the dumps I saw that, NO JOKE, I'm the 999,999th visitor to scienceblogs.com!

Not only that, but I have been RANDOMLY SELECTED to become the possible winner
of an Apple product! That news really bouyed my spirits!

In all seriousness: if this dude wants to go round shitting on other people's
websites he should reconsider his choice in 3rd party ad network.

------
fullduplex
I read the paper in it's entirety today.

Hoover is a sharp scientist and he has authored a very compelling piece that
on the surface appears to reinforce it's central tenant - that the structures
documented are not indigenous to Earth.

If that is in fact validated, the remaining debate is about methods and
interpretation of the ESEM, FSEM and EDS results. That portion of the paper
appears to be very well thought out and presented.

What's also very good, there is a clear and concise method for reproducing the
results and the invitation of so many others to do just that.

This thing has legs.

------
SoftwareMaven
It seems telling to me that NASA had a major build up and press conference to
discuss findings of exobiotic-like life, yet quietly does nothing for evidence
of actual exobiotic life.

~~~
xd
do you mean xenobiotic?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
No, I didn't, but that would be appropriate, too.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exobiology>

And I would love to know what I was down-voted for. Please tell me it wasn't
because somebody thought it really should be xenobiology (and, no, xd, I don't
think it was you :).

------
recluce
But I want to believe :(

------
tocomment
By the way, why does everyone seem to be poo-pooing that arsenic discovery
from a few months ago? Did something about it turn out to be fake?

~~~
tokenadult
Pretty much everything about the "arsenic-based life" claim turned out to be
examples of poor scientific lab technique and poor thinking. There is NOT
acceptance in the scientific community that arsenic-based life has been found.

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/its_not_an_arseni...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/its_not_an_arsenic-
based_life.php)

[http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-
ba...](http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-
nasas.html)

[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/arsenic-life-
under...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/arsenic-life-under-fire/)

<http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/>

------
shareme
Carl Sagan once fought for the right and asked that it be treated as an honor
or duty that every scientist examine claims no matter how unrealistic in order
to expose the greater amount of people to the scientific method and basic
science. Carl Sagan's debunking of Velikovsky was just as snarky if not more
so.

For those of ill-uniformed..Velikovsky had similar theories.

~~~
shareme
Both sides of the Carl Sagan and Velikovsky affair:

<http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/velikovsky.htm>

Some interesting reading as Velikovsky also was a Hoyle believer..

------
frankydp
P.Z. Meyers is a biology Shock Jock. Thats all. He says whatever will get
traffic.

~~~
ihodes
Is he wrong?

~~~
frankydp
Should be, JOC has 5000 scientist reviewing, and 500 vetting.

~~~
nollidge
Source?

~~~
frankydp
Comment was derived from the below.

[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/aliens-riding-
mete...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/aliens-riding-meteorites-
arsenic-redux-or-something-new/)

[http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/journal-of-cosmology-
going-o...](http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/journal-of-cosmology-going-out-
with-big-bang)

Rosie Redfield has now voiced some valid concerns on processing.

~~~
eli
Huh? That link says they _invited_ 5,000 scientists to "review" the paper
_after_ it was published as part of some kind of publicity stunt.

