Judging the experts on the arsenic-bacteria pushback

Here's an angry pushback contradicting the implications of the recent Science article finding Mono Lake bacteria that could use arsenic instead of phosphorus. It's interesting from my perspective because I know virtually nothing about the field and am completely incompetent to judge its validity, but it feels like the pushback you see from the 3% of climatologists who have some doubts about climate disruption. It does sound "sciencey", which must be what climate skeptics think when they read something from Lindzen or Michaels telling them what they want to hear.

In this case, my worth-little gut reaction is that she might have a point. A big difference from people like Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry is that Redfield seems to be attracting support from experts (see the comments), instead of incredulous looks. And she's pushing back on a single paper at the cutting edge of new research, instead of trying to overturn decades of established knowledge. Finally, while her certainty in the post is offputting (as is her attacks on the Mars meteorite researchers, one of whom was a housemate of mine), she's much more reasonable in response to comments that criticize her post.

Should be interesting to see where this goes.

UPDATE: As Eli comments below, the problem may be pushing a cool discovery far beyond where it belongs. I posted something relevant to Rosie Redfield's blog:

This part of the OP interested me, re that either P or As had to be added for the bacteria to grow:

"(21) Agreed, with the proviso that the media be tested and shown to be identical except for the phosphate and arsenate. But this wouldn't mean that arsenic replaced phosphorus in any biological molecules in GFAJ cells, just that the cells needed arsenate for something."

That cells needed arsenate for something would be an interesting finding, I'd guess. And cells need As for something that P does is also implied by this finding.

Is this an area of potential agreement between the original article authors and critics?

(IANAS, BTW, so YMMV)

Obama re-reverses on space policy, and I'm glad

In February 2008, Obama was expressing doubt about the Bush plan for manned spaceflight that would replace the Space Shuttle, the Constellation/Ares/Orion program, and suggested delaying it in order to pay for increased funding for science and education.  Some months after that, competing with Hillary Clinton and then John McCain for Florida voters, he reversed and supported the Bush plan, with all the money it entailed in Florida expenditures (and Alabama and Texas, but they weren't in play).

Now Obama has re-reversed and even gone beyond where he was before, cancelling the over-budget and delayed Constellation program entirely.  He didn't kill the manned space program (although that would've been fine with me), but instead will contract out the "space taxi" business to get astronauts to the space station, extend the station's life from 2016 to 2020, and redirect money to research on more advanced heavy lift vehicles that could ultimately get humans out of low-Earth orbit, although not in this decade.

To get the best details currently available, read the pdf (especially page 4).  None of this is guaranteed, by the way, because existing programs will use their pet congressional reps to fight back.  Killing Constellation is good.  Extending the space station lifespan is bad but probably necessary politically and diplomatically.  The slight increase in space station budget to do some actual science is good but only if we're keeping the station.  Switching parts of the manned program to advanced research creates some real-world utility.  There's also $3b of that funding for robotic exploration as precursors of manned flight, which could be a good way to sneak actual science into otherwise wasted money.

Science does well, with earth climate observation getting funding it needs, as does research on green aviation.  Rightwingers who deny climate change are attacking the funding for climate science, without noticing the contradiction in their attempt to shut down science that they claim will ultimately vindicate them.

They say they're fully funding the Hubble replacement, Juno robotic mission to Jupiter, and already-planned future missions to Mars and Europa.  Nothing too surprising - robotic scientific missions have done well (at least in comparison to the manned program).

Then there's my hobbyhorse, the Terrestrial Planet Finder space telescope whose budget was zeroed out by the Bushies in order to fund the manned space program.  Because this mission could detect atmospheric spectra on habitable planets on other starts that could provide pretty-conclusive evidence of life elsewhere.  So just a potential, partial answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Unfortunately, no answer as to whether TPF is coming back.  Page 16 of that pdf I linked to says a new decadal survey will determine astrophysics priorities, which will apparently be released in mid-2010.

We'll see what happens.  Meanwhile, I plan to revolutionize everything with a Facebook group I just established called "Launch the Terrestrial Planet Finder Space Telescope!"  I'm sure this will make it a lock in the future budget.

Mars Opportunity Rover on its way to clay-bearing rocks

This announcement got very little attention: the Mars Observer satellite found clays in the rim of the Endeavour Crater, which is the distant destination of the Opportunity Rover. While the rover has already analyzed water-deposited rock, the rock was from highly acidic water that is less hospitable to life than the earlier, phyllosillicate-clay rock found elsewhere. A major reason for the delayed Mars Science Lander mission is to examine clay rocks, and this discovery could give a preview.

The sequence of events as I understand it is that scientists believe that clay rock layers were deposited first. Then a large impact created the Endeavour crater, with crater rims sticking up above the surrounding rock. Then acidic waters left acidic rock deposits that covered the entire area except the crater rim. If Opportunity can get to it - it's still a long way away - it can find a type of surface more life-friendly than anything we've seen before.

I've wondered if the $20m annual cost of extending the rover missions has been worth it, but this would make it worthwhile if the rover successfully gets there.

My NASA space conspiracy theory

No, it's not that the Apollo moon landings were fake - everyone knows that.*

My conspiracy theory is that many or most of the space scientists who say they support NASA's manned space exploration are lying through their teeth. I don't think anyone can adeptly play the game of getting NASA money for an unmanned project you're working on, while simultaneously dissing the stupid and politically powerful manned program. I think the scientists are playing politics.

The moon landings did good science, although that wasn't the main reason for them. Since then, the manned program has been a huge disaster, and Obama to his credit has started pushing away at it. I say leave it to private industry.

Meanwhile, not much has surfaced about the mysterious resignation of the NASA's science chief, although it likely had something to do with political infighting over Mars funding. A great comment here seems to indicate some inside knowledge.

And we're less than two weeks from when Phoenix lands on Mars. Here's hoping it doesn't crater....


*Mom will kill me when she reads that - she wrote software for the Mercury and Gemini missions.

NASA is a bad place to be anti-science

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin claims to "think" it's arrogant for humanity to reject causing dangerous climate change to future generations. Kevin Vranes takes him apart, as do others noting that Griffin is even worse than Shrub on the issue, and the Shrub Administration had to disavow his remarks.

Griffin was the alleged saviour of NASA several years ago, by the way, and I even had some slight sympathy for the idea of replacing the 100 percent useless Shuttle and Space Station with 98 percent useless NASA manned moon base (plus vague talk of going to Mars that couldn't be taken seriously). Griffin promised "not one thin dime" of science funding would be lost to the new program. Guess what happened to that. The truly amazing Terrestrial Planet Finder telescope has been effectively cancelled, as well as the Mars Sample Return. And now the ability to study climate change via satellite is also being cancelled.

Thanks a lot. Can we have a new administration, please?