In December 2010, the discovery of a bacterium called GFAJ-1 in Mono Lake in California caused quite a sensation. The scientists who studied it declared that it was capable of using arsenic instead of phosphorus among the basic elements of its biochemistry.
This study was published in the magazine Science after it was announced by NASA. However, not all scientists were convinced that those conclusions were correct and now again the magazine Science published two new independent studies that debunk the previous one. The first research was done mainly by Rosie Redfield of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and by Marshall Reaves from the American University of Princeton. The second research was directed by Tobias Erb of the Institute of Microbiology at the the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.
In essence, both new research confirm that the bacterium GFAJ-1 has a tolerance to arsenic which is extremely high but in its biochemical it always uses phosphorus. In short, it’s an extraordinary bacterium that can survive in conditions that would kill almost all other life forms but in its DNA no trace of arsenic was found.
This case once again poses the problem of communication and circulation of scientific research. It sometimes happens that a research leads to extraordinary results but sometimes these results are contradicted at a later time, when further research discovers some mistakes.
[ad name=”AmazonScience”]
Science is based on the repeatability of experiments and it’s normal that they’re improved, leading to a correction of errors. Unfortunately, the need to obtain funds for research can lead to an excess of enthusiasm in proposing preliminary results that may seem extraordinary. There’s a particular trend in the media to publish these results with sensationalism, even when there’s caution on the part of the scientists who present them.
In the case of the bacterium GFAJ-1, the first research led to a series of speculations even wild on the various media. Someone suggested that this bacterium had evolved independently from all other life forms and someone even speculated that it had an extraterrestrial origin. The first study actually didn’t suggest in any way either of the two hypotheses, which are disproved for good, at least for those who speak of science, by the new studies.
What remains is a bacterium which is interesting under scientific point of view for its ability to live in a very toxic environment but certainly not worthy of that much attention and especially of so many speculations.
