NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
Locked
12
12
 
|
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> > On a tangent, however, I found this article interesting: > > Citizens Against Peer Review > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-against-peer-review/ > > > But it does bring up the point that we humans do as little work as we > can get away with. We're lazy. We won't dig into any subject unless we > must, for whatever reason. The reviewers will dig in deeper than the > lay person (mostly) because it's their job/profession to do so. Oh > sure, they may have chosen that job/profession based on some inherent > energy or curiosity about the domain; but in the end, they have > groceries to buy on the way home, yards to rake, burnt out light bulbs > to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. > I weas fine with this, until I got to this bit. No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. In fact it seems to be the fashion not to do any work for peer reviewing, and just make snap judgements, as it takes you away from the 'real science' (ie writing research grant proposals to lure the grad students). They'll do it because they're fundamentally interested in science, and want to give back to the scientific community by returning the courtesy some other reviewer has given them. But career scientists don't, so the peer review process is often just a waste of time, or sometimes even positively catty. Sorry for the snarky comments :(. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Russell,
Money for doing peer reviews!!!!!????? Oh, gosh. If the world were thus! Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:31 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Peer review On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > On a tangent, however, I found this article interesting: > > Citizens Against Peer Review > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-aga > inst-peer-review/ > > > But it does bring up the point that we humans do as little work as we > can get away with. We're lazy. We won't dig into any subject unless > we must, for whatever reason. The reviewers will dig in deeper than > the lay person (mostly) because it's their job/profession to do so. > Oh sure, they may have chosen that job/profession based on some > inherent energy or curiosity about the domain; but in the end, they > have groceries to buy on the way home, yards to rake, burnt out light > bulbs to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like > I weas fine with this, until I got to this bit. No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. In fact it seems to be the fashion not to do any work for peer reviewing, and just make snap judgements, as it takes you away from the 'real science' (ie writing research grant proposals to lure the grad students). They'll do it because they're fundamentally interested in science, and want to give back to the scientific community by returning the courtesy some other reviewer has given them. But career scientists don't, so the peer review process is often just a waste of time, or sometimes even positively catty. Sorry for the snarky comments :(. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I am told that in economics these days, some journals
do pay referees (which I presume means "peer reviewers") an honorarium that diminishes by some set amount every day from the receipt of the paper (not dipping below $0, though; that *would* get my attention). This might be an Academic Urban Legend, however. And I don't really like to *talk* to economists... it always makes me feel poor, nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. > Russell, > > Money for doing peer reviews!!!!!????? Oh, gosh. If the world were thus! > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Russell Standish > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:31 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Peer review > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > > On a tangent, however, I found this article interesting: > > > > Citizens Against Peer Review > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-aga > > inst-peer-review/ > > > > > > But it does bring up the point that we humans do as little work as we > > can get away with. We're lazy. We won't dig into any subject unless > > we must, for whatever reason. The reviewers will dig in deeper than > > the lay person (mostly) because it's their job/profession to do so. > > Oh sure, they may have chosen that job/profession based on some > > inherent energy or curiosity about the domain; but in the end, they > > have groceries to buy on the way home, yards to rake, burnt out light > > bulbs to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like > this. > > > > I weas fine with this, until I got to this bit. No scientist will do peer > review for the sake of paying bills. In fact it seems to be the fashion not > to do any work for peer reviewing, and just make snap judgements, as it > takes you away from the 'real science' (ie writing research grant proposals > to lure the grad students). They'll do it because they're fundamentally > interested in science, and want to give back to the scientific community by > returning the courtesy some other reviewer has given them. But career > scientists don't, so the peer review process is often just a waste of time, > or sometimes even positively catty. Sorry for the snarky comments :(. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
But would referees need some incentive to do a good job of reviewing a paper? If we only go by economic motivation, and if our pay goes down the longer we take, why not do a rush job? If reviewers are paid, shouldn't their work be evaluated? Perhaps it is. Editors make note of who does a good review --but we would need formal feedback to the reviewers. Who would review the reviewers' work? ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 8:07 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peer review I am told that in economics these days, some journals do pay referees (which I presume means "peer reviewers") an honorarium that diminishes by some set amount every day from the receipt of the paper (not dipping below $0, though; that *would* get my attention). This might be an Academic Urban Legend, however. And I don't really like to *talk* to economists... it always makes me feel poor, nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. > Russell, > > Money for doing peer reviews!!!!!????? Oh, gosh. If the world were thus! > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Russell Standish > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:31 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: [FRIAM] Peer review > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > > > > On a tangent, however, I found this article interesting: > > > > Citizens Against Peer Review > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/12/03/citizens-aga > > inst-peer-review/ > > > > > > But it does bring up the point that we humans do as little work as we > > can get away with. We're lazy. We won't dig into any subject unless > > we must, for whatever reason. The reviewers will dig in deeper than > > the lay person (mostly) because it's their job/profession to do so. > > Oh sure, they may have chosen that job/profession based on some > > inherent energy or curiosity about the domain; but in the end, they > > have groceries to buy on the way home, yards to rake, burnt out light > > bulbs to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like > this. > > > > I weas fine with this, until I got to this bit. No scientist will do peer > review for the sake of paying bills. In fact it seems to be the fashion not > to do any work for peer reviewing, and just make snap judgements, as it > takes you away from the 'real science' (ie writing research grant proposals > to lure the grad students). They'll do it because they're fundamentally > interested in science, and want to give back to the scientific community by > returning the courtesy some other reviewer has given them. But career > scientists don't, so the peer review process is often just a waste of time, > or sometimes even positively catty. Sorry for the snarky comments :(. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-04 02:31 PM:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> >> to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. >> > > No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. Sorry, that was not my implication. I _tried_ to imply that scientists do peer reviews as a part of their profession, not out of simple curiosity, regardless how intense that curiosity. It takes relatively little work to subscribe to a bunch of journals and read whatever you want to read. It takes a great deal of work to actually review articles, even if it's merely your intention to be catty or negative. So what I intended to say was that scientists review articles because it is part of their role as a professional, not because they get paid to do it. They must commit to the work as a part of their profession. A good side benefit is that it forces you to learn things your natural curiosity would not have lead you to! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Glen,
Your description is pretty much a precise description of my reaction every time I got a paper for review. "What if nobody were willing to do this?" N -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 12:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peer review Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-04 02:31 PM: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> >> to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. >> > > No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. Sorry, that was not my implication. I _tried_ to imply that scientists do peer reviews as a part of their profession, not out of simple curiosity, regardless how intense that curiosity. It takes relatively little work to subscribe to a bunch of journals and read whatever you want to read. It takes a great deal of work to actually review articles, even if it's merely your intention to be catty or negative. So what I intended to say was that scientists review articles because it is part of their role as a professional, not because they get paid to do it. They must commit to the work as a part of their profession. A good side benefit is that it forces you to learn things your natural curiosity would not have lead you to! -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:48:54AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-04 02:31 PM: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > >> > >> to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. > >> > > > > No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. > > Sorry, that was not my implication. I _tried_ to imply that scientists > do peer reviews as a part of their profession, not out of simple > curiosity, regardless how intense that curiosity. It takes relatively > little work to subscribe to a bunch of journals and read whatever you > want to read. It takes a great deal of work to actually review > articles, even if it's merely your intention to be catty or negative. > > So what I intended to say was that scientists review articles because it > is part of their role as a professional, not because they get paid to do > it. They must commit to the work as a part of their profession. > > A good side benefit is that it forces you to learn things your natural > curiosity would not have lead you to! > What you write is a good description of how it ought to be. Sadly, it is not a description of how it is. Peer review works best when done by scientists who care about the science, and who know that claims need to be tested, queried and falsified where appropriate. As an editor, I know what it is like to have to conjole reviewers into getting their reviews done. There is usually no recognition for the peer review process, and it takes away from those activities that generate recognition (getting grants seems to take the cake :). And even when recognition is given, too often peer reviewers see it as a way of suppressing competition, and the reviews are rubbish. As both an author and a reviewer, I see the value in the system when performed properly. I'm asked to perform half a dozen reviews a year, which seems right, as I usually get out a couple of publications per year. I'm little biased towards acceptance - if I can't actually find anything wrong with a paper, I'm inclined to accept it, regardless of whether I subjectively agree with the result. We shouldn't be seen as the gatekeepers of what is considered scientific knowledge, but we are responsible for improving what is published where possible. It might be useful to publish reviewers comments alongside more controversial papers - I've only really seen this happen with Interjournal though. But then, I don't receive any financial reward from science - my academic affiliation is "visiting", and my last contract involving publishable research ended 2.5 years ago. Science, for me, is a hobby. I don't have time to play the "publications game" - doing the research is what it is all about, and I really appreciate candid reviews of my work, because it makes the research better. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-06 02:03 PM:
> What you write is a good description of how it ought to be. Sadly, it > is not a description of how it is. Hm. I can accept that your experiences make you think that. My experiences make me think the opposite. Most of the scientists I know grudgingly do reviews when asked, at least as many as they feel they can handle. Nick puts it well: Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-12-06 12:21 PM: > "What if nobody were willing to do this?" And when I see review comments to papers I'm a co-author on, they usually contain constructive feedback. I do often have to sift through prejudiced tangents or twist my mind to see their point of view in order to get to the good stuff. But it's almost always obvious that the reviewer takes her professional responsibility seriously. Perhaps I'm just lucky in the scientists I know and the reviews I've gotten of my work. But as my dad always said: "I'd rather be lucky than good." ;-) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:27:19PM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> And when I see review comments to papers I'm a co-author on, they > usually contain constructive feedback. I do often have to sift through > prejudiced tangents or twist my mind to see their point of view in order > to get to the good stuff. But it's almost always obvious that the > reviewer takes her professional responsibility seriously. Perhaps I'm > just lucky in the scientists I know and the reviews I've gotten of my > work. But as my dad always said: "I'd rather be lucky than good." ;-) > Maybe lucky, or maybe your work is more mainstream (you mention coauthor - most of my publications are single author, and that possibly makes a difference), or maybe its a pro-US bias (which does exist, according to sumfink I read in New Scientist). I should also mention - that even though I'm saying constructive revewing is a minority in my experience, it is not a rarity either, and the pearls of wisdom from the reviewers do make it worthwhile. Still, nothing can be proven by mere anecdote :). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Russell,
Oh, well! I couldn't' agree more: the reviewers who were recruited to read MY stuff were alsoall idiots and brigands. A stand standard review package consisted of "REVIEWER A: This is the worst piece of outdated trash I have read in the last ten years. Where has this author been for the last fifty years. Living under some rock? REVIEWER B: This the worst piece of weird off-wall-trash I have read in the last ten years. Where has this author been for the last fifty years. Living on Mars? EDITOR: Despite the reviewers' negative opinions of your piece, I still would like to see a revision. Please try to accommodate BOTH reviewers views in your resubmission. " It's just the reviewers of OTHER people's papers that were deep, thoughtful, and helpful. Nick, -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 4:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peer review On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:27:19PM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > And when I see review comments to papers I'm a co-author on, they > usually contain constructive feedback. I do often have to sift > through prejudiced tangents or twist my mind to see their point of > view in order to get to the good stuff. But it's almost always > obvious that the reviewer takes her professional responsibility > seriously. Perhaps I'm just lucky in the scientists I know and the > reviews I've gotten of my work. But as my dad always said: "I'd > rather be lucky than good." ;-) > Maybe lucky, or maybe your work is more mainstream (you mention coauthor - most of my publications are single author, and that possibly makes a difference), or maybe its a pro-US bias (which does exist, according to sumfink I read in New Scientist). I should also mention - that even though I'm saying constructive revewing is a minority in my experience, it is not a rarity either, and the pearls of wisdom from the reviewers do make it worthwhile. Still, nothing can be proven by mere anecdote :). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research:
finding lots of places where they didn't do (or didn't report the results of) additional experimental work she would have sent any graduate student back to the lab to do. -- rec --
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
Sounds like an extremely toxic research environment. Poisonous reviews...
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With ToxicChemical
|
|
Hey Guys,
just what is going on with Nasa? I thought that we had some bacteria 2 decades back that could purify copper and was extremely ready for marketing, even a stock offering. Did that not have the ability to handle arsenic? I recall a mountain of ore being processed with bacteria and the bodies were washed out for final refining. Or am I so damn old I recall another fairy tale?
It is not alien and the work is sloppy and now it might not even be new? NASA( Never A Straight Answer).
What gives?
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
-----Original Message-----
Sounds like an extremely toxic research environment. Poisonous reviews... On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research:
finding lots of places where they didn't do (or didn't report the results of) additional experimental work she would have sent any graduate student back to the lab to do.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
Roger Critchlow wrote circa 12/06/2010 09:39 PM:
> Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research: > > http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html Very cool! Thanks, Roger. > <http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html>Via > Maggie Koerth-Baker at Boing Boing: > > http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/06/microbiologist-turns.html Reading the comments to this one, I'm always amazed how people misunderstand peer review. Some people speak as if a panel of 3 ... or 12 ... reviewers (who do have _other_ things to do in their life) are responsible for omnisciently accepting truth and rejecting falsity. Publishing research that _later_ is criticized and turns out to be fatally flawed is all part of the process. Peer review is just 1 step in the process. Hopefully, Redfield's criticism will get published and we'll quickly follow an asymptote to a definitive conclusion that can be used in more research. One thing that's sure, though, is brought out nicely by this comment: "Maybe she's wrong. But it deserves a quick response, not a plodding discussion in the editorial pages of a magazine that most everyone can't afford." -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
Glen, and All,
You know, it wasn't SO long ago (i.e., I remember it) that SOME journals thought of themselves as "archival," and their reviewers* saw their role as defending the pages of those journals against error. In that context, getting published was supposed to be the end of a conversation, not a beginning. I don't know if, and where, that view survives. Nick *PS, Sort of like those people who defend the internet against people who use UPPER CASE for emphasis. (};-]) -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:21 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical Roger Critchlow wrote circa 12/06/2010 09:39 PM: > Ah, a microbiologist rips the NASA research: > > > http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nas > as.html Very cool! Thanks, Roger. > <http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-na > sas.html>Via > Maggie Koerth-Baker at Boing Boing: > > http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/06/microbiologist-turns.html Reading the comments to this one, I'm always amazed how people misunderstand peer review. Some people speak as if a panel of 3 ... or 12 ... reviewers (who do have _other_ things to do in their life) are responsible for omnisciently accepting truth and rejecting falsity. Publishing research that _later_ is criticized and turns out to be fatally flawed is all part of the process. Peer review is just 1 step in the process. Hopefully, Redfield's criticism will get published and we'll quickly follow an asymptote to a definitive conclusion that can be used in more research. One thing that's sure, though, is brought out nicely by this comment: "Maybe she's wrong. But it deserves a quick response, not a plodding discussion in the editorial pages of a magazine that most everyone can't afford." -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 12/07/2010 08:53 AM:
> You know, it wasn't SO long ago (i.e., I remember it) that SOME journals > thought of themselves as "archival," and their reviewers* saw their role as > defending the pages of those journals against error. In that context, > getting published was supposed to be the end of a conversation, not a > beginning. I don't know if, and where, that view survives. I hope it's completely dead. It should be obvious that authoritarianism is bad. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Russ, you had a small typo in your Shrödinger quote.
Instead of extracting "energy", Schrödinger actually defined living systems as extracting "negative entropy" from the environment:
"the only way a living system stays alive, away from maximum entropy or death is to be continually drawing from its environment negative entropy. ..Thus the devise by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness (= fairly low level of entropy) really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its environment." You can download the original at http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf. In the notes area he says negative entropy is equivalent to free energy but didn't want to confuse non physicists.
You can see this quote and a nice discussion on by Eric Schneider and James Kay in "What Is Life: The Next 50 Years" http://bit.ly/dO7mCE Feeding on free energy is very similar to Kauffman defining living systems as autonomous agents that extract work from their environment. BTW, Boltzmann also said a related bit: "The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available - nor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth." You can read this chapter at http://bit.ly/hYsuUd On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I his 1944 "What is Life," Schrödinger identifies a fundamental characteristic of living beings as being able to retain a relatively lower level of entropy by extracting energy from the environment. Since As compounds are so much less stable than P compounds the strategy that the As bacterium uses to maintain its low entropy level will probably constitute the most important aspect of this recent discovery. I wonder if these bacteria use relatively more energy to survive than comparable P bacteria or if they discovered a technique to maintain their structure that is not as dependent on stable As/P compounds. > > -- Russ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical
|
|
The author of the original paper speaks to criticisms:
Science is making the paper freely available for the next two weeks so anyone who wants to chime in doesn't need to buy a copy:
-- rec -- On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote: Russ, you had a small typo in your Shrödinger quote. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |