Hi Barrett, nice to 'meet' you Seb!

Protein folding and DNA chemistry (cutting, copying, re-joining strands) all depend crucially on the shape of the macro molecules, i.e. on the exact right bonding angles with which the structures evolved in the first place. It was clear to me right away that the claim of arsenic substituting for phosphorus in the DNA itself was totally impossible. It could conceivably happen on another, arsenic rich planet if the whole of biological evolution were centered around it all along there, but once something like the DNA is frozen in as a legacy system this deeply inside of the huge apparatus around it, there is no way it could change.

How could this ever go into Science? I think it is favors and maybe even voluntary quota over enforcement gone wrong. The name of the organism itself, GFAJ, stands for “give Felise a job”. The whole incident is just one more proof that much of the success in science is, and ever more so, about friends and favors between people who hope to gain from other people who may return them favors, everybody looking out for who may become the next media star for fifteen minutes. Science has become Hollywood – there is no bad publicity! In days back, critic on your article may have discredited you, somebody may have not given you a job. Today, criticism, if it comes late enough, gives you yet more citations, and that gives yet more ‘friends’ and funding and job security. Felise and friends know how to sell her, she has a job and her papers are cited – that is all that counts for her and for many who pretend they regret what happened while still though benefiting. But you cannot publish
 this kind of criticism, because obviously only a misogynist could think anything bad about Felise getting a job.

And while she and many others like her have a job, many scientist who uphold scientific integrity and would never publish such rubbish, let alone hype such like a media whore, do not get one, because they have not got the publications. In times past, maybe somebody would have put a stop to this arsenic paper at some point. Now, everybody realizes you need the short term gain from such bubbles rising if you ever want to get a chance at a better job - job 'stability' today is about constantly changing into something better, so short term goals are all that counts. There is no time for sitting down and using your head critically – you need to act fast, now, or somebody else will take your spot. No fear, you can even gain if the bubble pops – you do not need to jump off in time like you would need to sell your dot.com stocks or housing complex at the right moment. Publish or perish transforms the whole science community into showbiz. Lady Gaga goes on and on – popping her bubble
 merely provides for her next bubble.

A critical mind in fast times like these is a negative nay-say that poops on our game. Nobody even asks such uncomfortable to be around critics – political correctness is about optimism, positive thinking, hope, and rooting for our team. A woman with a great discovery, that is great – period - all critic is just envious guys while she is a great role model for women in science, so lets get the universities PR department and NASA and Science and Nature editors and whatever else can be involved, and lets spin the story. It literally does not matter whether the science is sound – not to anybody involved in the process. Everybody gains short term and short term gains multiply toward long-term advantage. Of course, the public’s trust into science and science itself is eroded away. So what?

The important aspect of this story is: It is blogs that started criticizing while science internally totally failed.

The arsenic story is merely the tip of the ice-berg. In nanoscience, we make a living publishing crap – we have to – there is no other way. All my papers in high impact journals are basically elaborate frauds. I tried to publish some criticism about certain methods – it is career suicide. You cannot be a skeptical inquirer inside the sciences. They will ‘kill’ you. I have only been able to publish two (2 !!!) good scientific papers in the last five years (all the rest is crap), they got only published in very low impact factor journals (one Chinese, so nobody reads it), and they are completely ignored. Every of the papers was about at least five times rejected, some over several years now, most of my other good critical work is plainly constantly rejected by all journals – no way to publish them at all (one for example on the Memristor 'discovery', also in Nature and all over the media, then the sexy part of the story was not a woman but a very old man, Leo Chua). My highest
 impact journal paper just appeared and even spawned a book chapter, too. This may give me a job next year. The paper and the book chapter are describing a completely useless method!

In fact, this is one reason why I am having a blog now myself. It is impossible to be a good scientist inside academia, and at some point I will let my own bubble burst with a big ol' bang - but as of now, I cannot do so. I first have to somehow make sure that the burst translates into my next bubble.

S


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Sascha Vongehr  (风洒沙)
Department of Philosophy and
National Key Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures
Dept of Materials Science and Engineering
Nanjing University, Kexue Jishu Guan 324, Hankou Lu 22,
Nanjing, Gulou District, Jiangsu Province 210093, P.R. China
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme
Alternate mail: vongehr8@yahoo.com
http://cn.LinkedIn.com/in/SaschaVongehr

----- Original Message -----
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:58 am
Subject: NASA press conference
To: sascha vongehr <vongehr@usc.edu>, Seb Gillen <sebgillen@gmail.com>

> Sascha-
>
> For my next Skeptical Inquirer column, I'll be writing about the

> flawedmanner in which both NASA and the media handled the press
> conferenceregarding the allegedly "arsenic-based" lifeforms, and I

> wanted to see if
> you had any thoughts on the matter and if you could take a look at
> my column
> when it's done to ensure that I have accurately assessed the
> situation (I
> know biology isn't your main thing and I'll run it by a biologist
> as well,
> but wanted to get your take). Also, wanted to introduce you to Seb
> Gillen,who will be helping to administrate the Science Journalism
> Program. I'm
> going to have Seb serve as a sort of liaison between PM and
> yourself since
> your China residency makes it difficult for you to attend meetings;
> he can
> provide you with additional info on all this and keep you up to
> date until
> such time as I am ready to speak to you further about how you can
> specifically get more involved.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Barrett Brown
> 512-560-2302
>