In total, the astronomical hype with earth report was received in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, the science published two studies that refuted the claim that GFAJ-1 include Arsenic atoms in his DNA. In addition to scientists, it concluded that it is an arsenic tolerant extremophilic, but not a deep different life form.
Retreat
But now, in 2025, it is again controversy; On Thursday, science announced that it is withing the study.
Some critics, such as Redfield, cheered the move. Others asked the timing and noticed that 15 years had passed, but only a few months had passed since the New York Times published a profile of Wolfe-Simon, who now returns to science after he was seen as Pariah. Wolfe-Simon and most of its co-authors continue to defend the original newspaper and protest against the withdrawal.
In a blog post on Thursday, the executive editor of science, Valda Vinson, and editor -in -chief Holden Thorp explained by saying that the criteria of science for publishing a withdrawal have evolved since 2010. At the time it was reserved for claims of misconduct or fraud, but now serious shortcomings can record. In particular, Vinson and Thorp referred to the criticism that the genetic material of the bacterium was not correctly purified from backgrounds before it was analyzed. Although it emphasizes that there has been no suggestion for fraud or misconduct of the authors, they wrote that “Science believes that the most important conclusion of the article is based on defective data,” and therefore it must be withdrawn.
Jonathan demands, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Davis, criticized the move. Speaking with the news team of science, that is independent of research into the research publication of the magazine, said that, despite the fact that he was a critic of the Paper of 2010, he thought that the discussion about controversial studies in the scientific literature should play and was not dependent on subjective decisions by editors.
In an ECETTER that was affiliated with the withdrawal message, the authors also dispute the withdrawal and say: “Although our work could have been written and discussed more carefully, we are in the data as reported. This data was peer-reviewed, openly debated in the literature and stimulated productive research.”
One of the co-authors, Ariel Anbar, a geochemist at Arizona State University, said nature that the study had no mistakes, but that the data could be interpreted in different ways. “You don't withdraw because of a dispute about data interpretation,” he said. If that was the case, “you should withdraw half of the literature.”
