I am glad to hear that Felisa Wolfe-Simon is doing well and still loves science.
But lots of other information in a new article in the New York Times about Wolfe-Simon is not as warming.
First, the timeline of events circa 2010 described in the article is very fuzzy at best. I’m not sure if it6s wrong or just cloudy.
By focusing on Wolfe-Simon, others involved in this story – notably Rosie Redfield – are reduced to namely “critics.” There are other elements of the story that are maybe over emphasized?
Critique soon became attack, and attack often became personal – focusing, for instance, on Dr. Wolfe-Simon’s appearance, including her dyed hair.
Several articles described her colourful hair positively. And Rosie Redfield dyed her hair, too. I cannot doubt some attacked her appearance, and that any of those comments can hurt bad.
And soon, Dr. Wolfe-Simon said, she couldn’t get grants or publish papers.
A lot of researchers struggle to get grants or publish papers. There’s no way of knowing what proposals or manuscripts she was submitting or what the comments were.
Second, there is news that the journal Science is considering retracting the original paper. Current editor, Holden Thorp, expands on the possible retraction of the arsenic life paper in a thread on Bluesky. i asked what point a retraction would serve, to which Thorp replied, “Partly because of AI and even before with search engines that only look at the title, papers like this continue to get cited uncritically. ‘Retraction’ is added to the title in these cases.”
This strikes me as reasonable, but I still have some reservations. By the same argument, anyone who only looks at the title and sees “Retraction” will also view that uncritically and not read the retraction notice. This could mean someone would not cite this paper appropriately for its discovery of a new strain of arsenic-tolerant bacteria (which is not contests).
Retraction is a blunt instrument.
Third, this article paints Wolfe-Simon as someone who was wronged, not as someone who was wrong.
Usually, professional consequences so severe are reserved for those who fabricate data or commit fraud, which no one has alleged with #arseniclife. Why, then, were the repercussions so resounding for Dr. Wolfe-Simon?
And from reading this article, it seems to me that Wolfe-Simon still thinks she found bacteria that use arsenic instead of phosphorus.
She also defended the discovery against scientific consensus. Some see that as an unwillingness to change a conclusion in the face of new information. Dr. Wolfe-Simon would say that information is wrong.
And...
To this day, Dr. Wolfe-Simon defends the work, noting that she wishes the team had saved less data for a second paper. The team published a response to critiques in Science, and Dr. Wolfe-Simon disputes failed replications of their findings. Other co-authors say they also stand by the integrity of the original work.
What I would like to know if whether the co-authors stand by the conclusions of their work. Do they think they discovered a bacterium that uses arsenic in place of phosphorus?
Wolfe-Simon throws Science magazine under the bus a bit:
She wouldn’t pursue a flashy journal that would impose a heavy hand in publication and press, she said.
We absolutely have to make space for making mistakes and being wrong in science. But researchers have to be willing to admit those mistakes.
External links
Her discovery wasn’t alien life, but science has never been the same. (Paywalled.)
