NASA's 'strange creature' is just 'crap'?

The most prestigious scientists in the world said that the strange bacterial culture experiment of the US Aerospace Agency (NASA) has made serious mistakes.

>>> Bacteria can live in arsenic environment

The Daily Mail said that at a press conference last week, NASA announced it had discovered a strange bacterium in Lake Mono in California. Unlike other bacteria, this bacterium named GFAJ-1 can grow in arsenic (arsenic) environment, can even put it into their DNA structure.

The strange bacterium declared by NASA was found in Lake Mono.

This NASA discovery is considered to be particularly important. It changes people's long-standing conceptions of life and opens hope to find life in planets with harsh climatic conditions in the solar system.

However, shortly after the discovery was announced, many scientists around the world expressed their criticism of this finding, saying that the real research process of this discovery has suffered from serious shortcomings. important.

Rosie Redfield, a professor of microbiology at the University of British Columbia, said: 'It is amazing that the process of scientific research is so bad .'

NASA scientists cultivated GFAJ-1 bacteria in laboratories. In the process, they gradually replaced arsenic with arsenic. They said no phosphates (phosphorus and oxygen) were detected. Since then these scientists have concluded that GFAJ-1 bacteria only live on arsenic and oxygen.

However, critics say that the simplest steps have not been complied with the requirements, leading to doubts about the accuracy of this finding.

For example, when taking DNA on the bacterial body, other molecules must be carefully washed to ensure that the DNA samples are not contaminated.

Alex Bradley , a Harvard microbiologist, points out that, when DNA samples are immersed in water and cultures are grown, they prove that they exist to have arsenic phosphates that have been domestic resolution.

A thorough analysis of this study shows that these bacteria survive in extremely low phosphates because they have been contaminated with the salt needed for their survival.

Some argue that many other bacteria can survive in environments with very low phosphates. It may even be equivalent to the amount of phosphate that NASA made in its experiments.

Norman Pace, a microbiologist from the University of Colorado, said: ' The so-called low phosphorus environment is being spread by the media. There is only the story of naive researchers and bad commentators '.

Professor Redfield wrote on her blog: " A lot of crap, there is not much reliable information ."

' If a graduate student stands in front of a conference and publishes these figures, I would say he returned to his seat and redo his work. The proof of a completely different hypothesis with just the assumption of its hypothesis is correct. The people who did this research obviously chose the second one . '

Dr. Felisa Wolfe-Simon took samples of GFAJ-1 bacteria from Lake Mono .

Before these criticisms, the head of this research program, Ronald Oremland of the US Geological Survey, said: ' At this time we cannot help expressing black and white through the media. If we are wrong, then scientists should be a little more active, redo our findings. If we are right (and I'm sure we are right), critics should acknowledge and help us learn more about this phenomenon. I hope they can do so '.

This is not the first time a NASA discovery has not been sustained in scientific terms.

In 1996, NASA and the White House released a shocking discovery, saying they found traces of Mars bacteria in a meteorite. However, scientists later showed that meteorite samples may have been contaminated. In addition, the heat generated during flying meteorites in the universe can create easily mistaken mineral structures as fossils.