US Edition
Widely Panned Arsenic Life Paper Gets Retracted—15 Years After Brouhaha
SCIENCE JOURNAL AND NASA, JUL 24 – Science retracted a 2010 paper after finding its key conclusions were based on flawed data likely caused by contamination, despite 326 citations and ongoing scientific debate.
- After 15 years, Science decided to retract the 2010 GFAJ-1 study, describing bacteria that substituted arsenic for phosphorus.
- Science’s editors expanded retraction standards to include unreliable conclusions, aligning with COPE guidelines, according to Holden Thorp.
- Evidence of flawed data emerged, and two 2012 replication papers failed to reproduce the findings.
- Most of the original authors objected to the retraction, and the notice also acknowledged media inquiries.
- This decision positions Science to apply its new standards more widely, reflecting on future research integrity and editorial practice.
19 Articles
19 Articles
A study unveiled in 2010 evoked the discovery of a life form still unknown on Earth. It would have been able to live and develop thanks to arsenic. The American magazine announced on Thursday that it had abolished the publication of this study, a relatively rare decision. - The journal "Science" withdraws a study on the discovery of an unknown life form, after 15 years of controversy (Sciences).
In 2010, 'Science' announced the discovery of a bacterium that, it claimed, could redefine the concept of life by being able to grow thanks to arsenic; after nearly 15 years of criticism, the magazine retracts and ignites new debates: does it make sense to withdraw articles if there has been no fraud?Why was an 'revolution' announced without sufficient evidence?The erasure of science, or why we must defend this bittersweet February 11 This is th…
After 15 Years, the Journal 'Science' Retracts a Controversial Article About a Sensational Bacterium
Biology: The "arsenic bacterium" from the article attracted worldwide attention in 2010. The authors stand by their research. It took fifteen years...
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 50% of the sources lean Left, 50% of the sources are Center
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
