RETRACTED – Arsenic Life Controversy – Periodic Table of Videos
See the full range of links listed below ↓↓↓
Learn to play Jane Street’s Figgie game and get started at: https://jane-st.co/figgie-periodicvideos (episode sponsor)
Full length interview with co-author Ariel Anbar: https://youtu.be/3FwLoYnuok8
Our first video on Arsenic Life 15 years ago: https://youtu.be/rQ8jHM8QhU8
This video features Professor Martyn Poliakoff discussing the issue, with some comments from one of the co-authors of the original paper Professor Ariel Anbar.
The paper in question (now retracted by Science): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197258
Editor-in-chief’s justification: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/last-step-long-process-arsenic-life
The author’s protest: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adu5488#elettersSection
Videos on all 118 elements: http://bit.ly/118elements
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/periodicvideos
More chemistry at http://www.periodicvideos.com/
From the School of Chemistry at The University of Nottingham: http://bit.ly/NottChem
This episode was also generously supported by The Gatsby Charitable Foundation
Periodic Videos films are by video journalist Brady Haran: http://www.bradyharan.com/
Brady’s Blog: http://www.bradyharanblog.com
33 Comments
Learn to play Jane Street’s Figgie game and get started at: https://jane-st.co/figgie-periodicvideos (episode sponsor)
Full length interview with co-author Ariel Anbar: https://youtu.be/3FwLoYnuok8
Welcome M. Poliakoff
Great to see these videos still being made.
Sadly most of academia now is hughley dogmatic. Main reason why i left it sadly.
You haven’t changed a bit, professor. What’s your secret? 😁
I love this channel. Chemistry is my fav subject. ❤
Why would you not be clear as crystal in the first place?
If someone interprets differently, they should write their own paper showing the basis for their disagreement.
Your links for the full length interview in the description and pinned comment seem to just be linking to this video, the same one playing already, instead.
Thank you.
Maybe they should leave the paper, but add a citation to say it's inconclusive or proven wrong.
Day 1 of requesting a collaboration of this channel with Nile Red until I'm bored
Interesting.
This is a comment for the Algo boost!
Genrally most of the papers that get retracted disprove the pre-agreed government-approved narrative on vaccines.
Hello Prof. Poliakoff, thank you for your video. Science and Nature, are very politicized journals. You cannot publish here unless you are bound to "Big Names" (like Prof. W. Hell). It is my personal opinion, I do believe that the retraction of this arsenic-life paper is somewhat political. Maybe the editor has personal issues with the author of the paper. It is absurd to think, but working in big corps showed me that it happens more often than we believe it is hould.
LOL 3:10 "Had we known people would actually read and peer review our paper, we would have done a better job writing it to the stringent adherence required by scientific discovery. But we didn't and we are upset we got called out on it. But hey, if they don't accept it, then a bunch of other legitimate things needs to be reviewed again"
Bro, just admit you made a mistake and redo your research, but be better. Holy shit, lol
That editor is a destructive fool.
It passed peer review – 15 years ago. The end.
Were they wrong? Yes or no?
No?
Right.
15 years later, retroactively retracting a paper on the basis that the observations were not (dare I say, a rather subjective opinion here by the editor) “interpreted correctly” is not right nor the best course of action.
What the editor should have done is WRITTEN THEIR OWN PAPER. 😂😤
The first video link in the description does not point to the full length interview, but to this very video.
As a famous scientist once said "Life, Uh . . . finds a way"
love the update ! also i think we all like those style of videos too, that get both into how science is done, and the latest news !
They never retracted Newton's theory of gravity, even though it's wrong. That's science. It was right at the time, nobody had a clue it might be wrong, but now we know. No shade on Newton (other than what he deserves for some of the other things he wrote …)
You can't retract papers for being wrong, science is wrong all the time.
Our lab has had many instances of "so where are you planning to publish this?" "Nature" "uh, you might want to start with a different journal"
the problem wioth both science and nature retracribg stuff they are two of the few publickly avalible easily buyable by the general publkic dose retrcting paper make the genral public loose their faith or intrest in science. it would shouldn't have this effecton professioinal scientis. this should be studied by someone.
One substantive error in a paper can justify its retraction even tho unfair to the rest of it. So scrutinizing the decision is redundant.
the process should take it out only of the publickly avalbe top end magazines but republish it in specailist lover level singe type of sciece magazine first si the science cominity can correct itself dose this mean the space scients now will miss asanic based life on other planets if it exists. that would bemore deveasting then any retraction would ever be.
Looking forward to the unretraction, 😀. Hopefully not with a reretraction to follow.
Once again, extremely interesting! recently got interested in arsenic again after reading a paper on the effect of arsenic-contaminated water on paracetamol.
I wonder what the reason is that this video is getting dislikes.
Oh hey look! That BS paper like half of us were saying was obviously BS within a week of its publication has been retracted! And it only took like FIFTEEN YEARS to do it! Wau, such science, many rigor! This Ariel Anbar character and his co-authors are the reason there's a massive replication crisis (read: FALSE paper crisis) in science right now. Not only their willingness to produce and publish shoddy research, but their insistence on wailing and crying when it's finally proven to be such beyond any doubt and retracted. Remember in the month after this paper's release, during the fanfare and LIVE TELEVISED NASA PRESS CONFERENCE, when plenty of other microbiologists were saying it was massively sus, they were summarily shut down with cries of "SEXIST!" because the PI is female? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
So bro always looked ancient?
Disappointing sponsorship – a scammy investment company using a gambling model to sucker people in.