More than a blog

Abstract

Last December, astrobiologists reported in the journal Science that they had discovered the first known microorganism on Earth capable of growing and reproducing by using arsenic (Wolfe‐Simon et al , 2010). While media coverage went wild, the paper was met with a resounding public silence from the scientific community. That is, until a new breed of critic, science bloggers, weighed in. Leading the pack was Rosie Redfield, who runs a microbiology research lab in the Life Sciences Centre at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She posted a critique of the research to her blog, RRResearch (rrresearch.fieldofscience.com), which went viral. Redfield said that her site, which is typically a quiet window on activities in her lab got 100,000 hits in a week. > Redfield said that her site, which is typically a quiet window on activities in her lab got 100,000 hits in a week This incident, like a handful before it and probably more to come, has raised the profile of science blogging and the freedom that the Internet offers to express an opinion and reach a broad audience. Yet it also raises questions about the validity of unfettered opinion and personal bias, and the ability to publish online with little editorial oversight and few checks and balances. Redfield certainly did not hold back in her criticism of the paper. Her post said of the arsenic study: “Lots of flim‐flam, but very little reliable information. […] If this data was presented by a PhD student at their committee meeting, I'd send them back to the bench to do more clean‐up and controls.” She also opined on why the article was published: “I don't know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they're unscrupulously pushing NASA's ‘There's life in outer space!’ agenda. I hesitate to blame the reviewers, …