tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post110868313389315454..comments2023-10-17T10:51:35.255-04:00Comments on ...Of Cabbages and Kings: Life on Mars and cocktail party journalismJoel Shurkinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14601737202428103535noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1110574641907925812005-03-11T15:57:00.000-05:002005-03-11T15:57:00.000-05:00You know, on second thought, that's wrong. It does...You know, on second thought, that's wrong. It does matter if there is life. I'll go back in a few days and change the wording. That sounds stupid. Thanks for pointing it out.Joel Shurkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601737202428103535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1110335169548048812005-03-08T21:26:00.000-05:002005-03-08T21:26:00.000-05:00I understand what you meant now, and as a former a...I understand what you meant now, and as a former academic scientist (now a forensic scientist, and we probably have even more to worry about with respect to being misquoted these days!), I agree heartily with your cocktail-party point. I just wish all reporters were as responsible.<br /><br />P.S. Great blog, I expect to be a regular reader!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1110321454070751222005-03-08T17:37:00.000-05:002005-03-08T17:37:00.000-05:00I think I phrased that unfortuntely. I think findi...I think I phrased that unfortuntely. I think finding life on Mars would be stupendous. I don't think whether the story reported by space.com turns out accurate is not. My point, which I think still holds, is that reporters shouldn't report things they hear at cocktail parties. One famous science reporter got into serious trouble that way, and deserved it.Joel Shurkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14601737202428103535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1110317730708733212005-03-08T16:35:00.000-05:002005-03-08T16:35:00.000-05:00Life on Mars, were it ever found, would matter a w...Life on Mars, were it ever found, would matter a whole lot to anyone interested in molecular evolution and the origin of life. Which means it ought to matter to anyone endowed with any curiosity about where we came from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1109967530493561432005-03-04T15:18:00.000-05:002005-03-04T15:18:00.000-05:00And after further checking, it seems the original ...And after further checking, it seems the <A HREF="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html" REL="nofollow">original story</A> <I> is</I> still there. Apparently the only thing that's changed is that it doesn't show up in a search of the site, looking for all stories that mention Mars, for example.DLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17003696245895313146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1109967073719066472005-03-04T15:11:00.000-05:002005-03-04T15:11:00.000-05:00One quick correction to my previous comment:
It tu...One quick correction to my previous comment:<br />It turns out there is one other story still on Space.com, a followup story by the original reporter, Brian Berger, that came out after NASA issued its denial. That story is <A HREF="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_methane_050218.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.DLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17003696245895313146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10749031.post-1109965085702179212005-03-04T14:38:00.000-05:002005-03-04T14:38:00.000-05:00First of all, I wanted t let you know that I appre...First of all, I wanted t let you know that I appreciate your efforts in creating this blog, and I look forward to checking in on it regularly. Thanks for doing it. (I came to it as an NASW member and list-mostly-lurker).<br />A few points on the Space.com story that you refer to in this item, which I do think crossed a few journalistic lines. One unfortunate consequence of that is that Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke's very interesting work at Rio Tinto, Spain, the subject of the leak from a conversation at a private dinner party (referred to in the space.com story as a meeting of NASA officials), has gotten an undeserved black eye.<br />Anyway, I just went to check, and the story has now been removed from the space.com site altogether! Nothing shows up in a search at all. They also removed their story from the following day, a more legitimate story about Vittorio Formisano's claim to have identified formaldehyde in the Mars atmosphere, which he says is indicative of life. (<A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7014" REL="nofollow">New Scientist's story</A> on that, which I think got it right, is still available). A subsequent <A HREF="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050222_mars_methane.html" REL="nofollow">story </A> by space.com's Leonard David, a very good piece, is the only thing on the subject still there.<br />It seems to me a little odd for a well-known website like space.com to remove two very high-profile stories, without comment or followup, as if they never happened. What do others think?<br />(Oh, a few minor details on the story: the dinner was in a suburb of Washington, DC, not in California, and their research only concerns previously unknown microbes on Earth, that seem to be a good match for known Mars conditions. I'm sure they made no claim to know anything about what is on Mars now, just what <I> could </I> be there. The space.com piece said they had sent a paper to Nature, which has been denied by both Stoker and Nature.)DLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17003696245895313146noreply@blogger.com