A paper published in Science 15 years ago, claiming to describe a microbe that could substitute arsenic for phosphate in its chemical makeup, has been retracted due to concerns over contamination. The journal cited “expanded” criteria for retraction, but the authors stand by their findings and disagree with the decision.
The paper, which was published in 2010, attracted significant attention and scrutiny after its publication, with many scientists questioning its methodology and conclusions. Some, including biologist David Sanders at Purdue University, have argued that the results were due to contamination of the materials used in the study.
Science’s retraction notice states that the key conclusion of the paper was based on flawed data. The journal’s editors believe that the peer review process and editorial decisions led to the publication of a paper with seriously flawed content.
However, the authors of the paper object to the retraction, arguing that their work could have been written and discussed more carefully, but they stand by the data as reported. They note that the data were peer-reviewed, openly debated in the literature, and stimulated productive research.
The journal’s decision has raised concerns over the handling of retractions, with some scientists accusing Science of overstepping guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The authors argue that disputes about the conclusions of papers are a normal part of the scientific process and should not be grounds for retraction.
Science Editor-in-Chief Holden Thorp acknowledged that the journal’s standards for retracting papers have expanded, but he also noted that the decision to retract this paper was made after thorough consideration. He stated that Science has no plans to review all papers with published technical notes or matters arising for potential retraction.
The retraction of this paper is a significant moment in the ongoing debate over retractions and their role in scientific publishing. It highlights the challenges faced by journals in balancing the need to correct errors and misconduct with the need to respect the contributions of scientists who have made important discoveries.
Source: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/24/science-retraction-arsenic-life-nasa-astrobiology