Draft of Project 1

The Little Bacterium That Could

Background

The following is a photo of the extremophile bacterium known as GFAJ-1.

Wolfe-Simon, Felisa. "GFAJ-1". 2/4/2016 via commons.wikimedia.org. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

While the image might not immediately send a shiver down your spine or ignite your passion for bacteria, Felisa Wolfe-Simon had a different perspective.

The controversy began when Wolfe-Simon and her team began to study organisms in Mono Lake in California. Initially, the study set out to prove that there was an existing type of bacterium that could not only live, but thrive on an element other than the common six: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus.

After conducting studies laced with errors, Wolfe-Simon published an article to the magazine Science that concluded that the bacterium were able to function with negligible levels of phosphorus, whilst using arsenic as their main component of life. In publishing the text, Wolfe-Simon sparked a gargantuan backlash from within the science community.

Prior to the publication of the text in Science, NASA held a press conference dedicated to celebrating the discovery, marking it as one of the most significant studies regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Before oppositions to the data arose, the science world rejoiced in the limitless number of possibilities that had been opened up. Unfortunately, within 48 hours of the original publication, biologists, professors and doctors alike began to publish their own thoughts on the topic. For Wolfe-Simon and her team, this is when shit hit the fan.

Setting

The main setting, though there is more than one, of the arsenic bacterium controversy is Mono Lake in California; where the bulk of the initial research was conducted.

Ellis, Richard E. "Mono-lake-tufa-1981-003". 2/6/2016 via wikipedia. Attribution 3.0 Unported.

Mono Lake is home to a myriad of species of aquatic life and birds. In addition, its extremely salty waters allow for bacterium and algae to grow unbridled. It is a lake much like all other lakes, except it has large rock formations poking out from under the surface of the water.

Because the water has such a high concentration of salt, the smell of salt takes over ones sense of smell upon approaching the lake; similar to the experience of arriving at the ocean.

Most of the activities at Mono Lake are research centered and revolve around biological studies. In addition, they offer activities in which participants of all ages can help to restore and preserve the nature that is present at the lake. These activities include planting trees and picking up trash.

Who are the stakeholders?

Felisa Wolfe-Simon

In general, Felisa Wolfe-Simon appears as an American female in her mid to late thirties. Her facial structure is sharp and defined, and her features are clear and symmetrical. Her auburn hair falls in waves over her scarf and Northface jacket when she is working outside, and over her medium-length, neutral-colored dresses when she is giving a presentation.

Amidst the insanity that she was forced to deal with following the initial discrepancy, Wolfe-Simon was able to maintain her composure when speaking with the media. During interviews, she answered questions calmly and honestly, stating that she does not intend to let the media inhibit her from continuing her work.

On paper, Wolfe-Simon sounds as though she is a mature and honest biologist whose sole purpose is to invoke an interest in science in those who are not familiar. When listening to her speak, however, her tone approaches condescending, and her speeches seem staged. She utilizes facial expressions and hand gestures to get her points across and to convey emotion, but the flow in her words is lacking.

NASA

An additional main stakeholder in the controversy is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA. Their involvement began in December 2010 when they held an astrobiology conference claiming they had funded a study that had discovered a bacterium that confirms the possibility of life outside of Earth.

NASA is a government agency that focuses on all things space. In general, they are extremely reliable and their studies appeal to nearly everyone because people find the unknown, and thus space, interesting. People interact with NASA every time one hears about a new discovery made by the United States regarding the universe. For example, the entire world interacted with NASA when they announced that Pluto was no longer recognized as a planet. In addition, NASA’s research has assisted in the inventions and/or betterment of the computer mouse, technology used to detect breast cancer, highway and runway drainage systems, and even vineyards.

Science Magazine

The final major stakeholder in the arsenic bacterium debacle is the original publisher of the study, Science magazine. Overall, although there are overlapping claims with the other stakeholders, the claims made by Science throughout the controversy are generally more opinion based, less biased in terms of who is correct and who is not, and more personality centered. This will become more clear as you continue to read.

The magazine as a whole is a science-based text with publications from scientists across the world. To the rest of the world, Science is a credible source, as it publishes content with factual and statistic-based information with little bias.

Time Period

2010 was a busy year for the science community. As technology is rapidly expanding its capabilities, discoveries are made easier to unravel. This article from Wired gives a snapshot into the wild year of 2010 and all the discoveries it encompassed.

Due to the overall increase in data, technology, and information being passed around, the push for new discoveries was at an all time high. Because of this, it is possible that Wolfe-Simon was pressured into releasing her study prematurely, and that her overlooking of certain procedures was caused by her anxiousness to participate in the on-going scientific revolution.

End Draft

To my peer reviewers, please let me know if this is too much information, not enough, or just enough to understand the controversy completely. Also, I took most of the information from my blog posts, so I am concerned that it may not flow as well as it should. Does the order of the information make sense, or should I rearrange things? What can I add/remove/change to make it more interesting? Thank you in advance for your help!