Talk:Felisa Wolfe-Simon

Initial comments
Wolfe-Simon will announce that there are microorganisms in Lake Mono which use arsenic in their DNA instead of phosphor. <-- This is interesting "news", but no source is provided for this revelation. If the source is someone who has seen the soon-to-be-published article then public discussion of the results reported in the article seems to be a violation of the existing restrictions imposed by the publishing journal. In about an hour we should have confirmation. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you search Google News for "arsenic DNA", you can see there are already a number of sources that essentially broke the embargo and published early. Though you are right that the full details will be available soon.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. No, no, no.  Most of the "sources" on google are either framing the DNA arsenic as a POTENTIAL and a POSSIBILITY, or are simply making groundless assertions.  Most people do not understand the role of phosphorous in DNA, so they certainly do not understand the potential role of arsenic in DNA, quite aside from the fact that there's no proof that any FUNCTIONAL DNA is utilizing arsenic.  Please get an education.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.111.34 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Born
When was she born? 212.186.24.212 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture & NASA announcement External Link
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/503354main_Wolfe_Simon.jpg at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html# Unfortunately I'm no good with wiki formatting and pictures as I looked for and didn't find an editing button that said "add picture to this article". Please help the technologically challenged Neanderthal. Thank you. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. 2 years later, but added. :-). --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability?
As it reads, this article and the linked articles resemble more to an auto-promotion for an early career scientist (i.e., a link to her CV and self-references). If it is intended to be a biography, maybe explain to the reader why she is outstanding with respect to the peers in the field. While she got good media coverage in the past few days, she is far less well known than, say, most of the senior colleagues that co-authored her work. Yet, the latter don't have a Wikipedia page. Maybe this news (today's press conference) should be place in a broader context along with her peer's research. 74.176.250.114 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes one really big discovery is enough for an academic (per WP:PROF: "the person has ... made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline"). She made a discovery that (unless somehow disproven) will probably have a more lasting impact on microbiology than the entire careers of many microbiologists.  Likewise her exposure in the popular press is probably now greater than many (though probably not all) of her coauthors.  Yes, the article can be improved, but I see no problem considering her notable.  I also would say that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply since academics aren't "low profile individuals" and her public contributions have been and (presumably will be) ongoing.  She had already won significant awards and done significant work.  By itself, that wouldn't have earned her a place here, but in combination with a major discovery it certainly does.
 * CNN and BBC both carried interviews with her yesterday and today, on television and the web. I think that qualifies her as notable.--Atikokan (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course the article can still be improved to be more comprehensive and less focused on a single event, but that's an editorial problem not an inclusion problem. Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One could argue that this is not a major discovery, just a well-hyped one. Breeding bacteria is not the same as discovering a native species that can do the thing naturally. And which awards are significant? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what distinction you mean by "naturally". You take this bug and put it in arsenic without phosphate and it goes to town, that seems to say it is a natural part of its abilities.  Even if it were somehow "man-made", it would still be amazing for a bug to be capable of living without phosphorus.  As for awards, we aren't talking about Nobel prizes, but there are only about ~30 NSF postdoctoral fellows awarded in biology each year, and only ~100 Kavli fellows per year across all disciplines.  Both of which place her in the top tier of early career scientists.  For a point of comparison the US issues about 45000 PhDs per year.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't live without any phosphorus. I personally know many NSF postdoctoral fellows in biology; as post-docs, they are not professors and are generally average scientists. This Kavli fellowship is a funding thing, right? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually we don't know if it can live without any phosphorus, because they couldn't yet exclude all phosphorus from the sample, but it lives with much less phosphorus than should be possible given the amount expected for its DNA and other processes.
 * Be careful, having a postdoc that is funded by the NSF (e.g. through a PI's grant) is different from an NSF postdoctoral fellowship. The latter is significantly rarer and more prestigious.  The Kavli is meant to support the best young minds through networking and community.  They organize a conference and provide travel expenses for 50-100 of the best early career scientists, but I don't believe there is any ongoing support in the typical case.  (Though the Kavli Foundation does have a separate set of grants, unconnected with the NAS Kavli Program.)  Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, extremophiles do all kinds of extreme stuff. There's a reason they couldn't exclude all the phosphorus; the critters need it to live. I know the difference between being funded through a PI and an NSF post-doc. I doubt that a scientist would be kept at AfD for being invited to a conference designed to "support the best young minds through networking and community". In fact, that sounds lame. This gal's career is set, but there is not a single secondary source that analyzes her as a topic. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that we are talking about a bug that apparently can use arsenate in place of phosphate in its DNA and proteins, right? That's a big deal.  This isn't just about finding an arsenic tolerant bug (which would be fairly routine), it's about finding a bug that embraces arsenic as a total replacement to phosphorus in apparently a very fundamental and unexpected way.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the records, I agree the awards and other things - by themselves - would never be enough to survive AFD. But I also think you are significantly underappreciating how unusual her discovery is.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Felisa is perhaps better known in some scientific circles for her self-promotion. I am wondering whether she didn't create this article herself, honestly. I have no doubt her self promotion will continue as unabated as her career, but as for now, I do not believe that this discovery warrants a Wikipedia entry let alone a biography of one of the discoverers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.216.229 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's bordering on a BLP violation. Most successful people are involved in self-promotion, in some way or another, so your comment is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that this biography is probably a little bit self-serving and could instead be combined with a page dedicated to the scientific topic of astrobiology. Also, saying "a bug that embraces arsenic as a total replacement to phosphorus" is an overstatement. Approx. 10% of phosphorus was replaced by arsenic in the study. As mentioned by Benner in the press conference, the body of evidence is not entirely there yet. Vitriol96 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The cells were 0.54 +/- 0.21% phosphorous under normal growth conditions and 0.019 +/- 0.0009 % phosphorous under arsenic rich conditions. That's a 97% reduction in my world.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How much of that is slack? In other words, if I bred bacteria on media with just enough phosphorus to survive and divide, could the level of phosphorus be reduced that far? I'll bet it could. Adding arsenic may be an example of not using the proper scientific control on all the variables. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you couldn't. Based on the number of base pairs, you'd need about 0.02% for the DNA alone.  There wouldn't be any phosphorus left for anything else such as ATP, NADH, and protein, which are by far the dominant uses of phosphorus under normal conditions.  You seem to want to reject the result without bothering to understand it.  In addition to the quantitative considerations, which are pretty compelling, they have direct evidence of arsenate incorporation into both proteins and DNA.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rejecting the result without bothering to understand it would be unscientific, and you need to assume good faith. I really want to know how much is slack. I don't have access to the paper. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is the only reason that Felisa Wolfe-Simon is notable. To fail to include any mention of the controversy is equivalent to publishing the biography of a public figure with no mention of why that person is a public figure. If there can be no mention of the controversy according to Wikipedia rules, then there should be no bio on FWS. At present the article is extremely misleading, as it leaves the strong impression that the arsenic research is plausible and represents an important scientific advance (therefore justifying a biography of FWS) when in fact the near universal response from the scientific community has been that this research is badly wrong. It is also untrue that the citations for the criticism are not well-sourced. One citation is an article in Slate that, along with an accompanying second article by Carl Zimmer, quotes from 13 well-known scientists criticizing the work. A second citation is from an article published in Chemical and Engineering News, an official publication of the American Chemical Society and a print magazine that has been published for decades. These citations are perfectly legitimate, are not "self-published", and should not be removed from this entry. The broader claim that the only legitimate scientific criticism is peer reviewed -- which was originally advanced by FWS herself on Twitter -- has been loudly rejected by the scientific community. It is inappropriate that Wikipedia policy is being used in this case to justify excluding information that is necessary to present this biography accurately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.33.251 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of citations criticizing this science and Wikipedia rules. From Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." and "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.85.33.251 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry of arsenates
From the article: "One of the reasons this result is unexpected is because arsenate is generally unstable in water, with a half-life measured in minutes." Does this mean something like, "Chemical bonds between carbon atoms and arsenate groups are generally unstable in water"? Can someone cite some references? --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From the journal article: "AsO4 esters are predicted to be orders of magnitude less stable than PO4 esters, at least for simple molecules". The line you quote is based on the press conference (possibly somewhat garbled) where one of the panelists indicated that he had expected arsenate based DNA would be unstable and break down with a half-life "like 10 minutes".  Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are interesting hits on http://www.google.com/#q=arsenate+hydrolysis but if DNA is the main focus then you might consider it a mismatch.

Again, nothing yet with DNA.--Sharonmil (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Synthesis and Hydrolysis of ADP-Arsenate by Beef Heart Submitochondrial Particles] THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 258, No. 10. Issue of May 25, pp. 6266-6271, 1983
 * "The first order rate constant for ADP-arsenate hydrolysis at pH 7.5, 30 C, was determined to be greater than 5 min-1 and was estimated to be 70 min-1."
 * Kinetics of the hydrolysis of arsenate(V) triesters Inorg. Chem., (March) 1981, 20 (3), pp 905–907
 * "The hydrolysis of trimethyl arsenate in methanol solution was first order in ester and in water with k1(25C) = 73 M-1 s-1, delta enthalpy of 13 +/- 1 kJ mol-1 and delta entropy of -167 +/- 13 J mol-1 K-1. Hydrolysis rates of the esters decreased in the order methyl > ethyl > n-pentyl > isopropyl. An associative mechanism is proposed."
 * Doesn't this rate of decay depend very heavily on the pH? Abductive  (reasoning) 11:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right! Most of the hydrolysis is either base or acid catalysed.--13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BBC coverage
The BBC has povided some covergae of her work here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886943 Arsenic-loving bacteria may help in hunt for alien life ny Jason Palmer, BBC News Dec 2 -Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

Background
What's her background? She is clearly of Jewish descent. I would like to know her lineage. All people in Wiki have their lineage expressed, generally, in the background section. She should not be any different.99.35.227.129 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no secondary sources on her. It is impossible to construct a BLP without appropriate sourcing. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are secondary sources on her. Here is one: Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * GFAJ stands for Give Felisa A Job. That says a lot. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you still claiming that she isn't notable? Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed towards the information in the source, not at her notability. The article is written by Paul Davies, so it is not independent. (Also, it was published after my placing the notability tag on the article.) But time will tell, I think, her longevity or lack thereof. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism on GFAJ-1
Several editors are using the Felisa Wolfe-Simon biography to criticize GFAJ-1. Although there is already a criticism section over at GFAJ-1, the criticism they keep adding to the biography article is self-published and has not been subject to peer review. Per reliable source examples in physical sciences, mathematics and medicine it is not appropriate to use unpublished, non-peer reviewed blogs to criticize a biographical subject or the science. Please note, that in addition to criticizing Wolfe-Simon with self-published blogs and opinion pieces, they are also crticizing GFAJ-1 with only editorials and blogs. This is not acceptable for a biographical article nor for a science topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a counter to your argument about the unreliability of blogs (for the GFAJ-1 article, not this one), see another policy, WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think the blogs used as sources in the GFAJ-1 article meet these criteria. Sasata (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I believe the problem has less to do about the criticism, and more to do with how the original editors of this article have constructed the prose.  See the link to the AAAS transcript at the bottom of this page for some insight. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bigger questions aside (I think that Zimmer's and Redfield's blog posts are important pieces for understanding GFAJ-1), they are self-published sources which clearly are inappropriate for FWS's biography. Whether they belong at GFAJ-1 is a separate question, and one that's less clear-cut. Guettarda (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Felisa Wolfe-Simon's notability is in large part due to the controversy over the GFAJ-1 claims. Consequently I believe citing the most notable criticisms of the claims made in her latest article is justified. Once published criticisms appear then these can also be added. Furthermore, an "in press" article keeps appearing in the publications section. This is not verifiable and should not appear in the bio until it is published. --Paul (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Justified despite the fact that it is forbidden by policy? How so? Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Am just catching up on WP:BIO policies. I hadn't realised blogs etc were verboten. I can see why for the greater good. I do think most people wont have heard of Felicia until the blog storm. Mentions of criticisms on the bio can wait until "reliable" sources are available. --Paul (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy is the only reason that Felisa Wolfe-Simon is notable. To fail to include any mention of the controversy is equivalent to publishing the biography of a public figure with no mention of why that person is a public figure.  If there can be no mention of the controversy according to Wikipedia rules, then there should be no bio on FWS.  At present the article is extremely misleading, as it leaves the strong impression that the arsenic research is plausible and represents an important scientific advance (therefore justifying a biography of FWS) when in fact the near universal response from the scientific community has been that this research is badly wrong.  It is also untrue that the citations for the criticism are not well-sourced.  One citation is an article in Slate that, along with an accompanying second article by Carl Zimmer, quotes from 13 well-known scientists criticizing the work.  This is not "self-published" -- it is a news story published in a major online magazine that quotes from recognized experts in the field.  (see http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/an-arsenic-bacteria-postmortem-nasa-responds-tries-to-pit-blogs-vs-credible-media-organizations/).  The broader claim that the only legitimate scientific criticism is peer reviewed -- which was originally advanced by FWS herself on Twitter -- has been loudly rejected by the scientific community.  It is inappropriate that wikipedia policy is being used in this case to justify excluding information that is necessary to present this biography accurately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.181.158 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP makes a good point. Felisa Wolfe-Simon is largely notable due to the controversy over the claims made in the Science article. Without mentioning this in the Bio then there is little point to the article. --Paul (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that claim is not in any way true. Felisa Wolfe-Simon is notable for her research, not the controversy over the research.  All scientific research is subject to criticism.  This is no different.  The scientists critcizing her research are welcome to publish their criticisms in scientific journals.  The biographical article is neither misleading  nor erroneous; the IP obviously missed the words "proposed" and "if correct".  Criticism of her research needs to be tightly sourced, and it would be inappropriate to turn her biography into a criticism piece based on blog postings and opinion pieces. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem could be solved by merging Felisa Wolfe-Simon to GFAJ-1, since they entirely overlap in terms of facts reliably sourced to the secondary literature. (That is, Felisa Wolfe-Simon is only known because of GFAJ-1, and GFAJ-1 is only known because of Felisa Wolfe-Simon). Abductive  (reasoning) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "problem" (if there is one) can be solved by giving the so-called "controversy" the weight it deserves using reliable sources. In other words, describing it in the appropriate place, with a link to the criticism in the main article.  One sentence is all that is required.  As for BLP1E, she appeared in the astrobiology literature before this announcement, and the previous awards and publications in combination with the putative discovery meet or exceed WP:ACADEMIC and negate claims of BLP1E. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, y'know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lebowski, I mean, dude, I mean Abductive, are you saying it does not meet the criteria for ACADEMIC? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that her notability or lack thereof hinges on the bacteria actually using arsenic in its nucleotides. There is no way a page on a post-doc with an h-index of 5 would survive AfD. And I am saying that all the articles, including Arsenic DNA, are entirely duplicative of one another. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be favoring one criteria for notability over others that you are excluding. Do I have that right?  As for duplication between articles, it looks like arsenic DNA was created just moments before GFAJ-1, and because GFAJ-1 has become more of a substantive article, arsenic DNA might be a candidate for a merger; In fact, shouldn't arsenic DNA redirect to hypothetical types of biochemistry? (see Arsenic as an alternative to phosphorus)  This is tricky, because if GFAJ-1 turns out to be completely bogus, then that article would benefit from being merged into a section on arsenic DNA in the HTB article.  As for the biography article, I believe it is notable enough to exist on its own based on the criteria at ACADEMIC. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing some essential points:
 * Criticism on a (claimed) scientific discovery is not criticism on the person. I don't really see how this violates our policy on the biographies on living peoples. As a scientist you get criticism on your work all the time, this is how science works.
 * There is criticism on the discovery in the real world, made by notable experts in the field. Not including those, or at least keeping the lead as currently is, would be a grave violation of neutrality.
 * I fail to see how the article by Zimmer in Slate would be an "unreliable, self-published source". The article would have been reviewed by the magazine's editors. It summarizes the views by several experts in the field and is in therefore a form of peer-review of Wolfe-Simon's work.
 * There is a great misconception among the general public that if an article is published it has been "peer-reviewed", this is false. It has usually only had the minimal amount of review necessary to rule out completely bogus papers. The actual peer-review happens after an article is published and that is what is going on here. —Ruud 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored the noticeboard discussion that I initiated. Please do not remove it again.  In response to your points. 1) This is a bio article, not a criticism article.  If you don't see how using blogs and opinion pieces that have not undergone peer review to criticize the subject of a BLP is a problem, then you are free to ask on the noticeboard where others will tell you.  We've already been over that ground, so I don't know why you are repeating the question again.  2) See 1.  The criticism has not been published in the normal way.  There is no violation of neutrality. 3) Zimmer's article is a popular, non-science publication being used to discuss the contents of a blog posting, not a published article. This again, circumvents the process.  It is most certainly not a peer review by any stretch of the imagination.  Per best practices like WP:MEDRS, RS examples, and others, we 1) cite peer-reviewed scientific publications, and 2) avoid science articles in the popular press.  Further, BLP articles 3) never use self-published sources, however, 4) criticism and praise can be included if it can be sourced to reliable secondary sources and presented in a responsible, conservative, and disinterested manner.  So far, this has not been done. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Abductive and Ruud. Wolfe-Simon is not a notable person as a result of her scientific achievements.  She is notable only because of the arsenic bacterium controversy.  Almost no one in the scientific community takes seriously the discovery itself.  Viriditas claim that "All scientific research is subject to criticism.  This is no different." is a ridiculous oversimplification.  The arsenic bacterium paper is probably the single most intensely criticized scientific paper in years.  This is very different from the normal criticism that accompanies ordinary scientific research.  As Rudd states, the  fact that the criticism has not yet been peer-reviewed is irrelevant, and this standard has been loudly rejected and mocked by the scientific community (peer-reviewed criticism will appear, but it will take months).  A biography on FWS must mention the controversy or it is a serious violation of neutrality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.181.158 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, we indeed cannot predict whether Wolfe-Simon will stay a notable scientist, as this very likely depends on whether her claimed discovery stands up to peer-review or not. What we can establish is that she is notable now (even if this is mainly due to an over-hyped NASA announcement). If she fizzles into obscurity this article can be merged, redirected or deleted then. —Ruud 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 24.215.181.15, Wolfe-Simon is notable for her work in astrobiology, not as the result of a controversy. It is presented as a proposal, not as unchallenged fact and this is clear in the lead section ("proposed as the first known example of arsenic DNA") and in the career section ("team proposes is able to incorporate arsenate as a substitute for phosphate...If correct, this will be the only known organism to be capable of replacing phosphorus in its DNA")  Not sure what your problem is here.  If you would like to link directly to the so-called criticism of GFAJ-1 after that sentence, I would not disagree.  One thing to keep in mind is that the criticism is not about her hypothesis, which has received coverage in secondary sources.  The criticism is about her presenting evidence for a theory, and this will not be resolved any time soon.  So, we are best to stick with the hypothesis, which is not controversial (the hypothesis that "arsenic can successfully fill the role of phosphorus for living organisms" -SciAm) and mention that evidence for her theory is disputed. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, after looking into this a bit more, it appears that the original writers of this article may have been a bit careless with their choice of words. I see that this might be the source of some of the confusion. Here is a transcript of an AAAS podcast (listen) that is far more skeptical and realistic than the focus of this current article. I think that modifying the claims in this article to those in the AAAS transcript would go a long way to putting an end to this problem. So the critics above do have a point in that the wording here is far from accurate. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is indeed primarily a problem with formulation. Wolfe-Simon is notable for claiming to have discovered an organism which uses arsenic in its DNA. However, this claim has not yet been accepted by the scientific community, in fact there is strong criticism on the paper at this time. However with the current formulation the reader may very easily be led to believe that the claimed discovery has been accepted as a scientific fact. —Ruud 00:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except, that is not what she or others claimed in the transcript. Read or listen to it again.  The problem is what editors are saying about her claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The abstract of the Science paper reads: "[...] Here, we describe a bacterium, strain GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae, isolated from Mono Lake, California, which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. Our data show evidence for arsenate in macromolecules that normally contain phosphate, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. [...]" This is claim, but this has not yet been accepted —Ruud 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which peer reviewed articles dispute it? The AAAS transcript describes it as a proof of concept which will require years of research to verify. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that a scientific claim is not accepted if and only if it has not been disputed (the law of the excluded middle does not apply here), but see GFAJ-1. —Ruud 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as my understanding of science is concerned, all claims are subject to dispute, and Wolfe-Simon herself is skeptical of her own claim. Have you read the AAAS transcript or listened to the podcast?  The problem here is the writing in the article, not the claims or the research. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

One obvious misconception here is the suggestion that Wikipedia science article content must await the verdicts of "peer-reviewed publications"... That is an absurdly high standand for Wikipedia (...and a useful tool for the POV editor who wants to squelch responsible editing that reports on unflattering, but legitimate, criticism). The Wikipedia article itself states that "Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of the encyclopedia building mode and the large presence of unacademic content" is widely acknowledged... If a controversy like, say, the one surrounding cold fusion had to await peer-reviewed conclusions, Wikipedia readers would have to wait years to read up-to-date information about the topic.... My own view is that leaving the Felisa Wolfe-Simon article without a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section at this point is wildly inadequate and misleading.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Science interview with FWS
An interview with FWS has been published online discussing the criticisms of the Science article and mentions Rosie Redfield's blog. Would it now be appropriate to use this as a source to outline FWS's notability due to criticisms of this work? --Paul (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My view is that the criticisms are a large part of her notability. I think the fact that the interview almost exclusively focuses on the criticism (rather than on the actual article or its claims) underlines this, especially since it is in the same journal as the original article. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate wording
The article needs some fixing, particularly after a recent edit which added (diff):
 * The Science publication and NASA press release were widely publicized and was followed by criticism by scientists and journalists. During the press conference, Wolfe-Simon called for the showing of a computer animation where 100% of the phosphorous atoms in a section of DNA were replaced by arsenic atoms but in the subsequent FAQ backed off and emphasized that the claim was that any such substitution was only a small percentage. In the month following, Wolfe-Simon (and her co-authors and NASA) generally refused to respond to except through an online FAQ and an exclusive interview with a Science reporter.What Poison? Eye of the Storm Discoverer Asks for Time Poisoned Debate Backing off Arsenic about face

The first hint that there is something wrong with the above is the six references which are either a pile-on to record all criticisms, or are an attempt to "prove" the point so conclusively that no editor could not possibly want to remove such well-referenced material.

Reading the text raises some issues: It is obvious, and verified by the "Arsenic about face" link above, that the subject of this BLP had nothing to do with the stupid publicity and over-hyped presentation—she was an author doing what she was told. The stuff about a "computer animation" is clearly OR (synthesis) to show just how bad the subject is (the reader is left to draw that only possible conclusion). (Is there a source for the animation stuff?) Likewise, "generally refused to respond" is excellent for a blog attacking the subject, but does not pass WP:BLP due to WP:NPOV problems. The added text is clearly a major criticism of the subject, arranged so the reader can connect the dots to draw the unstated conclusion. That is not how Wikipedia works. Find a reliable source which is critical of the subject (not just critical of the NASA event or the paper)—none of the six refs satisfy this requirement. Then we can use that source as a basis for a criticism of the subject here.

There is not much usable criticism in the six refs. "Discoverer Asks for Time" includes "a torrent of criticism by scientists", but that is not directed at the person. The "attack by journalists when they declined to respond to media calls" in the same ref is fine in a news report but it's just so-what nonsense in a bio—of course journalists are going to complain when someone declines to respond to their questions. Following that precedent, we would have to put the same note in the bio of just about every politician or other public figure.

The following existing text also needs rephrasing: "she had been hinting of some shadow biosphere results to the press". That is just nonsense. She is paid to speculate about, and to look for, a shadow biosphere. The "hinting" suggests some kind of malevolent plan, whereas she was simply doing what NASA wanted (investigating certain stuff, and talking about it to the press).

Perhaps this bio should never have been created—we could have just had an article on the incident. Then, many of the criticisms could have been explored, and the "Arsenic about face" ref could have been used to point out that attempts to hammer Wolfe-Simon are misguided (instead, hammer NASA for the ridiculous hype, and hammer the journal for accepting the paper if it is such an obvious crock). To quote from that ref: it's not a crime if Wolfe-Simon et al write a paper that sucks. The whole point of submitting a paper for publication is to solicit feedback, and it's not their fault that a) the paper was accepted or b) the paper was sucked into the hungry input nozzles of NASA's PR machine. At any rate, the place to write about the outraged reaction to the incident is GFAJ-1.

I have written too much about this because it is clear we are going to have a stream of editors who are unclear about BLP and NPOV requirements. In a day or two I hope to have time to see if I can rewrite some of the material (mainly to omit it, while referring to a controversy over the incident). Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the BLP enforcers remove any simple mention of her scientific work (not her personally) being criticized (which to me is about as much of BLP violation as mentioning in a tennis player's biography he lost in the final of a certain competition). Only mentioning her claim without noting the criticism on this claim implies there is no criticism, violating neutrality. This caused certain editors to add more "nuanced" and "better referenced" criticism, which is much closer to a BLP violation. Either remove the sentence "Wolfe-Simon led a team that discovered GFAJ-1, an extremophile bacterium that they claimed is capable of substituting arsenic for a small percentage of its phosphorus and sustain its growth." from the lead section or rewrite in such a way that it cannot accidentally be read to imply the claim is currently anywhere near accepted in the scientific community. If you remove the sentence this biography would be so incomplete that it should be deleted, though. —Ruud 15:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ruud. As has been said previously on the talkpage, the most notable thing about FWS is the degree of criticism an article she coauthored has drawn from the research community. Please feel free to fix the problems with the current mention of this criticism and the sources. As Valerius Tygart eloquently states "leaving the Felisa Wolfe-Simon article without a 'Criticism' or 'Controversy' section at this point is wildly inadequate and misleading". --Paul (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree, and that's why I did not quickly edit the text. Instead, I want to take some time to consider how to phrase the situation in a reasonable manner. I understand the irritation felt by many scientists who responded to the case, and I also understand how puzzled many observers must be by the strange line of research. In both cases, any complaints belong at the door of NASA (NASA has been researching aspects of alien life for many years, for example, James Lovelock was involved in 1961). Perhaps we can get the article right with another attempt: mention the incident and that part of the criticism which was properly (see WP:DUE) directed at Wolfe-Simon. By "properly", I'm not thinking of "correct"–I mean criticism of the paper because that is what was in her control. I can't think of anything else that should be mentioned here. Does anyone want to express an opinion about the "computer animation" text shown above? I do not see a source for that, and it looks like WP:SYNTH to me. Also, the "refused to respond" is nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the mention of the animation should be removed. The section could largely be based on the interview with Felisa, published in Science (see above).--Paul (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that everything she did after the paper was accepted is fair game. The press conference is appropriate to mention. If Dwayne Brown and Ronald Oremland provide appropriate forward-looking statements that implicitly involve FSW, then that is fair game as well.--Jjklien (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Electronic versus paper publication
Some "editor" believes that the fact that the arsenic bacteria article was never published in the print version of Science is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia articles. He appears unaware that this fact signifies that Science rapidly lost faith in the validity of the data. It is a significant component of a biography that an article published online has been withheld from print publication. 128.210.44.60 (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Imagine how articles would look if everyone on the Internet came along and added stuff they "knew". That's why there has to be a proper reference to support assertions. See WP:V and WP:BLP. Likewise, posting data cherry-picked from primary sources (something did not happen which shows some other thing) is not permitted. See WP:SECONDARY. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the point made by Johnuniq. Wikipedia editors should not be drawing conclusions from whether or not something was published in Science.  If we do, that is synthesis.  On the other hand, if we were to have a verifiable, reliable secondary source citation for the claim, then that would not be synthesis or original research.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend you look at Talk:GFAJ-1 in the section "Electronic versus paper publication". They are more eloquent than I. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fellowship included in lead
I removed the mention of the fellowship from the lead on the basis that the lead should recapitulate the salient points of the article, not its entirety. FWS has achieved astounding notability with her arsenic paper, which therefore should be the focus of the lead (as an important aspect). Her being awarded a fellowship does not qualify as a notable feature as this a standard way of funding postdoctoral researchers. Mentioning a fellowship (more so one that expired in 2009) in the lead actually detracts from her achievements and is therefore unfair to FWS. This might be different if this were a particularly prestigious fellowship (e.g a MacArthur Fellowship, which would be a very notable fact that should not be omitted), but this is just regular funding. Furthermore, mentioning the NSF minority fellowship in the lead is misleading to lay readers who are unlikely to appreciate the relatively banal nature of obtaining a standard fellowship and may misunderstand this as a significant achievement (see WP:LEAD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.76.170 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE / WP:LEAD - our lead must highlight the important aspects of her life/career not merely the scandals - the fellowship is a notable point in her career. Active Banana    (bananaphone  11:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an article (in this case, a BLP) is to show pertinent information about a subject, and if the only information available concerns a standard fellowship, that is what will go in the lead. Many people outside Wikipedia are concerned about certain claims (which were over-hyped by NASA and echoed by gullible media), but this is not the place to balance the record on that account. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the logic that all available information needs to be in the lead applied, she would have to be listed as an oboe performer as well, and her PhD would also have to be included (It is certainly a more important step in her career than a run-of-the-mill fellowship), as would her work on superoxide dismutases. Her current fellowship is also not included in the lead. How do you justify the inclusion of the NSF grant, but the exclusion of the rest? It is not more pertinent, so why should it be included? This seems inconsistent and selective. Also, I do not follow how the inclusion of this minor factoid constitutes a more neutral point of view than its omission. Please explain this argument. Cheers, 129.67.76.170 (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP that the source of her fellowship funding is not important enough to be placed in the lead. Sasata (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there seem to be no strong arguments for a keep, I have reverted the lead to its original version. 129.67.72.140 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon seems to have turned into the Paris Hilton of science; someone who is famous mainly because she is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.141.164 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Felisa Wolfe-Simon lead
Hi Viriditas, looks like we are in disagreement over the lead for this article. Here are the reasons why I think it is important to keep the sentence you disagree with: Among the main reason for her notability are not just the fact that she is the lead author on a paper and the findings and interpretations therein, but also the extraordinary amount of coverage in the non-scientific media and the unusually strong negative response of other scientists; the vehemence of the latter is for example documented in the 8 (eight!) responses published in Science, which are also referred to in http://www.felisawolfesimon.com/papers/WolfeSimon_etal_TR_Science2011.pdf. Not including these two points in the lead does not accurately summarize the main body of the article (of which the perceived controversy and the press response are major features). I also do not follow your initial arguments for deletion: 1) I do not see how the 'is capable' part is an argument, please elaborate 2) I am not saying that stating that she received press coverage is notable (why would it be?), but receiving press coverage clearly is. The selectivity you have introduced into the lead violates a neutral point of view and misrepresents the remainder of the article. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, this is a biography. Criticism of GFAJ-1 appears on that page where it notes: "As of July 2011, the incorporation of arsenic into the genomic DNA or other biomolecules had not yet been addressed and had been neither confirmed nor refuted."  Now, with that said, I'm trying to understand the relevance of your points.  The fact that we have a biography article on her indicates that she has received press coverage.  There may have been a controversy in the coverage of her initial report, but I'm having difficulty seeing the relevance of that controversy in the lead of a biography article.  Again, it belongs in our GFAJ-1 article, where in fact, we find it at GFAJ-1. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you state, this is a biography, and as such should include a reference to why she has a dedicated article. The mere fact that this article exists in no way implies that there is press coverage, it only implies that she is notable in some way or other, but not necessarily as a media personality. The controversy surrounding her study is a significant contributor to her fame, as is her presence in the media. Someone pointed out Paris Hilton on this talk page; mentioning that she is heiress to a hotel empire but not saying anything about her media presence in her biography would clearly be skewing the facts. FWS is not noted for her GFAJ-1 study, she is noted for her GFAJ-1 study and the controversy and media attention surrounding it. Saying that a large part of the scientific community rejects her claims is not a criticism of her or her study. I'm not advocating going into the details of why the response was so negative, but the response is a major driver of her notability. At the moment the lead reads like she is notable for being a biogeochemist, which is a misrepresentation. Using your argument that 'it's already in the main text', we could remove that (the statement that she is a biogeochemist) from the lead as well. In fact we could lose the lead altogether using that argument. Biographical articles should be fair, but that does not mean that points which may be construed as negative should be omitted. Having said that, I do not understand why you thing that the sentence you removed was in any way a criticism, please elaborate. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you just compare Wolfe-Simon, who is known as a practicing scientist, to Paris Hilton, who is famous for being famous? That's a false analogy.  In any case, unless and until her findings are independently verified, there isn't much to say.  Much of the controversy you are talking about pertains to the coverage of the GFAJ-1 discovery.  As I said above, it is appropriately covered in that article.  I have recently added "Because Wolfe-Simon's interpretation challenges the laws of chemistry, it faces intense scrutiny and criticism" to the lead, with a link to the criticism section.  Does that not suffice? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Paris Hilton is a practicing heiress who has received a lot of media coverage. FWS is a practicing scientist (which in itself is not notable) who has received an unusual amount of media coverage (which is). Both have demonstrated and exploited their ability to present themselves in the mainstream media. It is therefore a perfectly valid comparison (and wasn't mine to start with, but that of 108.1.141.164, see previous section). It may not be pretty, but why do you think it is a false analogy? If there isn't much to say until her findings are confirmed or refuted, why do we even have this article? The reason she is notable is the study and the surrounding events. Although there is some criticism surrounding the coverage of that article (what it means for science journalism and peer review, etc.), the criticism I am talking about focuses on the study itself. Either way, there would not be a FWS article if it weren't for the media coverage and controversy surrounding GFAJ-1, so you cannot divorce the two. Having said that, your most recent edit seems overly weighted, as it makes an absolute statement about her interpretation ('...challenges the laws of chemistry...') instead of just reporting what has been said by others. I would tone this down to something like 'Wolfe-Simon's interpretation of the data has faced intense scrutiny and criticism from the scientific community" to preserve neutrality. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I derived my statement from the sources, most of which state that the study "challenges the theory that all organisms require six essential elements to survive", that it might be the first discovery to "demonstrate that an organism can exist without one of the previously assumed six essential elements of life", that the study "shakes the heretofore bedrock assumption that organisms cannot grow without needing phosphorous", and "basic biochemistry says that these molecules would be so unstable that they would fall apart if they were built with arsenate instead of phosphate." I really don't see how this could be "overly weighted".  In any case, I have partially modified the statement per your suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was mainly the 'laws of chemistry' bit that I thought was problematic. The way it was worded made it sound like it went counter to those laws, which FWS never claimed. I know it only said 'challenges', not 'contravenes', but to a casual reader that would be heavily implied. It is however entirely possible that the arsenate bonds are stabilized in some way in vivo, even if this seems very unlikely. There is also no 'theory that all organisms require six essential elements to survive'. That's just an observation that has held true so far, but it's certainly not a 'law'. Saying that is is just someone's interpretation. As far as I am aware nobody has actually used the '6 element rule' as an argument that the finding must be incorrect (although the instability certainly has). That's why I felt it was overly weighted towards rejecting her claims. In any case the strain still uses phosphate anyway, so even if there was such a law, it wouldn't break it. A lot of the criticism also had nothing to do with what is known about biochemistry, but with the perceived shoddiness of the experiments and their controls and the interpretation of the results. Therefore I would leave out any invocation of (bio)chemistry and just say it has been subject to a lot of criticism by her peers. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. The sources all mention that her study challenges the known laws/rules of chemistry/biochemistry.  I'm just going from the sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I totally agree with you. I just think that quoting a source and stating a fact are two different things. It is a widespread opinion that it challenges the rules, but not necessarily a fact (FWS and others for example disagree). I think this distinction should be made clear. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New study
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-fails-to-confirm-existence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.85.197 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above link is to an article titled "Study Fails to Confirm Existence of Arsenic-Based Life" with intro "A new analysis by open-science advocates present a 'clear refutation' of a controversial finding that appears to undermine assumptions about how essential phosphorus is for life", dated January 23, 2012.
 * Thanks for the link to the interesting article, but it has little relevance for this page (which is about a person). In due time, some mention of the article would be appropriate here, but not in the sensationalist terms envisaged by the original title for this section ("Disgraced?"). I have changed the heading to neutral text. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability
With the recent (June 2012) studies by Rosie Redfield cited in the article that essentially demolish the original reports by Wolfe-Simon and others, I strongly question the notability of this article. The controversy is the ONLY reason Wolfe-Simon is in the limelight and there is nothing else about her that warrants a Wikipedia page. I think the article should make it clear that the only reason for its existence is Wolfe-Simon's claims that were later disproven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.95.42 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So why all the attention to a non-notable person? The antipathy should be directed to whichever PR people presented the findings with extremophile enthusiasm, not the participants. Getting something wrong in science is not one of the seven deadly sins, and WP:N does not cease if a paper contradicts some findings. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The antipathy should be directed toward Wolfe-Simon AND the others (and Wolfe-Simon herself did indulge in much PR). In any case, this is about notability, not about whether getting something wrong in science is a sin (it's not). My point is that as of now, Wolfe-Simon's only claim to fame (or infamy) is in having published and publicized a controversial paper that for all practical purposes has been refuted. And that's really the only thing the article should focus on. Other facts of her life are not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia inclusion. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.95.42 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit on edge because when the whole affair started there were some very pushy editors trying to inject their personal spin into the article, but your wording has been very much more reasonable. If you want to pursue this you should take a few moments to look at WP:TP and see how talk page comments are indented (I put two colons in front of your last comment, and three colons in front of this comment), and how comments are signed (on the last line of your comment, type a space then four tildes). You can ask at WP:HELPDESK for guidance on procedures, such as how to start an WP:AFD for an article you believe should be deleted because the WP:N (notability policy) is not satisfied. I don't have strong feelings about that—my only role here is a desire to prevent this article, if it exists, from being a coatrack where passers-by can add their completely unwarranted personal feelings (it was clearly the PR department that cajoled Wolfe-Simon into performing, but even if it wasn't, Wikipedia is not a place for people to post DONTLIKE messages). My guess is that an AfD would fail with reasoning along the lines of what I wrote in my previous comment, but you are welcome to see what happens. Since I think an AfD would fail (although I would be personally happy either way), I would remove a WP:PROD. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article should at most be a brief note (a sentence or two) to the effect that Felisa Wolfe-Simon published an article in Science that proved false. Alternatively, the article could be deleted. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about Felisa Wolfe-Simon. The many details in the article about her just make wikipedia look silly. There are literally tens of thousands of mid-level scientists plodding away in obscurity (with no wikipedia article) who are more notable than Felisa Wolfe-Simon, as they have made real discoveries and contributed to the advancement of science. 71.212.103.21 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole affair surrounding the now-discredited publications of Felisa Wolfe-Simon are very interesting for the scientific community. They serve as a sobering reminder to adhere to the scientific method of performing careful documented work, remaining open and matter-of-fact about one's results, and and, then, supporting tests of reproducibility by other scientists. These are important points that are always worthy of pronunciation, especially in this era where there is pressure to produce break-throughs in order to maintain support for scientific work, and, also, in this era where more and more science is being pursued by private industry (where openness is not always the norm). For all of these reasons, the WP page on Felisa Wolfe-Simon needs to be maintained. 207.155.160.2 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree the article should be retained. But as it stands, it is NOT effective as a sobering reminder. This article needs to be MUCH shorter, and concentrate on what makes Wolfe-Simon notable. And that is not her dissertation title, detailed list of publications, performance degree in oboe, list of fellowships, and other irrelevant matter. This article is greatly bloated with extraneous details about someone who other than the now-discredited Science article deserves no mention. 174.31.189.74 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 174.31.189.74, I'm 207.155.160.2 and I wrote the previous comment. I agree with everything you are saying. Perhaps instead of an article about Wolfe-Simon, there should be an article about the whole affair of the "discovery" of arsenic life. This really is the story that I think is so sobering for the scientific community. 173.160.49.206 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of biography
This biography on a female scientist is currently being misused by editors as a platform to refute and counter Wolfe-Simon's work in a way that is undue. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this article does not mention any interesting biographical detail other than Wolfe-Simon's involvement in the GFAJ-1 controversy&mdash;nor should we expect that this article will ever contain any biographical details other than Wolfe-Simon's involvement in the GFAJ-1 controversy&mdash;the obvious course of action would be to merge all relevant content, if any, that is not already present in GFAJ-1 there, and redirect this article to it. The editors that wished to retain this article in the recent deletion discussion do not seem to have been aware of the existence of the GFAJ-1 article, and may have been afraid the deleting this article would have resulted in a complete removal of the GFAJ-1 controversy from Wikipedia. —Ruud 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Felisa Wolfe-Simon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ironlisa.com/WolfeSimon_Dissertation.pdf
 * Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20110222063300/http://ironlisa.com/gfaj/GFAJquestions_Response_16Dec2010.pdf to http://ironlisa.com/gfaj/GFAJquestions_Response_16Dec2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224162952/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/arsenic-researcher-asks-for-time.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/arsenic-researcher-asks-for-time.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224162952/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/arsenic-researcher-asks-for-time.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/arsenic-researcher-asks-for-time.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718073247/http://videos.wittysparks.com/id/870493648 to http://videos.wittysparks.com/id/870493648

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)