Researchers involved in the disputed 2010 study that claimed the discovery of arsenic-based life forms express opposition as the scientific paper gets retracted: "We do not endorse this withdrawal"
In a significant turn of events, the journal Science has retracted a controversial paper published in 2010, which claimed the discovery of microbes that exhibit arsenic in their biochemistry. This retraction comes 15 years after the original study was published, marking the end of a decade-long scientific debate.
The study, led by astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, suggested that a bacterium, GFAJ-1, thrived in arsenic-rich, supposedly phosphorus-free conditions in Mono Lake, California. This claim challenged established biochemistry, as arsenic-based DNA was thought to be unstable in water, unlike phosphorus-based DNA.
However, soon after publication, other researchers criticized the work, demonstrating the samples contained phosphorus contamination and that arsenic likely was not incorporated into DNA. Attempts to replicate results by independent teams failed; no arsenic assimilation into DNA was confirmed. Over several years, further research reinforced the conclusion that the findings were due to contamination and misinterpretation.
In 2025, Science officially retracted the paper, citing that the "key conclusion of the paper is based on flawed data." The retraction sheds light on the intricacies of when and how papers should be retracted. Editors Thorp and Vinson, who published a blog post on Science's website, argued that contamination led to flawed data, and that the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) allow them to retract the paper.
Wolfe-Simon's team disagrees with the retraction and stands by their data, arguing the issues pertain to interpretation rather than data integrity. The team's response, published alongside the retraction, states their disappointment and argues that Science's decision-making process was flawed.
The retraction of the paper has brought the story to a close, according to Thorp and Vinson. They also condemn verbal abuse and ad hominem attacks that had been directed towards Wolfe-Simon and her team.
It's important to note that the retraction was not due to fraud or misconduct, but rather the persistent doubts and changes in publication standards. The discovery, while initially heralded as a groundbreaking finding by NASA, has been refuted by the broader research community.
The controversy surrounding the arsenic-based life claim serves as a reminder of the importance of scientific rigour and the need for reproducibility in research. All life as we know it uses six key elements in its biochemistry: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen, and sulfur. The debate surrounding the arsenic-based life claim has shed light on the potential for life in phosphorus-depleted regions, where life might survive by substituting phosphorus with another element, such as arsenic.
Astronomical observations suggest phosphorus might not be evenly distributed across the Milky Way galaxy, opening up the possibility for such phosphorus-depleted regions. The search for life beyond Earth continues, and the arsenic-based life claim, while refuted, has sparked further interest and research into the potential for life in extreme environments.
[1] Science. (2025). Retraction: Arsenic-based life. [online] Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/99 [2] Wolfe-Simon, F. C., et al. (2010). A bacterium that grows by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science, 337(6096), 528-532. [3] Wolfe-Simon, F. C., et al. (2011). Response to criticism of "A bacterium that grows by using arsenic instead of phosphorus." Science, 333(6050), 1596. [5] Science. (2025). Editorial: The arsenic-based life claim: A decade-long debate. [online] Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/98
- The retraction of the 2010 paper, "A bacterium that grows by using arsenic instead of phosphorus," published in Science, has marked the end of a decade-long scientific debate about the existence of arsenic-based life.
- The controversy surrounding the arsenic-based life claim has highlighted the importance of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and adherence to established biochemistry in health-and-wellness research, as all known life employs a consistent pool of elements, including phosphorus.
- Despite the retraction of the controversial paper in 2025, the arsenic-based life debate has continued to fuel interest and research in mental-health, prompting scientists to explore the potential for life in extreme environments that are depleted of phosphorus, and seek alternative biochemical elements.
