|
|
|
|
|
|
by danso
333 days ago
|
|
|
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/science/arseniclife-retra... That was helpful context, thank you for highlighting it. From the NYT article, it sounds like the NYT’s pursuit of a feature piece last year [0] (also worth reading) spurred Science to revisit making a retraction. > The internet and scientific critics largely moved on, and so did the journal. While some researchers called for the paper’s retraction, Science instead published technical critiques of the finding. Then last year, Science’s stance shifted. A reporter contacted Science for a New York Times article about the legacy of the #arseniclife affair. > That inquiry “convinced us that this saga wasn’t over, that unless we wanted to keep talking about it forever, we probably ought to do some things to try to wind it down,” said Holden Thorp, editor in chief of Science since 2019. “And so that’s when I started talking to the authors about retracting.” [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/science/arseniclife-felis... |
|
|