To be completely fair, the link downplays the news more than it really deserves imo. That a bacterium (even an extremophile) can even be coaxed into substituting arsenic for phosphorus in some of its basic biochemical processes is quite mind-boggling. I mean, how, by what mechanism is this achieved?
The paper would have been stronger with some attempt at elucidating such a mechanism, but I can understand wanting to rush something like that out (particularly when it will certainly garner interest from a big name journal) before getting scooped.
I think PZ provided a decent grain of salt, pointing out what about the research is important, what needs more work and most importantly what it isn't telling us.
The paper would have been stronger with some attempt at elucidating such a mechanism, but I can understand wanting to rush something like that out (particularly when it will certainly garner interest from a big name journal) before getting scooped.