Thus Stirring up a Tempest
The International Astronomical Union took the interesting step of announcing yesterday in a press release that IT and only IT is responsible for the final names of planets and other celestial objects. This is nothing new. The IAU does have responsibility to coordinate the naming of objects in space for astronomical use. However, the august body of astronomers seems overly concerned about the Uwingu Fund’s contest to suggest planet names for possible use. The proceeds of that contest will be used to fund science research and science education (a useful thing in these days of budget silliness and sequestration).
The contest seems to follow the IAU’s welcoming attitude toward popular names for exoplanets. On its own Web page about naming of objects, the IAU states,
“However, considering the ever increasing interest of the general public in being involved in the discovery and understanding of the Universe, the IAU decided in 2013 to restart the discussion of the naming procedure for exoplanets and asses [sic] the need to have popular names as well. In 2013 the members of Commission 53 will be consulted in this respect and the result of this will be made public on this page.”
Having popular names actually seems to invite public participation in suggesting names, no?
It is true that IAU has filled the role of arbiter for naming celestial objects— which serves a good function so that when astronomer A refers to a certain star by its name (say, Sirius, for example) that Astronomer B doesn’t say, “Well, we’ve always called that star “Blargh”. So, many years ago, IAU was given the responsibility of coming up with a procedure to name things in space. I don’t see a problem with this because having a “bookkeeper” of nomenclature is an important function and keeping track of names helps astronomers avoid confusion referring to distant stars, galaxies, planets, etc. But, it seems to me that IAU has normally been open to suggestions for names, along certain guidelines. Hence the idea that we name places on Venus’s surface after prominent women, for example.
The reaction to the IAU press release was swift, with some Web sites and self-proclaimed experts online claiming Uwingu was somehow doing something wrong or others saying that that IAU is wrong and overstepping its bounds.
So, to understand more about what Uwingu is currently doing and the function of the IAU in all this, I read the IAU pages about naming AND I took the radical step of actually READING Uwingu’s Web site to make sure I understood their project completely.
I’ve known about Uwingu since Alan Stern told me about it last year. And, it has always been clear to me that Uwingu is not seeking to sell planet names. In fact, their Web site is pretty clear about what they’re doing. In the Uwingu FAQ, it says:
“Here at Uwingu, we’re asking the public to create a vast list of planet names for astronomers to choose from. [emphasis mine] In fact, astronomers may not even have to choose, since they will eventually need 160 billion or more planet names! And, after all, who wants planets to be known solely by geeky technical identifiers, such as 51 Peg b or Upsilon Andromeda c?”
And, that’s the gist of it. If you donate a few dollars, you get to suggest a name. You donate a few cents and you can vote for the coolest names. The coolest names win prizes. The money goes to research and education.
Nowhere does it say that you’re buying the right to name a planet, as seems to be suggested by the IAU press release.
NOWHERE.
Some officials at the IAU seem to not understand this, and in my opinion the organization jumped the gun by misinterpreting the contest. (I wonder if anyone at IAU actually contacted Uwingu??)
As Alan Stern has said about this issue, suggesting names for astronomers to use for planets is a way for the public to get involved in the excitement of planetary discovery. Even if a planet has the official name of “Alpha Centauri Bb”, having it also bear the unofficial name “Heinlein” or “Bardot” or whatever is NO different from a star having the officially “approved” name alpha Canis Majoris but also being known as Sirius, or HIP 32349 (in the Hipparcos catalog). There are many new planets being discovered, and while they will have official designations, having popular names will bring the excitement of exploration to a larger public audience.
There’s a long tradition in astronomy (both amateur and professional) to give objects second and even third names. You see it all over the sky: the Pleiades are also known as the “Seven Sisters”; the “Coathanger” is named for a cluster also known as Brocchi’s Cluster, which lies in Sagitta,and is part of the Collinder Catalog of objects and has the number Cr 399. There will be a tendency to give newly discovered exoplanets second and third names, and so a contest to suggest those names is a useful part of the process.
I suggest that IAU actually get in contact with Uwingu to clarify its understanding of the contest. The IAU officers could start by actually reading the contest pages and the FAQ (just as I did, and I didn’t need a PhD in astronomy to do even that little bit of research). That would be the respectful and adult way to come to an understanding of Uwingu’s mission to suggest names for distant planets. The fact that it seems to dovetail with IAU’s own openness to popular names should be a plus. And, perhaps a public apology for this misinterpretation on IAU’s part should be proffered to the scientists and educators at Uwingu (some of whom are also IAU members) who have poured so much time and effort into a project that is designed to get the public interested in astronomy.
[Thanks to D. Fischer for pointing out a couple of typographical errors; now corrected. Also, the link to the IAU press release (which was not responding when I first posted this entry) is now live, and included in the first sentence.]
The wording on the actual page to submit a name (which does not cost “a few” but 499 cents actually; the current FAQ is incorrect) is that Uwingu claims to be “building a list of names […] for Astronomers to use”. Doesn’t that imply to any visitor – not knowledgeable about the intricacies of naming procedures in astronomy – that there is some direct link between a suggestion entered there pay-per-name and what “astronomers use”? But there isn’t, and the IAU clarification about this key fact was long overdue. No wonder that many are beginning to see similarities to those “star selling” scams, now that the IAU has woken them up …
Good article. The IAU is drunk with its own power. Just like the ignoble way it dissed Pluto in Prague. Keep up the good work!
There may very well be an unmentioned subtext here. Dr. Stern, the Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, has also been the leading scientist in the world opposing the controversial IAU planet definition created by four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in 2006. Stern organized a petition signed by hundreds of professional astronomers rejecting the IAU planet definition and its resulting demotion of Pluto from planet status. The IAU has repeatedly been asked to reopen this discussion in light of new information but has consistently refused to do so. It seems the IAU is fixated on its notion of being the sole authority in the field of astronomy and feels threatened by an astronomer who has taken the group to task over and over again for making a bad decision and then refusing to revisit it. The IAU statement about Uwingu is very likely a thinly veiled attack on a professional whom they see as a threat to their “authority.” But science is not religion; it is not decided by a small, unelected elite in a backroom deal for all eternity.
You’re right — it’s $4.99 to suggest a name, $0.99 to vote on a name. I think a sentence got dropped when I edited the copy. Thanks for pointing that out.
But, I don’t agree that this is a scam. Nor is it like the star-name selling companies. There is a distinct difference that I KNOW you know Daniel, but you are refusing to admit. You are coming across as very strident about an issue that I do NOT think you have researched fully. You claim that one person has a vendetta against IAU (without proof of it), and yet you seem to be engaging in your very own little vendetta against that person, in the meantime smearing the hard work of many others with it.
Carolyn, Thank you for your thoughtful, balanced response to the IAU. You have written a nice expression of how the efforts and goals of the IAU and Uwingu are complementary. – Andrea S.
Laurel, I’m aware of Alan’s issues and the history of the Pluto reclassification. I’ve gotten private emails today from people on both sides of the issue, some of whom are trying to blame Alan for some Machiavellian plot to hassle the IAU with Uwingu and its contest. In the process, they are smearing the well-intentioned work of many good people (some of whom belong to IAU), and I don’t like that one bit. Unlike those accusers, I CAN and HAVE read both sides of the issue and I don’t see anything in the Uwingu contest that even looks like selling a planet name. Yet there are those who are intent on believing in some evil plot against the IAU whether it’s true or not.
I can’t control what they think, but I can suggest that everybody take a big deep breath and sit down and actually READ everything both on the IAU page and on the Uwingu pages. I’m not part of Uwingu, other than I gave a small donation in their original fundraising. Even I did not know what their team was going to come up with for their contest. But, I do know it was a large team of educators and scientists, and not just the work of one person. So, to smear that team? Well, the people who love to do that are stirring up trouble for trouble’s sake, I suspect. Anyway, I admire Uwingu’s goals and I think they have been quite honest in what they’re trying to do.
Thanks for writing.
Thank you. What Uwingu is doing is badly needed, given the repeated cuts in government money for space missions and planetary science. Everyone participating in this naming effort knows this is about finding a new way to support astronomy research, a way that offers members of the public a voice and role in selecting projects and supporting such research. No one is smearing the work of scientists who belong to the IAU. The problem is with the IAU leadership, which, instead of listening to dissenting astronomers and interested members of the public and reopening the discussion on what is a planet, has dug in its heels and refused to even consider revisiting this topic. Since 2006, we have learned that many exoplanets have highly eccentric orbits, that Eris is not larger than Pluto, that Vesta is more planet than asteroid, that a large number of exoplanets would never fit the IAU planet definition, and that Pluto is far more complex than previously thought, yet none of these things has made an iota of difference to the IAU. No individual or group should have a monopoly on classifying astronomical objects. Maybe if the IAU behaved more professionally and welcomed new input into what is clearly an ongoing debate, they wouldn’t experience a backlash that they could ever interpret as a “Machiavellian plot.”
Actually by looking closer at their website now the similarities to the “star selling” businesses are stronger than I would have imagined. No disclaimer whatsoever on the page making the, err, sale! And although the Uwingu founders were in contact with scam-fearing critics early on (yes, one can find some interesting exchanges from last November on the web), they haven’t bothered to clarify the terse wording so far. Which *was* misunderstood in precisely the way I pointed out as evidenced by “will I get my money back?” postings cropping up now in various places …
Daniel, I think you’re seeing what you want to see. What would you like for them to say? I think they’ve been pretty clear about their objectives. Again, do you really want to be smearing the actions of a large, honest group of educators and scientists with your suspicions? Are you the one who is behind IAU’s sudden action? What do you get out of this?
Also, rather than write to ME, why don’t you follow your journalistic NOSE and actually ask somebody at Uwingu about what they’re trying to do?
Laurel, possibly so. I am actually ON the record as approving of the Pluto demotion for reasons that have nothing to do with IAU’s power, but for scientifically valid reasons. Mind you, I wasn’t wild about the way they handled the vote… but the resulting refining of the planet definition opened a conversation that needed to be had.
I still get along with others who don’t see it that way and see that Pluto should be called a planet. I admire much of the work the IAU does, but in this case (and I’m not a member), I think they jumped the gun and should have talked with Uwingu first before coming out with that press release. It just looked peculiar.
Andrea, you’re welcome. And, thank you.
My goodness, Carolyn, “smearing” must be your new pet word: first you throw it at me on Twitter several times, now here the same – where I’m only pointing out misleading words on a controversial (you can’t deny that, surely, after today) website. Too bad their board of advisors didn’t catch that – oops, sorry, I forgot I’m not allowed to criticize those …
For the record: of course I contacted the IAU press office on the very day I learned about Uwingu’s specific plans, hoping for a swift clarification from their side. Especially given the IAU’s recent new directive to interact more directly with the public at large, that would have been better for all parties. Why it took them many months to react, I don’t know – perhaps because it’s a truly global community. (Which is also why their eventual decisions carry so much weight.)
Thank you, Carolyn. There are scientifically valid reasons for re-opening the planet definition discussion, and there will be a lot more in 2015. The IAU opened a conversation that needed to be had, but then they arbitrarily closed it. That latter action is the problem. For more on that conversation, I invite you to check out my nearly seven-year-old Pluto blog at http://laurelsplutoblog.blogspot.com
I don’t want my money back, and I don’t think most who donated to Uwingu do either. We didn’t “buy” a name; we invested in research that is needed, which have been the brunt of government funding cuts. This has been clear to donors from the beginning.
This is an example of what can happen when scientific differences turn personal. Alan Stern has been very critical of the IAU’s 2006 decision to define the word “planet” in such a way as to leave out Pluto. He has also been active in promoting the Uwingu crowdsourcing venture to raise funds for research by compiling a list of public suggestions for exoplanet names.
But the IAU’s recent news release, linked in the blog post, made me think there was the equivalent of the International Star Registry for exoplanets, when they were really mischaracterizing Uwingu. Paying to name planets would be a silly but harmless and a way for someone to make money by publishing a book of unofficial exoplanet names. But Uwingu is not selling naming rights.
Frankly, I think all the talk about Pluto’s demotion is of little value. The New Horizons Mission shows the scientific importance of studying the Kuiper Belt, and the Pluto system is a reasonable choice of KBOs to study first. And Stern’s leadership in his field is unquestioned, as is the leadership of other astronomers who supported the 2006 resolution.
I just wish both sides didn’t act as if their scientific reputations were at stake when all we have is a disagreement over semantics. Pluto is what it is, no matter what category anyone prefers to put it in.
Daniel, did you talk to Uwingu to understand what they are doing? Did you read their page? Did you make as much effort to understand what they are doing as you did to contact the IAU? In my opinion, the IAU’s press release contained misstatements and errors of assumption. I would think that such an important organization would do its homework thoroughly before characterizing anything the way they did in this press release. It read oddly to me, and I immediately wondered if they invested the time to find out what Uwingu is doing.
I am not a member of the IAU, but I did take the time to read their page on nomenclature (as mentioned in my article). I saw nothing THERE that directly contradicts what Uwingu is doing. And, just as importantly, what I’ve seen from Uwingu seems to go along with IAU’s wishes to engage the public interest in science.
“Smearing” is what happens when an individual or organization makes statements or takes actions that appear to muddle the reputation or actions of others, often without finding out what they’re trying to do. Your statements look like that — as if you WANT to find something wrong with Uwingu for some reason. That is why I used the word. You are very enthusiastic and I admire your writing about astronomy and space-related topics. I applaud that, but a journalist usually uses that enthusiasm to get BOTH sides of a story, as I tried to do. I think there is a lot more going on here than either of us knows or is likely to find out. Something about IAU’s sudden action really seems odd.
Fred, yes, I had the same reaction when I read the IAU’s press release yesterday. It seemed oddly out of character, and I immediately wondered if anybody had talked to Uwingu’s people. There are plenty of them to talk with. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I seriously doubt that the many good people who are working at and with Uwingu would lend their expertise to anything so petty as a vendetta (which certain posters have accused Alan of) against IAU. Many are members, not everyone has the same opinion of the Pluto decision, for example.
If anything, it would appear they (at Uwingu) been paying attention to IAU guidelines that I referred to (and are posted on IAU’s own web site). Something seems a little odd about why this is being brought up now. I wish I knew more about what’s really behind the IAU pre-emptive strike, but I don’t have any special insight. All I can do is read the Web sites of the organizations, and make deductions from those. And, my first impression is that the IAU is reacting to something that’s not there and has never been there.
Daniel, IAU decisions do not “carry so much weight,” and have not done so since the debacle of 2006. If that were true, we would not be seeing so many astronomers, educators, and members of the public continuing to oppose that decision nearly seven years later.
Oh Laurel, dream on … There is a loud and often rude minority (hint: look for the most outspoken Pluto-huggers in the Uwingu advisors’ list – surprise …) that everyone else ignores. And for good reason: the new, better solar system is now ingrained in all levels of planetology and education, and the astronomical community on all levels has *long* moved on to way more interesting topics.
Daniel, if you cannot be respectful in your responses, if you can’t respond without being sarcastic and rude, you will not be allowed to comment here. It’s my blog and my rules and I don’t tolerate harassment and sarcasm. I require polite conversation, even if you disagree with what someone has said. I require people to back their assertions with verifiable facts and sources. You are a good writer/journalist and astronomer, but your rude attitude is unacceptable. Now, what’s it going to be, Daniel? This is your first and only notice.
Those who claim that opponents of the IAU decision are a “vocal minority” have no evidence to support that claim. There is no “better solar system ingrained in all levels of planetology and education.” There is an ongoing debate, and the community of planetary scientists continue to actively concern themselves with the question of how to define a planet, especially since so many exotic exoplanets have been discovered. Those who arbitrarily say the discussion is closed are usually the people who feel threatened by the fact that it is not.
Indeed. It appears that the IAU didn’t even consult its own commission members before releasing the press release. I am still awaiting a response from the IAU office to the questions I sent as a journalist investigating this story. So far: silence.
Well, *I* mailed to those given as contacts in the IAU press release already on the weekend and had swift and fully satisfactory answers in my mailbox on Monday. Case closed on my behalf, and I’m really not willing to invest any more time in this un-astronomical non-issue – especially not here where freedom of speech is now restricted. Which is perhaps the most surprising outcome.
NOTE FROM CCP: Asking you to be polite and non-demeaning in your responses is not restricting your freedom of speech. If you cannot be polite, your comments will not be posted. It’s your choice — when you make the choice, you choose the consequences of that choice.
Daniel, you are free to comment here in a polite manner. No one is restricting your right to free speech. I am, however restricting your right to turn my blog into a cesspool of insinuation. The fact that you continue to make unsupported insinuations, and now invoke the First Amendment, is very telling. Please check your email. Polite commentary, even in disagreement with something I or someone else has said, will be posted. Anything else you post that is NOT polite and respectful, will not be posted.
People, I invite open discussion here. This is, however, a public blog read by a wide audience, including school children. I do NOT allow rude, demeaning, and belittling comments because that’s not what this blog is for. Daniel has been treading too close to that line. He is NOT banned, but any posting he makes here that is less than polite will not be made public.
I delete tons of spam each day, but up to this point, I have rarely had to warn a poster about repeated rudeness. I’ve only deleted one or two non-spam comments in the past, and those were replete with profanities, something else I do not tolerate on this blog. It disappoints me to have to warn Daniel. He is otherwise an excellent writer and well-known amateur astronomer, I’ve known of him many years and had the privilege to meet him some years back. However, zeal to make a point in a disagreement is no excuse for borderline behavior by anybody who wants to participate in discussions here.
I trust I’ve made my position clear. Argue all you want about the IAU and Uwingu, but do it with supported facts and in an agreeable manner, or the comments don’t get posted.
I emailed the contacts on the press release over the weekend and to this point have gotten NO reply to my questions.