Crater Names on a Map

There is no privileged place in the universe. We teach this in cosmology and it’s the answer we give when someone asks us where the center of the universe is.

There is NO privileged place in the universe.

I thought about that statement when I got a press release from the International Astronomical Union, making vague claims about naming objects on other planets, clearly taking aim at the Uwingu fundraiser to name craters on a Mars map. The IAU is clearly speaking from its own snug place of privilege in the universe, and it is not happy.

What aren’t they happy about?

Well, let’s understand where they’re coming from. The IAU has a commission tasked with being the traffic monitor for naming other worlds and features on other worlds. Here’s a quote from their press release that lays out their mission:

“In 1919, when the IAU was founded, it was given the official mission (http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Page/History) to establish internationally recognized planet and satellite nomenclature. The objective at the time was to standardize the various confusing systems of nomenclature for the Moon that were then in use. Since that time, the IAU has succeeded in constructing a single, reliable, official catalogue of surface feature names, thus enabling successful international public and scientific communication. The IAU played a key role in getting the USSR and the USA to agree on naming rules for lunar features  (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs…/19780004017_1978004017.pdf) even during the space race of the sixties.

Today, the IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN), representing the worldwide astronomical community, provides a unique system of official names for solar system objects (planetary surface features, natural satellites, dwarf planets, and planetary rings) for the benefit of the international science community, educators, and the general public. To see the existing accepted nomenclature please visit the IAU home page at Naming Astronomical Objects [http://www.iau.org/public/naming].”

Note that they are not necessarily the ones who DO the naming of actual features/moons/planets/rings/etc. They are simply there to help scientists follow some guidelines about naming things. That’s all fine and good and I completely agree that their job of coming up with guidelines is a necessary one. I’ve always felt that they were sort of “bookkeeping” such info for the rest of us and such a function is important. But, here’s an important point: their mission covers actual bodies in space.

Now, IAU is stepping in as the traffic cop and trying to enforce those guidelines over something that is NOT under their purview. The rest of the IAU release (which you can read here) indicates to me that the IAU is deliberately confusing the naming of things on other worlds with naming features on a map. Or worse yet, vaguely suggesting that Uwingu is the same as the companies that sell star names. Which it is not. And which anybody who reads the very clear explanations on the Uwingu site can see for themselves.

To put it bluntly, the IAU hierarchy is getting its collective knickers in a knot over Uwingu raising funds by allowing people to donate money to education.

In return, donors get to a name a crater on a map.

I’ll say that again:  On. A. Map.

The IAU guidelines about naming things say nothing about names on a map.

Nothing.

So, what is the fuss?

I actually have NO special insight into IAU’s internal discussions on this matter. All we have is a vaguely worded press release asserting some “concerns”. But, they appear to have spent an inordinate amount of time putting together a response to something that isn’t even part of their mission.

The IAU is an outgrowth of a time in science when learned astronomers got together to make rules, some of them good, for the benefit of astronomy. All well and good, But, somehow over time, that “rule making” ability has been outstripped by reality and the march of time and the pace of space exploration. And by common sense. That old sense that “the masses” shouldn’t be involved in anything so lofty and important as naming things on other planets is long gone. We all (around the world) pay for this exploration, and there is absolutely NO HARM and NO RULE against inviting the public to be involved in space exploration in a way that is more meaningful than simply letting scientists in various countries take the tax dollars and say, “Thanks, we’ll let you know when we need you again.”

The “masses”, by the way, include you and me, astronomers, non-astronomers, even mission planners and astronauts, when it comes down to it. We all have a stake in learning about the universe, and understanding it.

Things are changing in astronomy and science outreach. In recent decades, astronomers around the world have become more vocal about their science, sharing it with the public. Here in the U.S. and in Europe, outreach is very important. Involving the public is increasingly seen as a vital part of a mission. If it comes down to it, if asking the public to help name things on a planet, or even a map OF the planet, helps public understanding, then why not do it?

Yes, there are places named on planets and the Moon that are not strictly according to the guidelines, and are “grandfathered in” for whatever reason. But in the main, the IAU reserves for itself the right to approve names and pass judgment on them, which I feel goes beyond their original mission. Today they have taken on the job of being enforcers of all things astronomically named, and in the case of the Uwingu map names, they have now decided that they need to enforce the names of things on maps. And, in a previous press release, they have stated somewhat petulantly that any name EVER suggested by Uwingu — and by extension, by any member of the public — will NEVER make it onto a distant planet or moon or whatever, if they can help it.

It reminds me a little of a child who doesn’t get his/her way and stomps off and takes all the toys with him/her. Not like a professional organization dedicated to bringing an understanding of astronomy to all.

So, I have a simple question for the IAU and all the defenders who are acting all frothy about Uwingu’s amazing fundraiser:

Some planetariums allow people to name stars on their domes as fundraising efforts. When will the IAU put out a press release about this shocking — SHOCKING, I tell you — usurpation of IAU’s self-assumed attempts to control names of ANYTHING astronomical, regardless of whether it’s on a planet, a map, or a dome?

I’m breathlessly waiting for an answer to that one.

More Thoughts

You know, I’m not against the idea of keeping names standardized to avoid confusion. No problem with that at all. But, that’s not what this whole thing is really about. The current news stories stemming from the press release show an organization getting bent out of shape about a fundraiser to let people put names on a map.

On the other side of this story is a fundraiser that has lit people’s imaginations on fire, involving them in the excitement of Mars exploration. We constantly, as scientists and science outreach people, are talking about how science education is important. We are always saying how science requires us to examine the facts carefully, follow the scientific method, etc. before coming to conclusions. That’s what we tell people about how science works.

Why is it then that this fundraiser has elicited such a misguided response from IAU? When I read their press release, I kept asking myself if they’d actually bothered to read Uwingu’s web page and statement of purpose. It was as if they had made up what they THOUGHT Uwingu was doing, made it a straw man, and used that to berate Uwingu (albeit vaguely) about what they think Uwingu is doing. How is THAT being
honest and scientific?

I’ve read Twitter comments and FB comments defending the IAU and journalistic pieces conflating the whole issue into something it’s not, and the misstatements in those pieces tell ME that some scientists and journalists are NOT reading carefully. They are NOT doing the job as scientists and journalists that they TELL the rest of us we should be doing — i.e. to carefully investigate the situation. Instead, I see lots of leaping and frothing to defend IAU, when IAU has caused this kerfuffle in the first place with their press release about a Mars map project.

And it IS a kerfuffle. In my mind, the IAU has debased itself over this. Instead of embracing the spirit of educational support that this fundraiser represents, it has painted in my mind (and I am an astronomer and journalist, well versed in being an open-minded investigator in the best of scientific tradition), a picture of the IAU as a close-minded old club bent on preserving a privilege that it really needs to be sharing with the world in any way it can.

How cool would it be if IAU said, “Yes, we welcome the public through ALL initiatives [including the Uwingu Mars Map and others] and let’s move forward into the 21st century together to learn and explore the universe. We recognize Uwingu’s Mars Map project as a cool way to involve people in astronomy.”

But it hasn’t. And, from what I’ve heard from people who ARE in the IAU’s naming commission, there has been very little progress in naming much of anything in the past decades. And that’s much sadder for the IAU than you can possibly imagine. It renders the IAU the appearance of a group jealously guarding a privilege that really belongs to all of humanity and they’re wasting time on a non-issue when the work the IAU is supposed to be doing is languishing.  For example, in an article I wrote about another Uwingu project a year or so back, Dr. Geoffrey Marcy, IAU member and planet-hunter, said, “…in reality, the IAU has failed to construct a naming system for exoplanets, after 18 years of exoplanet discoveries! The IAU hasn’t named a single planet — after 18 years! Michel Mayor and I privately decided one day to put the lower case letters “b” and “c”, etc, after the star name. There has never been any IAU system of naming exoplanets.”

That was about exoplanets, now this year the IAU is using the excuse of its existing commission “work” to insert itself into another fundraiser where it simply has no place being. This current effort is apparently spearheaded by a few individuals in the upper administration of IAU, trying to speak ex cathedra for all members. I don’t think all IAU members agree with this action. If I were a member (I’m not), I would be appalled at the lack of investigative smarts shown by the latest press release. Far from being a bastion of proper scientific investigation, the IAU is engaging in lapses of logic and behavior that would get an Astronomy 101 student a failing grade on a test.

Sooner or later, IAU will more fully accept the reality that astronomy and all science are human endeavors that are open to all people and will stop put self-serving limitations on ways to excite the public about astronomy and space. IAU certainly has released nice-looking phrases about public engagement on their Web site. I suggest that if the organization’s leaders want talk the talk about bringing science to all, then they have to start walking the walk.

The Obligatory Disclaimer

Now, because I know that someone will bring this up — yes, I did name two craters on the Uwingu Mars Map. I wrote about it here.

But you know what? I did it AFTER doing my due diligence. I did my homework before I donated my money. I did it just like a good scientist or jounalist should do. And, I came to the conclusion that this is a worthy thing to support. It helps pay for science education and outreach. The VERY thing that IAU and other organizations say they want to support. And, thousands of people around the world have done the
same thing. I hope they continue to do so, because science education and outreach needs every bit of support we can gin up for it.

I am not now very happy at the IAU’s (and its defenders’) attitude that I was somehow duped. Do they think that I and many, many others around the world are THAT stupid? That we didn’t read exactly what Uwingu was doing before we shared our funds with them?

As a final note, I was talking with Alan Stern about this as part of my research into what Uwingu is doing. Alan (who is an IAU member and head of the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the outer solar system) is an old friend from graduate school. We both had the same advisor, who held us to very strict standards in our research. If I thought for even a second that Alan was pulling a fast one, it wouldn’t matter how long we’d known each other. I would have kicked his butt. Journalistic ethics and scientific honesty would not let me give him a pass just due to friendship. And that’s only right. Science doesn’t work because of old boys’ rules and ill-thought-out assumptions or even based on how old friends behave. Politics might work that way, and might seek to intimidate over demogoguery and illogic, but not science.

Anyway, Alan said somewhat jokingly that the IAU’s tactics reminded him of a Sopwith Camel, while modern space exploration was like a shiny F16, soaring high into the sky. Time marches on, archaic privileges are left behind, and new rules rise up out of old ones. IAU has a viable place in the new modernity, but it needs to figure out for itself what that place is. I suggest that IAU’s getting its single prop all awash over names on a Mars map is not the place to start modernizing.