Skip to main content

Something strange going on in the IAU

Prof. Jason Wright has the story over at his blog. If you care about the actions of the IAU---in particular a potential abuse of procedure---please read the post in full and pass it along.

It all starts with a company called Uwingo that wants to sell the ability to propose exoplanet names (think of an exoplanet baby name book) in order to raise funding for exoplanetary science. As stated on the Uwingo site, "We’re asking the public to create a vast list of planet names for astronomers to choose from."

In a recent press release, the IAU responds:
In the light of recent events, where the possibility of buying the rights to name exoplanets has been advertised, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) wishes to inform the public that such schemes have no bearing on the official naming process. The IAU wholeheartedly welcomes the public’s interest to be involved in recent discoveries, but would like to strongly stress the importance of having a unified naming procedure.
Interestingly, they do not name Uwingo specifically, but passive-agressively link to a star-naming site, most of which are clearly schemes meant to fool the public. Uwingo, by contrats, is run by astronomers and makes its intentions very clear.

Jason writes:
The IAU has issued a statement regarding the naming of planets by a group called Uwingu that is misleading or inaccurate in several ways.  Reading it, one could be forgiven for coming away believing that the IAU has given official names to planets, that these names can be found at, and that the commission responsible for this process has refused to consider Uwingu's names.  All three implications are absolutely false.  
He goes on to list the problems with this statement
1) Contrary to the press release's implication, the IAU does not name planets.
2) Contrary to the press releases's assertion, there is no "official naming process."
3) Contrary to the press release's assertion, Commission 53 has not foreclosed the possibility of using Uwingu's names.
4) Contrary to the press release's implication, the press release does not and cannot describe official IAU policy.
5) Contrary to the press release's implication, Uwingu is not actually promising to give official names to or to sell naming rights to specific planets
Like I said, check out his full post for all of the details and implications. This is really strange...

What is also troubling is the "official" endorsement of one exoplanets site ( over another ( apparently without consultation of the community, nor the IAU Commission 53 on Exoplanets. As Geoff Marcy wrote in an email:
The lack of consultation or vote by IAU members is particularly eyebrow-raising, as the two IAU co-signatories of the press-release reside in Paris, and the press release names as the catalog for exoplanets which comes from Observatoire de Paris.   At the least, this coincidence of two authorities in Paris promoting a website in Pairs raises the appearance, if not reality, of political back-room motivations.   Further, contains exoplanets not vetted by the IAU nor even published in many cases!
Stay tuned!


Hogg said…
The site - - is a for-profit company that does no specified scientific activity and is endorsed explicitly by Pamela Gay and Geoff Marcy. I hope Pamela and Geoff and Uwingu will explain what their mission is. I agree that the IAU had no right to issue that statement, but Uwingu looks pretty suspicious to me. They seem to imply some misleading things on their site.

I must say that I strongly disagree with your assessment of Uwingu. They're mission is clearly stated on their website, and here are the science and education activities they have raised funding for:

Currently Funded Projects

Their mission and scientific activities are clearly outlined. I understand that selling the rights to submit names for planets may sound like star naming schemes, but they are clear that the suggestions are merely suggestions and that the money goes to science.

But Uwingu is a side show here. The main point is that the IAU acted unilaterally without consulting the working group or the greater community before issuing a poorly-worded press release on a matter that many people care a lot about. Imagine if this is how they handled Pluto's status!
Hogg said…
my issues are:

(a) they are for-profit, but strongly imply that they are a charitable organization

(b) they have given away something like $5000 in grants, but the people involved must be being paid a lot more than $5000 per year to serve -- many of them are industrialists. So most of your $4.99 or $0.99 is NOT going to astronomical research. *That* is the point on which I hope they will come clear: What fraction of the money they raise goes to projects? I bet it is far, far less than 1 percent.

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:

It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The subtle yet real racism of the Supreme Court

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?" 
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …