Interview with the IAU President on Pluto's Demotion

Last month, Catherine Cesarsky became the president of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Cesarsky, the first woman to hold this prestigious position, started her presidency at a time when many scientists are questioning IAU's recent decision to strip Pluto of its planetary status based on a vote of just 424 members at a meeting in Prague.

Cesarsky served as the director general of the European Southern Observatory since 1999 and is famed for her research work in central areas of modern astrophysics. She also led the design and construction of the ISOCAM camera onboard the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) of the European Space Agency (ESA).

In an email interview with SPACE.com, Cesarsky discusses her thoughts on the role of the IAU as a governing body and the split of the scientific community on the new definition and the way the process was handled, effectively excluding 10,000 professional astronomers around the globe.

I agree that with the discovery of 2003 UB313 something had to be done. But I also agree that there could be some "historical preferential leeway" (I just made that up) allowed for the sake of Pluto. And it looks like the book isn't closed with the announcement of things like this...

300 Astronomers Will Not Use New Planet Definition

There's definitely a split in the ranks. Personally, I'm feeling rather malleable and (at the moment) could go either way without much angst, because there are very valid arguments for both sides. On the one side, if Pluto is a planet then it can be argued that 2003 UB313 must also be a planet, along with potentially untold scores/hundreds/thousands/millions/billions? of like bodies that will be discovered in orbit around the Sun beyond Pluto. So along those lines, we MUST demote Pluto. But then again, I think that there's historical precedent that could be used whereby a discovery cutoff date can be added to the definition of what makes a planet, which would allow Pluto to keep its planetary moniker. Of course, then one could still argue that Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta should be called planets because they were discovered in the 1800's.

Science rarely makes room for sentiment, and as a rule it shouldn't, and so calling Pluto a minor planet is consistent and logical, and there's really nothing wrong with that. And perhaps society needs to be reminded of the dynamic nature of science. There were nine planets... now there's eight! Deal with it. Change every science textbook written in the last hundred years. Too bad!

But on the other hand, well, I "like" there being nine planets. Doesn't that account for anything? :(

I think the problem is "Xena", the "Tenth Planet". It's on the order of a third larger, iirc.

Pluto makes it, but Xena doesn't? would be the argument.

Personally, I'd grandfather it, but they should put it on hold until they figure out the difference between
black holes and MECOs, and what to call objects that are a tad smaller than a brown dwarf, and rewrite all
the text books at once.

"To Pluto And Far Beyond" By David H. Levy, Parade, January 15, 2006 -- We don't have a dictionary definition yet that includes all the contingencies. In the wake of the new discovery, however, the International Astronomical Union has set up a group to develop a workable definition of planet. For our part, in consultation with several experienced planetary astronomers, Parade offers this definition: A planet is a body large enough that, when it formed, it condensed under its own gravity to be shaped like a sphere. It orbits a star directly and is not a moon of another planet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.



· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·