Renaisauce quotes an unnamed scientist as saying: 'The IAU process gave the impression that science is done by a bunch of scientists voting behind closed doors.'

Really? Scientific theory relating to planets is developed based on evidence, not votes. As I point out to kids who ask me about the vote, Pluto was unaffected by it. All that changed was the human definition of the term once scientists realized that it was no longer as clear cut. Why the realization? New information, of course! And that doesn't change the importance of the New Horizon's mission that will reach Pluto and the Kuiper Belt in 2015.

Furthermore, I got the impression that the final IAU vote was contentious and open. Perhaps I had different sources about the event. The most memorable for me was a public lecture by planetary astronomer Heidi Hammel, where she allowed the audience to re-enact the vote after she provided the history of planets and other bodies, such as asteroids.

I admit to having a bias here. I wrote a young readers biography of Heidi called Beyond Jupiter, published in 2005.

But even before I met Heidi, I had been grappling with the planetary status of Pluto on my website for young readers. The latest version of my "Ask Dr. Fred" question about the number of planets includes not only a discussion of the IAU deliberations but also a link to the last version I wrote before the famous vote.

Finally, let me point readers to my review of a book called Is Pluto a Planet? by David A. Weintraub, who argues that the official definition of "planet" should include Pluto and many other bodies of comparable size. Is he the unnamed scientist in the article, Renaisauce?

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)