Reply to comment
IAU decision nowhere near unanimous
February 21, 2009
by Anonymous,
39 weeks 4 days ago
Comment: 34749
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
What's this statement in the Feb. 22, 2009 issue of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette about the IAU's "nearly unanimous vote" to demote Pluto (yes, I find these things quickly!)? Only four percent of the IAU voted on the last day of their two week conference. Most who voted are not planetary scientists. This vote was accurately described by Dr. Alan Stern as "hijacked" by dynamicists who deliberately planned to hold it after most participants had already left. Anyone not in the room on this particular day could not vote. No absentee voting was allowed. 424 out of 10,000 is not an overwhelming majority. In fact, while that tiny group passed resolution 5a establishing the categories of "classical planets," "dwarf planets." and "small solar system bodies" by a large number, this is not true of resolution 5b, the umbrella resolution that, had it passed, would have established dwarf planets as a subclass of planets. The vote on 5b was very split, indicating many who supported creating the dwarf planet category did not intend for that category to be not considered a subclass of planets at all.
I wanted to write this comment on the newspaper site, but it looks like there is no comments section, so I'm putting it here instead, and maybe in my blog as well.