Artist's impression of the diamond planet discovered by Matthew Bailes and his team.
Credit: Swinburne Astronomy
Recently my colleagues and I announced the discovery of a remarkable planet orbiting a pulsar. Based on the planet's density, and the likely history of its system, we concluded that it was certain to be crystalline. Or, put it another way, we had found a planet made of diamond.
After publication in Science, we were inundated with attention from the world's media: in Time, the BBC and China Daily, among others. I was often asked about the significance of the discovery. To be honest, while worthy of publication, it wasn't all that significant among astrophysicists.
Sure, there are probably a dozen theoretical physicists globally who were thrilled; after all, a diamond planet fills a gap in the binary pulsar family. But it wasn't that important.
And yet, the diamond planet ignited public curiosity about the universe. So in that sense, for me and my colleagues, it will probably be among our greatest discoveries. Our institutions were delighted with the publicity, and the attention was all positive.
But oh, how different it could have been. How so? Well, if we had been climate scientists, for example. Imagine that, instead of discovering a diamond planet, we'd made a breakthrough in global temperature projections. Let's say we studied computer models of greenhouse gases, verified them through observations, then had them scrutinised by our peers and then published in Science.
Instead of basking in praise, we would have faced a barrage of negative commentary - many from people with no scientific qualifications - who would have poured scorn on our findings. People on the fringe of science, challenging the validity of our work, would have been quoted alongside, arguing that it was nothing more than a theory yet to be conclusively proven.
There would be doubt cast on our interpretation of the data, and conjecture about whether we were 'buddies' with the journal referees or editors. If our opponents dug really deep, they might even find that I'd once written a paper on a similar topic that, following more detailed observations, had to be retracted. Before long, our credibility and findings would be under serious question.
Luckily, we're not climate scientists. And yet, although it may come as a surprise to many, there is actually no difference between how science works in astronomy and how it is practiced in climate change - or any other scientific discipline, for that matter. We make observations, run simulations, propose and test hypotheses. We then submit a paper for peer review, where anonymous astronomers and astrophysicists unconnected with our work study our data and try to pick holes in our conclusions. If our arguments survive scrutiny, the paper is published. We then get together at conferences, debate our own hypotheses and form a global community.
If you are a solid state physicist, an astronomer, or doing laser optics, for example, the world is happy to celebrate your discoveries, use them in new products such as WiFi, and reflect on the astonishing growth in knowledge and technology. It's wonderful to be a part of this careful but inexorable advance of human knowledge.
On occasion, those on the fringe of the scientific community push a position that is simply not credible against the weight of evidence. This occurs in any discipline, but it seems that it's only in climate science that fringe dwellers are given air time and column inches to espouse their minority views. Those who want to ignore what's happening to Earth feel they need to be able to quote 'alternative studies', regardless of their scientific merit.
In all fields of science, papers are challenged and statistics debated. If there is any basis to these challenges, they triumph. If not, they are ignored as the field advances forward. That's science. When big theories fall, it isn't because of business or political pressures: it's because of evidence, the real currency of the scientific process. Evidence always trumps commentary, opinion or rhetorical flourish. Sadly, the same commentators who celebrate diamond planets without question are all too quick to dismiss the latest peer-reviewed evidence that suggests human activities are responsible for changes in concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere.
The scientific method is universal. If we celebrate it in some disciplines and ignore it in others, we will do so at our own peril.
Matthew Bailes is the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne.
How Threatening is It?
It is a matter of how threatening a discovery/theory is and to whom. A diamond planet poses no threat to business, religion, politics, or leading scientific theory. So it is accepted readily. Climate change, environmental impact, genetics, evolution, etc threaten peoples belief or behavior so are strongly challenged and if any fringe scientist (including Joe my neighbor who took a college course once) disputes the threat then the threat is discarded. Sad really... but (closed minded) human nature.
Diamond planet... very cool. Make for a good sci-fi story.
Matthew Bailes article
Matthew Bailes article should be read by all those interested in any discipline -evolution,chemistry or astrophysics or whatever.Although his comments may be understood and accepted by all researchers,they are not known to most of the general public. The public,including many critics of published scientific papers,don't discriminate between media reports,or publicity seeking charlatans and peer reviewed papers in scientific journals.Sadly,there are otherwise reputable scientists who can't wait for their research to be published,who use the media to make announcements of their research findings.
While I agree that peer review is essential to provide balanced,science based criticism,followed by symposia of interested parties. I believe that criticism need not necessarily be limited to academics. Ignoring the true crackpots,frauds and naysayers,there are many people of intelligence who could contribute their views. Before that can happen,scientists need to come out of the closets and speak out to the general public about the scientific method. Encouraging non-scientists to express their opinions and ideas could add greatly to our knowledge.