Once we repair the hyperdrive, we’re SO there!

The Czar is the one who typically provides commentary on scientific journalism, however this article caught Dr. J.’s eye.

The long and short of it is that yet another exoplanet (planet outside our solar system) was discovered. Furthermore given the size, density, composition (as extrapolated from infrared spectra), and orbit, it gave the astronomers pause, challenging them to rethink current models of planet formation.

Imagine that, scientists using the scientific method, including the part where their conclusions result in them revising and adjusting their model before testing the next hypothesis. Good on them.

Indeed one reader summed it up beautifully in the comments:

It amazes me that scientists are willing to re-assess one of the core theories of planetary formation, the core-accretion theory; are still arguing over whether the speed of light is a constant or variable speed; and allow debate over other bedrock principles… but allow themselves to be bullied into group-think over “Global Warming” or “Man-made Climate Change” or whatever the Politically Correct term is today. Anyone who questions the “Settled Science” of Global Warming is labelled as anti-science, even though there is almost no credible evidence for human impact on climate. 

– John_Galt , Tampa, 09/8/2013 15:45 

Galt makes a great point. In different scientific disciplines there is always pause in the peer review process for publication and funding for those whose science creates a paradigm shift. The best example is in so-called climate science, but to varying degrees it occurs across disciplines. The reasons include professional jealousy, flat out disbelief and the old-boys network. In other cases, if you don’t toe the party line, you aren’t even allowed in the (funding) pool.

That’s my planet, bitches!

Indeed, currently one of Dr. J.’s  friends on an NIH study section told him that one of the factors in scoring for his study section is if the scientist has a palatable ‘plan B’ meaning a physician-scientist can see patients and earn a living but Ph.D. scientists can not. So M.D. scientists in his section were treated more stringently. The big drawbacks are that we are set to lose a generation of scientists, especially M.D.s who can bridge the bench and the bedside with translational work and we will create an environment where, when the older generation (who has hung around longer than previous generations) finally retires, there will be a paucity in the next generation and as a consequence the generation to follow. So, remember, scientists and academics are far from perfect and can slide away from reason and towards favoritism and emotionalism despite their words to the contrary.

The other point is based on this illustration from the article.

In it you can see the star in question. And while it is near the constellation Virgo, it is not part of the constellation, nor does it belong to a ‘named’ star.

As exoplanet discovery and other astronomic sciences move forward, stars of astrologic importance that have since antiquity have had a special place in our imagination will not be as relevant, and in the millenia yet to come (unless we move back the the cave on behest of the Obama administration) new ways of looking at the roadmap of space will come to the fore especially if we decide to begin exploring the new frontier again.

Second star to the right (of Arcturus) amd straight on ’til morning.

Dr. J.