A pox on both our houses

In my position as presumed repository of all astronomical knowledge (hah!), I am often approached by fellow faculty members, staff, students, or the general public (either face to face or electronically) with questions that usually begin "is it true that" or "I heard that." More often than not, the answer is a quick "no", as in the case of "Will the world end on December 21, 2012" or "Will Mars look as large as the full moon in August"? However, sometimes I don't have a glib answer at the tip of my tongue, meaning that either there is a new urban legend afoot, that or my well-meaning colleague or representative of John Q. Public has simply misheard (or misinterpreted) something they actually heard in the media. There is, of course, a third possibility, namely that the science reporter got it wrong, or in their attempt to spin the story into something sexier twisted the actual science into something largely unrecognizable. This is far too often the case with History Channel "documentaries", for example. This past spring I heard from several individuals that there had been a new planet, larger than Jupiter, discovered in our solar system. Since I'd not heard anything about this supposed planet I assumed it was just a case of some new urban legend and didn't think much of it. But I was wrong. Instead, it was a case of  the third and a fourth possibility, one which is, unfortunately, increasingly common in the intersections between science and the media, and one which bodes ill for attempts to achieve a scientifically literate society. Let me explain.

Several weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Americal Astronomical Society in Boston, a gathering of about 2000 astronomers who spent five days drinking far too much coffee (and beer) and trying to convince each other (in 15 minute talks and 3X4 posters) of the veracity and importance of their observations and theories. On the last full day of the conference I attended a talk given by Jack Lissauer entitled "A Jovian Mass Object in the Oort Cloud?" Please note the question mark at the end. Lissauer presented the evidence on behalf of himself and two co-authors, Daniel Whitmire and John Matese, and in my mind, acted as a consumate scientist as he presented his evidence. The suggestion was that the existence of a distant massive planet COULD account for issues with the orbit of dwarf planet Sedna and the orbits of some comets. Like any reasonable scientist, Lissauer also offered alternate explanations for these observations and explained why he and his colleagues felt that their suggestion best fit the data and how the alternate hypotheses fell short. By using words such as COULD, IF and MIGHT, he was careful to offer their hypothesis as exactly that - a possible explanation which could be tested. In the case of such a hypothetical planet-sized body, it was suggested that it should be detectable by the WISE mission, an infrared satellite. The paper that directly followed Lissauer's was by a member of the WISE team, who explained that their study had - to date - obtained no evidence for the existence of such a hypothetical planet.I left the talk satisfied that I had found the ultimate source of the new urban legend, but it seemed clear that Lissauer was not at fault. He had spoken carefully and scientifically to this (admittedly) scientific audience. But serious red flags had been raised in my mind about who was at fault.

Lissauer's colleagues, Whitmire and Matese, have been making a cottage industry out of suggesting the existence of other hypothetical objects in the solar system since the 1980s, the most well-known being Nemesis, a supposed red dwarf star orbitting the sun every 26 million years, mucking around with the distant Oort Cloud of comets, and resulting in showers of dinosaur-killing comets aimed at earth every, you guessed it, 26 million years.Before you say that dinosaurs only became extinct once, you should know that there have been other mass extinctions throughout earth's history. But I digress. My point is that Whitmire and Matese have been accused of crying wolf for years, and I was beginning to think that either they were being a tad too glib in their dealings with the media, or that the media was sensationaizing their latest hypothesis. My take on it is that both occured in this case, hence I proclaim a pox on both our houses - science and the media. If you're interested, read the three following articles about Tyche (yes, they've named their hypothetical/imaginary planet, after the "good sister" of Nemesis in Greek mythology):

http://eclipsegeeks.com/NewNinthPlanetDiscoveredinSolarSystem.aspx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1356748/Search-Tyche-believed-largest-planet-solar-system.html

http://www.universetoday.com/83363/about-that-giant-planet-possibly-hiding-in-the-outer-solar-system/

You'll note that the first article says "New Ninth Planet Discovered" while the second says it is "possibly hiding." Which version do you think gets the most traction on the internet? The third article deconstructs the issue and separates the science from the speculation, and shows the importance of good science reporting.

The point of this admittedly long-winded post is this: the universe is exciting enough without spinning the truth, or clothing your theories in sexy language and hyperbole. If scientists make claims they can't back up (or if the media insists on misrepresenting scientific work) we all lose. Scientists need to be careful in their communications to the media and general public, and the media needs to ask the right questions of scientists and (I know I'm being heretical here) have their stories proofread by someone who knows science in return to make sure the work is not being represented. An excellent shortcut to all this would be for more journalism majors to minor in science, or for more scientists to go into science journalism. As another speaker at the AAS meeting warned, we currently graduate 5X more Ph.D.s in astronomy each year than there will ever be academic positions for. The same speaker chastized the astronomical community for merely "giving lipservice" to science education in the schools. Even if Tyche is never discovered, perhaps it will be create a positive legacy in astronomical history if it acts as spark that begins a new chapter in the relationship between scientists and the media.

But hey, I'm a dreamer. I just hope I'm not the only one.