Scott Tremaine on “Astrohype”
I recently came across a post by distinguished astrophysicist Scott Tremaine who works at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The piece is entitled “Overblown Statements in Press Releases Undermine Science”, something that exercised me so much that I invented the category Astrohype so I could post particularly egregious examples on this blog.
Soctt Tremaine’s piece is on the American Astronomical Society website, but I’m reposting the text here to give it wider circulation as I think it makes some very important points that we’d all do well to heed. And of course in the interest of full disclosure I should point out that I am a theoretical astrophysicist myself, so may be a bit biased…
–o–
In a recent column, AAS President David Helfand argued correctly that negative public messages about subfields within our own discipline, or even about other disciplines — “shooting inward at each other” — damage all of us.
Consider, then, the following public messages:
- from a major research university, a press release titled “Astronomers Discover Planet that Shouldn’t Be There,”
- from the European Southern Observatory, a press release titled “Turning Planetary Theory Upside Down,”
- from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a press release containing the quote, “Much of what we thought we understood about the physics of pulsars and neutron stars may be wrong,”
- from the Space Telescope Science Institute, a press release stating, “New observations from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope challenge 30 years of scientific theory about quasars,” and
- from a respected news organization, an interview with a prominent exoplanet researcher containing the quote, “Theory has struck out.”
The point is not whether these messages provide accurate characterizations of the state of theoretical understanding in their respective subject areas (though in most cases they do not). The point is that by belittling and trivializing the efforts of theoretical astrophysicists — who try to understand extremely complex processes in exotic environments, with limited clues from observations — they damage the public perception of the entire astronomy community. As just one example, statements from press releases such as those above are often repeated on creationist websites, where they carry extra weight because they have the imprimatur of NASA or a major observatory or university.
Advances in observational astronomy are spectacular enough to appeal to the public on their own merits, without “shooting inward” at efforts to understand these observations. Astronomers and press officers can provide a more realistic picture of the synergy between observation and theory, and in so doing would improve the public perception of astronomy research in particular and of the scientific enterprise more generally.
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
February 2, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Linguistic inflation in the media is the literary equivalent of the tragedy of the commons. It erodes the credibility of science and real progress to garner attention in an expanding spiral of gimmicks that ultimately reduce real communication to a carnival barking din.
February 3, 2014 at 6:42 am
While I agree that many astro PR statements are often overly sensationalist (and I’m probably guilty of contributing: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-144), when it comes to ‘shooting inwards’, I’m not sure that the general public these are aimed at make the distinction between observer and theorist (or even between astronomer, astrophysicist or cosmologist). Additionally, I think that making sure ‘we’ communicate the idea that we don’t know everything, or sometimes get things wrong, is just as important as the main story as it demonstrates how science is done. Granted, making sure that this doesn’t come off as sneering requires some finesse.
February 3, 2014 at 9:46 am
I agree that publicizing science is a good thing, but not when it involves a gross distortion of what has actually been done or learnt. Then it becomes mere propaganda.
May 25, 2017 at 2:44 am
Was talking to a scientist the other day and exhibited an object of technology – I was criticizing science – he pointed out that it was technology not science, so what is science?
Scott Tremaine an Astrophysicist has stated that any theory of the origin of a Planet is wrong and he cannot see a theory in the foreseeable future as being correct.
Now scientists are Marching for Science why? Do they consider science to be under threat? Scientists also voted in blind faith that the few climate scientists theories were correct: is that science?. As a member of the public who read some science you can see how we can be very disturbed?
Isaac Newton’s ideology of a clockwork universe has not been tarred and feathered. Newton born in 1643 unbelievably has maths that is still used today, incidentally Newton also said the all and every disease could be cured with horse sh:t and is the Big Bang only a hyped up version of Newton’s clockwork universe? The Big Bang expands like a clockwork spring and at its extremity contracts back to its origins? The scientist told me that scientists do not bed well with any criticism being an excludive club.
May 25, 2017 at 11:46 am
Science is not an `exclusive’ club. Anyone can study science. But you need to make the effort to learn the language and the methods. The people who reject scientific thinking are, in my experience, usually people who aren’t prepared to do the hard work of understanding the subject.
P.S. Who `voted in blind faith’? Science doesn’t involve voting!