Archive for August, 2024

Lessons from Physics and Biology

Posted in Sport, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 6, 2024 by telescoper

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, one of my English teachers at school would occasionally give us exercises in creative writing inspired by `Only Connect’ – the epigraph of the novel Howard’s End by E.M. Forster. We were given two apparently disconnected things (usually news items), asked to think of a possible connection between them and write an story joining them together. From time to time when trying to think of something to write about I’ve resorted to playing the same game and am going to do it today.

This time, I thought I would connect two of my own recent blog posts, one about the case of female boxer Imane Khelife and the other about about the death of theoretical physicist TD Lee. What could the connection be?

Tsung-Dao Lee’s most famous work – for which he won the 1957 Nobel Prize with was on parity violation, which was detected experimentally by Chien-Shiung Wu in 1956. Parity is a conserved quantity in classical physics (e.g. in electromagnetism and gravity) and it was believed until the mid-20th century that it would be conserved in the quantum theory of nuclear interactions too. Wolfgang Pauli, for example, criticized Hermann Weyl’s suggestion of a two-component weakly interacting massless particle because it implied parity violation.

The experimental proof of parity violation in some weak interactions led to a much deeper understanding of fundamental physics, including the the idea of chiral gauge interactions, and the development of the standard model of particle physics. Parity is violated in some strong interactions too. Our simple-minded view of how things are changed as a result of an exception to a widely-held assumption. That’s how progress happens.

You might think now that I’m going to write about the fact that double-helix structure of DNA is right-handed, i.e. that it exhibits a form of parity violation, but that’s not it. Or only a little bit. You see, not all DNA is right-handed…

What does this have to do with Olympic boxing? Well, much of the furore about about Imane Khelif is about the (unproven) assertion that she has XY chromosome and is therefore male and should not be allowed to box in the women’s competition. A ‘biological’ female would have XX chromosomes.

It is true in the vast majority of cases that men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes, but if you read any reasonably modern book on human biology, the statement that ‘females have XX chromosomes’ is preceded by a “usually” or “in most cases”. But there exceptions: some women have XY chromosomes and some men have XX chromosomes; there are also individuals who have an extra chromosome and are XXY.

How can a person be said to be female if they have XY chromosomes? Well, that is because there is a very long journey between the information encoded in genetic material and the expression of that information in form and function. That entire process determines whether an athlete may nor not have an advantage over another. In a rare, sensible article about the Imane Khelif case I found this

Alun Williams, professor of sports and exercise genomics at Manchester Metropolitan University, said that when considering if a person had an unfair advantage it was necessary to look at chromosomes, levels of testosterone and other hormones, as well as the body’s response to testosterone.

“That then is a clinical assessment, which is really very invasive,” Williams said. “Simply looking at someone’s sex chromosomes … is incomplete.”

In most cases individuals with XY chromosomes develop “male” characteristics and those with XX chromosomes develop “female” but there are exceptions. For example, there are women – with ovaries, a uterus and no male sex organs – who have XY chromosomes. These are biologically female, even if their karyotype indicates otherwise. There is much more to biology than genetics, just as there is much more to physics than electromagnetism and gravity.

I don’t know whether Imane Khelif has XY chromosomes or not, and frankly I don’t care. The fact is that she was assigned female gender at birth, has been raised as female, and her gender is female as on her passport. She is a woman. I won’t use the phrase biological woman, because it is silly: every human being is biological. Caster Semenya is female too.

You might not care about this case and prefer top stick to the rigid definition that XX=male and XY=female. I don’t think that’s appropriate in sports: chromosomes don’t compete in sports, people do. I’ve also been accused of being ‘unscientific’ for accepting that the exceptions to a rule. On the contrary, I think such exceptions are how our understanding improves, not only in scientific terms but also in our respect for our fellow human beings.

R.I.P. Tsung-Dao Lee (1926-2024)

Posted in R.I.P., The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 5, 2024 by telescoper

T.D.1.jpg_copyI’ve just heard the sad news of the death at the age of 97 of TD Lee (shown left) who, together with CN Yang, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1957 for his work on parity violation in particle physics. I always find it difficult on occasions like this to find ways of describing the work of people of such eminence in fields other than my own, but in this case it turns out I have a personal connection of a sort. Way back in 2006 when I was at Nottingham, the University decided to award Prof. Lee an honorary degree and I was chosen to deliver the oration at the graduation ceremony before spending some time chatting to him with some students. I remember that it was a very hot day and I was wilting under the graduation robes, but he took it all in his stride despite being 80 years old. Anyway, here is the text that I prepared for that occasion, which I hope will serve as a fitting obituary.

 

 

 

 

PROFESSOR TSUNG-DAO LEE

ORATION DELIVERED BY PROFESSOR PETER COLES

ON MONDAY 17 JULY 2006

Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is both a pleasure and a privilege to present Professor Tsung-Dao Lee for the award of an honorary degree.  Professor Lee is a distinguished theoretical physicist whose work over many years has been characterized, in the words of Dr J Robert Oppenheimer, by “a remarkable freshness, versatility and style.”

Tsung-Dao Lee was born in Shanghai and educated at Suzhou University Middle School in Shanghai.  Fleeing the Japanese invasion, he left Shanghai in 1941.  His education was interrupted by war.  In 1945 he entered the National Southwest University in Kunming as a sophomore.  He was soon recognized as an outstanding young scientist and in 1946 was awarded a Chinese Government Scholarship enabling him to start a PhD in Physics under Professor Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago.  He gained his doctorate in physics in 1950 with a thesis on the Hydrogen Content of White Dwarf Stars, and subsequently served as a research associate at the Yerkes Astronomical Observatory of the University of Chicago in Williams Bay, Wisconsin.

Astronomy is a science that concerns the very large, but it was in the physics of the very small that Professor Lee was to do his most famous work.  After one year as a research associate and lecturer at the University of California in Berkeley, he became a fellow of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton and, in 1953, he accepted an assistant professorship position at Columbia University in New York.  Two and a half years later, he became the youngest full professor in the history of Columbia University.  During this time he often collaborated with Chen Ning Yang whom he had known as a fellow student in Chicago.  In 1956 they co-authored a paper whose impact was both immediate and profound.  Only a year later, Lee and Yang were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.  Professor Lee was thirty-one at the time and was the second youngest scientist ever to receive this distinction.  (The youngest was Sir Lawrence Bragg who shared the Physics Prize with his father in 1915, at the age of twenty-five; Werner Heisenberg was 31 when his Nobel Prize was announced, in 1932, but he did not receive the prize until the following year.)

It is usually difficult to explain the ideas of theoretical physics to non-experts.  The mathematical language is inaccessible to those without specialist training.  But some of the greatest achievements in this field are so bold and so original that they appear, at least with hindsight, to be astonishingly simple.  The work of Lee and Yang on parity violation in elementary particle interactions is an outstanding example.

Subatomic particles interact with each other in very complicated ways.  In high energy collisions, particles can be scattered, destroyed or transformed into other particles.  But governing these changes are universal rules involving things that never change.  The existence of these conservation laws is a manifestation of the symmetries possessed by the mathematical theory of particle interactions.

Lee and Yang focussed on a particular attribute called parity, which relates to the “handedness” of a particle and symmetry with respect to mirror reflections.  Physicists had previously assumed that the laws of nature do not distinguish between left- and right-handed states: a left-handed object when seen in a mirror should be indistinguishable from a right-handed one.  This symmetry suggests that parity should be conserved in particle interactions, as it is in many other physical processes.  Unfortunately this chain of thought led to a puzzling deadlock in our understanding of the so-called weak nuclear interaction.  Lee and Yang made the revolutionary suggestion that parity is not conserved in weak interactions and consequently that the laws of nature must have a built-in handedness.  A year later their theory was tested experimentally and found to be correct.  Their penetrating insight led to a radical overhaul of the theory of weak interactions and to many further discoveries.  Physicists around the world said “Of course!  Why didn’t I think of that?”

This classic “Eureka moment” happened half a century ago, but Professor Lee has since made a host of equally distinguished contributions to fields as diverse as astrophysics, statistical mechanics, field theory and turbulence.  He was made Enrico Fermi Professor at Columbia in 1964 and University Professor there in 1984.  With typical energy and enthusiasm he took up the post of director of the RIKEN Research Center at Brookhaven National Laboratories in 1998.  He has played a prominent role in the advancement of science in China, including roles as director of physics institutes in Beijing and Zhejiang.

Professor Lee has received numerous awards and honours from around the world, including the Albert Einstein Award in Science, the Bude Medal, the Galileo Galilei Medal, the Order of Merit, Grande Ufficiale of Italy, the Science for Peace Prize, the China National-International Cooperation Award, the New York City Science Award, the Pope Joannes Paulis Medal, Il Ministero dell’Interno Medal of the Government of Italy and the New York Academy of Sciences Award.  His recognition even extends beyond this world, for in 1997 Small Planet 3443 was named in his honour.

Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, to you and to the whole congregation I present Professor Tsung-Dao Lee as eminently worthy to receive the degree of Doctor of Science, honoris causa.

The Vital Question by Nick Lane

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on August 5, 2024 by telescoper

I’ve managed to cross another one off the list of books I’ve had for ages but never read, in the form of biochemist Nick Lane‘s The Vital Question I bought this book several years ago and have no idea why I took so long to get around to it. Given how quickly things are moving in the biosciences these days, it may even be a bit out of date now, but as far as I’m concerned it’s better late than never.

I haven’t studied biology since O-level (1979) but did chemistry as one of four subjects in the first year year of Natural Sciences at Cambridge and I remember some organic chemistry. I wish I had done Biology of Cells then, though, not because I would have carried on with it but because it’s much more interesting than the subject I did take, Crystalline Materials. Probably much of what I would have learnt in 1982-3 is out of date now.

The Vital Question doesn’t ask a single big question but tackles a number of interrelated questions that together comprise a big mystery in the origin of life, basically the apparently sudden appearance of eukaryotic life (i.e. organisms with complex cells, including plants and animals) as distinct from simpler the forms, archaea and bacteria. Among the fascinating issues are how eukaryotes evolved, why there is no missing link, and why eukaryotic cells are all built on a similar model, what made reproductive sex the way it is, and why in the midst of life there has to be death.

One of the great advances in biosciences since the time I didn’t study it is a revolution in the understanding and practical application of genetics, especially through fast DNA sequencing, not only in biology but also in other fields such as medicine, archaeology and forensic science. One of the valuable points that Lane makes is that the success of genetics led to an emphasis on the role of information – because that’s what genes represent – to the detriment of other essential factors in living cells, especially energy. The book points to the relationship, familiar to physicists, that information relates to entropy, but makes it clear that entropy on its own is not sufficient to understand the thermodynamics of, e.g., respiration and reproduction.

This is a recurrent theme in the history of science, actually, that the success of one particular way of looking at phenomenon often seems to convince people that it provides the complete picture, when some subsequent study demonstrates that usually turns out not to be the case. None of this is to argue that genes are unimportant. They undoubtedly are, but so are other factors including reaction kinetics and environment.

Anyway, to address this big question, Lane gives us a tour of the processes involved at a significant level of complexity but the book is so well-written that it’s actually a bit of a page-turner. As I explained at the beginning I haven’t studies any biology for over 40 years so I struggled at first with some of the technical words, but there is a full glossary to help. The rather dreary pictures are less helpful, but altogether is a superb introduction.

One of the aspects of this book I enjoyed greatly is the number of digressions. That might put some people off, but I thought it helped to paint a true picture of the richness of life in all its forms as well the constraints imposed on it. I didn’t know for example that while most mammals (including humans) have X or Y chromosomes, birds are different: they have W and Z (note to physicists: not to be confused with the gauge bosons). Moreover, while the reproductive sex usually indicated by XX is female (homomorphic) and XY is male (heteromorphic), the opposite is true for birds and some reptiles: females are heteromorphic (ZW) and males are homomorphic (ZZ). Why this difference arose I have no idea, but Lane makes some interesting observations about how it may be behind how some male birds develop exaggerated pigmentation and plumage.

Another question that struck me reading this book is why the human genome is so small. Or rather, why so many other genomes are much bigger. For reasons I described in a post a few years ago, I actually have a CD with my own genome on it. Come to think of it, I no longer have a CD drive so have no way of reading it. Anyway, the human comprises about 3 billion base pairs. Some apparently much simpler organisms have genomes much larger than that. We humans are much simpler than we tend to think! Why is that?

Obviously it has been my turn to digress…

I thoroughly recommend this book for a number of reasons, including the excellent explanations of biochemical processes and the fact that it’s written with such obvious enthusiasm and desire to communicated. Above all, though, Lane does what a scientist should do, i.e. he’s honest about the huge gaps in our knowledge. He doesn’t pretend to answer all the questions he asks, but demonstrates the importance of tackling the big issues head on and acknowledging what is known, what is unknown, and what is speculation. That’s a lesson for all science communicators!

Lá Saoire i mí Lúnasa

Posted in Biographical, Education, mathematics, Maynooth with tags , , , on August 5, 2024 by telescoper

Today, Monday 5th August 2024, being the first Monday in August, is a Bank Holiday in Ireland. This holiday was created by the Bank Holiday Act of 1871 when Ireland was under British rule. While the August Bank holiday was subsequently moved to the end of August in England and Wales, it has remained at the start of August in Ireland. Today is also a Bank Holiday in Scotland, though the Scots have the best of both worlds and have a holiday at the end of August too.

The first day of August marks the old pagan festival of Lughnasadh, named after the God Lugh, on which is celebrated the beginning of the harvest season. This coincides with the English Lammas Day one of many Christian festivals with pagan origins. Traditionally this marks the start of the harvest season and is celebrated accordingly, with rites involving the first fruit and bread baked from flour obtained from the first corn. It is also one of the cross-quarter days, lying roughly half-way between the Summer Solstice and the Autumnal Equinox (in the Northern Hemisphere).

It seems to be a tradition in Maynooth that the Bank Holidays in May and August are are adjacent to examinations. This year they start on Wednesday (7th August). I am, however, still on sabbatical so I don’t have any correcting duties. That doesn’t mean I can’t wish all the students taking repeat examinations all the best in their endeavours.

This month is the last of my sabbatical. I officially return to normal duties on 1st September, but that is a Sunday so I won’t return to the office until Monday 2nd September. That is if I have an office. There’s a lot of reorganization going on and currently I don’t know where I’ll be based. At least I know what I’ll be teaching in Semester 1 though: a fourth-year Mathematical physics course on Differential Equations and Complex Analysis and a second-year Engineering Mathematics course. These are not what I would have chosen if I had a free hand (I’d rather teach physics than mathematical methods) but I’ve had it excessively easy for the last year so can’t complain. With a bit of luck I might get a project student or two as well, if the students haven’t forgotten who I am!

Imane Khelif: a Manufactured Scandal

Posted in Politics, Sport with tags , , , , , , on August 4, 2024 by telescoper

Last week’s news from the 2024 Olympics was dominated by the story of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif who defeated her Italian opponent Angela Carini in the Women’s 66kg (Welterweight) division. Carini quit after 46 seconds saying that she was hit so hard that it hurt. It is surprising that she would even enter the Hitting Each Other In The Face event if she were going to complain that her opponent hit her in the face, Anyway, Khelife subsequently won her next bout against Hungarian Luca Hamori to proceed to the semi-finals and is thereby guaranteed a medal. I hope she wins the Gold for all she’s had to put up, not only for the past few days. She seems to have had a tough life generally.

Khelif’s deserved success has ignited what has been called a “gender row”, based on the fact that she and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting (who is also competing in the 2024 Olympics, in the 57kg category) were disqualified from the IBA World Championships allegedly for failing “gender eligibility tests”. This decision was made suddenly by the Secretary General of the IBA without any due process and the only documentation available is a message on the dodgy social media platform Telegram. The IOC has commented on these so-called “tests”, see here. Here’s an excerpt:

Those tests are not legitimate tests. The tests themselves, the process of the tests, the ad hoc nature of the tests are not legitimate…

There is a thorough piece by Reuters, which links to the IBA’s own statements here (PDF).

You can draw your own inferences about the motivation for the deliberate manufacture of a scandal by the International Boxing Association, but my own view is that it reeks of sour grapes: the IBA, which has been mired in corruption scandals for decades, is no longer recognized by the International Olympic Committee. I think this whole row was deliberately manufactured.

Such are the levels of ignorance and prejudice about anything to do with gender these days that the usual bigots lined up to condemn Khelif and the IOC on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Widely circulated claims that Khelif has XY chromosomes and/or high levels of testosterone are neither documented nor verified, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the haters.

I’ve seen posts and comments all over the place asserting that women don’t produce testosterone at all. They do. Men produce oestrogen, too. In both cases it’s a question of quantity. Some women have higher testosterone levels than others. So what? If that makes them better at boxing then so be it.

(I even saw a photograph on social media showing that Khelif wears a groin guard under her boxing shorts. Indeed she does: that’s actually mandatory in both men’s and women’s boxing. The person who posted the image however said that wearing a groin guard is something only men do. Clearly he is unaware that a women’s private parts are also sensitive. I guess he’s never had the opportunity to find out.)

It has been argued that “biological factors” have given Imane Khelif an unfair intrinsic biological advantage over competitors. If that were the case then you would expect her to have been an outstanding boxer from the outset. She wasn’t. In fact she had a poor start to her boxing career, losing her first two competitive bouts; she has lost to other women 9 times altogether. Hardly the performance of some kind of superhuman monster as she is being portrayed. She has improved because she has worked hard on her fitness and technique. She is quite tall for her weight division – 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) –  and has learnt to make use of her long reach, but how is that unfair? I think she might well struggle against an opponent who can get inside and fight at close range. Tall and rangy versus short and powerful is a contrast you often find in these mid-range weight divisions, which is one of the things that make such contests so interesting.

In any case, don’t all athletes have some sort of intrinsic advantage over the rest of us? Michael Phelps certainly did. People who excel at sports often have extreme physical characteristics, whether physical size, muscular strength, cardio-vascular endurance or whatever. Usain Bolt certainly had the advantage of being born Usain Bolt rather than someone else. Which is not to say that he didn’t have to work on making the most of his physique.

There being no documentary evidence to support their claims that Khelif is a man, others have resorted to crude stereotypes based on her looks. I’ve seen the same sort of comments about black female athletes who are accused of looking like men because they don’t conform to white ideals of femininity. A summary of this type of argument is “women should be banned from boxing if they display masculine characteristics, such as being good at boxing”.

None of this alters the fact that Imane Khelif is a woman and indeed a woman who deserves to be celebrated not only her success in her chosen sport, but also for the dignified way she has braved the abuse she has received. I hope she wins Gold and sends the haters into a state of apoplexy.

UPDATE: Imane Khelif did indeed win Olympic Gold by a unanimous decision. Congratulations to her!

 J. K. Rowling is 59.

Open Access Updates & Announcements

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , on August 3, 2024 by telescoper

When I wrote last week’s update on papers published at the Open Journal of Astrophysics, I was a little surprised that our publishing activity had not tailed off because of the summer vacations. Well, it has now because we haven’t publish any papers this week! Rather than not post an update at all, however, I thought I’d point out a few interesting things that have happened in the world of open access.

First. I draw your attention to an article in C&EN (Chemical & Engineering News) reflecting on the fact that the Gates Foundation (one of the largest research charities in the world) announced in March 2024 that, starting from Jan. 1, 2025, it would no longer cover publishing costs. I actually wrote about this decision here. The article is largely about the threat this poses to the Gold Open Access model, which in my opinion thoroughly deserves to be threatened. It does, however, talk briefly about Diamond Open Access which commercial publishers don’t like as it removes – or should do – their source of profits:

Another alternative model is diamond OA, in which all research papers and their associated peer-reviewed reports are published without fees for the author or the reader and are also freely available to read and reuse. 

It goes on to say:

Under diamond OA, publishers are no longer gatekeepers of research. Instead, they become service providers that handle manuscript submissions, typesetting, and copyediting. This is in contrast to the current publishing system, in which the publisher controls everything from the copyright to the production process.

I don’t really agree with even the limited role of “service providers” mentioned here, as much of what that role entails just involves a decent reviewing platform. Elsewhere the article says that moving to Diamond OA would entail a significant cost. That may be but, as I’ve said over and over again, the actual cost of online publishing is low compared to the level of profit extracted by commercial publishers. The cost to academia of moving to Diamond OA would be much less than not moving to Diamond OA.

The second item I’d like to draw your attention is called Choosing a publisher? It’s not all about the impact factor and is by Antigoni Messaritaki, a senior publisher at IOP Publishing,  When I saw the title I thought that it might be about the uselessness of Journal Impact Factors and a commitment by IOP Publishing to stop using them. Sadly it’s nothing of the sort. It tries to entice authors to look beyond journal impact factors when choosing a publisher, pushing Open Access as an important factor to consider. It admits that APCs are expensive, but never even mentions Diamond OA. It’s an entirely self-serving piece. I find the IOP’s stance on publishing, and the disingenuous way they try to excuse their own profiteering, unethical and unacceptable. That’s why I resigned my fellowship of the IOP.

Last, and by all means least, I should draw your attention that the 32nd General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union takes place next week in Cape Town. I’m not attending in person – I’ve done enough travelling this year! – but I have accepted an invitation to give a remote talk at a side event called Open Access Encounters on Wednesday 7th August:

Swan Back

Posted in Biographical, Maynooth with tags , , on August 2, 2024 by telescoper

As we enter a Bank Holiday long weekend here in Maynooth I thought I’d pass on a bit of news and a clarification about the swan(s). Some time ago I described the sad events that led to the death of one of the pair of swans that had nested on the Royal Canal for many years, along with all their cygnets. In that post I explained that one of the swans had died and the other had been taken away by the  Kildare Wildlife Rescue (KWR) team. All I know is that both seemed to have been suffering from some sort of be “infection” which may or may not be the same thing that cause of death as the cygnets.

At the time I had been told that it was the female swan (the pen) that had died and the male that had been taken away to be treated. It turns out that this was the wrong way round: it was the male swan that had died and the female (the cob) that had been removed by Kildare Wildlife Rescue.

The good news, however, is that she has recovered and has now been returned to the Canal:

Picture Credit: Caroline Connolly of Kildare Wildlife Rescue

Of course she’s on her own now, having lost her partner and all her cygnets. I don’t know if she’ll find another and start breeding again. I do hope so. A lone juvenile male has been spotted on the canal recently. Might they get together?

Euclid Galaxy Zoo

Posted in Euclid, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , on August 1, 2024 by telescoper

Today sees the launch of a new initiative between Galaxy Zoo (part of the Zooniverse conglomerate) and the Euclid Consortium which I am delighted to be able to promote on this blog. What follows the graphic is the text of the announcement which is being promoted across social media today. I’ll start with a little factoid which might surprise you: already in November 2023, before science operations even began, Euclid had sent back to Earth more data than the Hubble Space Telescope has done in in its entire lifetime.

Thanks to a new Galaxy Zoo project launched today, you can help identify the shapes of thousands of galaxies in images taken by ESA’s Euclid space telescope. These classifications will help scientists answer questions about how the shapes of galaxies have changed over time, and what caused these changes and why. 

In its mission to map out the Universe, Euclid will image hundreds of thousands of distant galaxies. In November 2023 and May 2024, the world got its first glimpse at the quality of Euclid’s images, which included a variety of sources, from nearby nebulas to distant clusters of galaxies. In the background of each of these images are hundreds of thousands of distant galaxies. 

This square astronomical image shows thousands of galaxies across the black expanse of space. The closest thousand or so galaxies belong to the Perseus Cluster.

For the next six years, the spacecraft is expected to send around 100 GB of data back to Earth every day. That’s a lot of data, and labelling that through human effort alone is incredibly difficult.  

That’s why ESA and Euclid consortium scientists have partnered with Galaxy Zoo. This is a citizen science project on the Zooniverse platform, where members of the public can help classify the shapes of galaxies.  

Euclid will release its first catalogues of data to the scientific community starting in 2025, but in the meantime any volunteer on the Galaxy Zoo project can have a glimpse at previously unseen images from the telescope. 

You could be the first person to lay eyes on a galaxy 

The first set of data, which contains tens of thousands of galaxies selected from more than 800 000 images, has been made available on the platform, and is waiting for you to help classify them. 

If you partake in the project, you could be the first to lay eyes on Euclid’s latest images. Not only that, you could also be the first human ever to see the galaxy in the image.  

The Galaxy Zoo project was first launched in 2007, and asked members of the public to help classify the shapes of a million galaxies from images taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. In the past 17 years, Galaxy Zoo has remained operational, with more than 400 000 people classifying the shapes of galaxies from other projects and telescopes, including the the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope.  

Humans and AI working together 

These classifications are not only useful for their immediate scientific potential, but also as a training set for Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms. Without being taught what to look for by humans, AI algorithms struggle to classify galaxies. But together, humans and AI can accurately classify limitless numbers of galaxies. 

At Zooniverse, the team has developed an AI algorithm called ZooBot, which will sift through the Euclid images first and label the ‘easier ones’ of which a lot of examples already exist in previous galaxy surveys. When ZooBot is not confident on the classification of a galaxy, perhaps due to complex or faint structures, it will show it to users on Galaxy Zoo to get their human classifications, which will then help ZooBot to learn more.  

On the platform, volunteers will be presented with images of galaxies and will then be asked several questions, such as “Is the galaxy round?”, or “Are there signs of spiral arms?”. 

After being trained on these human classifications, ZooBot will be integrated in the Euclid catalogues to provide detailed classifications for hundreds of millions of galaxies, making it the largest scientific catalogue to date, and enabling groundbreaking new science.  

This project makes use of the ESA Datalabs digital platform to generate a large number of cutouts of galaxies imaged by Euclid. 

Thanks to a new Galaxy Zoo project launched today, you can help identify the shapes of thousands of galaxies in images taken by ESA’s Euclid space telescope. These classifications will help scientists answer questions about how the shapes of galaxies have changed over time, and what caused these changes and why. 

The first set of data, which contains tens of thousands of galaxies selected from more than 800 000 images, has been made available on the platform, and is waiting for you to help classify them.  

Examples of Euclid galaxies to classify are shown in this image.  

Euclid Galaxy Zoo galaxies to classify. Forty galaxies are shown against a black background. The galaxies are all different in shape, some look like spirals, some look barred, or smooth. Image credit: ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO or ESA Standard Licence 

About Euclid 

Euclid was launched in July 2023 and started its routine science observations on 14 February 2024. The goal of the mission is to reveal the hidden influence of dark matter and dark energy on the visible Universe. Over a period of six years, Euclid will observe the shapes, distances and motions of billions of galaxies out to 10 billion light-years.  

Euclid is a European mission, built and operated by ESA, with contributions from NASA. The Euclid Consortium – consisting of more than 2000 scientists from 300 institutes in 15 European countries, the USA, Canada and Japan – is responsible for providing the scientific instruments and scientific data analysis. ESA selected Thales Alenia Space as prime contractor for the construction of the satellite and its service module, with Airbus Defence and Space chosen to develop the payload module, including the telescope. NASA provided the detectors of the Near-Infrared Spectrometer and Photometer, NISP. Euclid is a medium-class mission in ESA’s Cosmic Vision Programme.