Phosphine on Venus, Water on the Moon, and Hype Everywhere

To continue the ongoing saga of Phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus there’s a very strongly worded paper on the arXiv with the following abstract:

It’s one thing to question or refute another group’s result, but there’s no need to be so aggressive about it. The last sentence of the abstract is particularly unnecessary and reprehensible.

Update: the abstract has now been changed.

There has been a lot of reaction on social media from astronomers and others to the perceived “hype” of the initial discovery by the authors. I watched the press conference at the time and I think the authors spoke very sensibly about their work. Of course just because scientists are sensible that’s no reason to suppose the press will also be sensible and there was undoubtedly a great deal of hype about that result. In my experience hype is more likely to be a result of journalists wanting a sensational story and/or institutional press offices wanting to promote their institution that scientists over-egging their own puddings (though that does happen too).

I don’t mind individual scientists or groups of scientists making fools of themselves. It’s the damage to public trust in science that is the real danger here.

The hostile reaction we see in the above paper is an inevitable manifestation of an environment which encourages runaway self-publicity. This is not the only area in which this sort of toxic behaviour happens. I suppose it is mildly reassuring that it’s not only cosmologists that behave in such a way, but is this really what we want astrophysics to be like? I think we’d be better off leaving the petty point-scoring to the politicians.

Another example of hype this week – also involving a paper in Nature Astronomy – was the discovery of water on the Moon (again). The NASA publicity machine pulled out all the stops in advance of this announcement, only for the actual result to be a damp squib. Water is one of the most abundant molecules in space and I’ve lost track of how many times it has been detected on the Moon already. I suppose it is moderately reassuring that hasn’t suddenly disappeared, but from a scientific point of view it’s not all that interesting. I was particularly disappointed when the result turned out to be water, as I had bet on phosphine…

Could it be that the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) is up for a funding review?

16 Responses to “Phosphine on Venus, Water on the Moon, and Hype Everywhere”

  1. telescoper Says:

    I presume it means he hasn’t got a PhD….

  2. I agree that this aggressiveness is ludicrous, and I very much hope Astronomy insists on the removal of that sentence. The Greaves paper was fine, and carefully worded. Its completely normal that someone does better later (if they have… I haven’t read the paper!)

  3. May I just say, I love the expression “over-egging their own pudding”.

  4. The arxiv ‘preprint’ is not a paper but a matters arising. I am surprised that the journal would have encouraged them to put it on arxiv with such a statement in the abstract. It is a personal attack rather than a scientific attitude. Such a paper damages the authors more than the people they attack. The message it conveys is ‘I wanted me to find that’!

  5. I agree that the new preprint is very unprofessional in its aggressiveness. Didn’t any of the 20+ authors think that their condescencion is very much over the top?

    That said, I think the hype surrounding the original paper was ridiculous and I’m not sure if it’s fair to blame it all on science reporters. Someone (probably not the authors, though. The journal, maybe?) had clearly pushed the story very hard under the embargo. Even the biggest TV network in my small European country, which has no connection to this story, had quite a lot of coverage about this the same evening that the embargo was lifted.

  6. […] confirmed. There is water on the Moon. OK, what’s the big deal? Water is very common in the cosmos and has been seen on the moon before. The difference is that previously it had been been only in […]

  7. The last sentence is now removed

  8. This is my perception what is going on that makes some real scientists worry, astronomical noise from science fiction addicts….
    “There’s a lad who’s sure
    All that glitters is gold
    And he’s buying a stairway to Heaven
    When he gets there he knows
    If the stores are all closed
    With a word he can get what he came for
    Oh oh oh oh and he’s buying a stairway to Heaven”

  9. Anton Garrett Says:

    “you tell me exactly what consciousness is, and I will build a machine that has it” – John von Neumann, recorded in a short note published by Ed Jaynes in (I think) the 1950s.

  10. Can a brainless virus that sweeps over our planet now be defined as a conscious or intelligent entity when it uses the ignorance and stupidity of it host to evolve? Can random mutations to optimize its spreading be a form of awareness?

  11. Great finding Sherlock !

  12. […] Phosphine on Venus, Water on the Moon, and Hype Everywhere — In the Dark […]

  13. […] gestern, vorgestern, dem 17.11. hier, hier und hier, dem 8.11., 4.11., 31.10., 29.11., 28.10. hier, hier und hier und 27.10. sowie die Papers „Abundant Atmospheric Methane from Volcanism on […]

Leave a comment