fiogf49gjkf0d
Gizmorama - September 29, 2014
Good Morning, The California State Assembly actually passed a resolution denouncing the International Astronomical Union for declaring Pluto "not a planet" back in 2006. Will it hold up?
So, what do you think, should Pluto be a planet?
Learn about this and more interesting stories from the scientific community in today's issue.
Until Next Time,
ErinP.S. Did you miss an issue? You can read every issue from the Gophercentral library of newsletters on our exhaustive archives page. Thousands of issues, all of your favorite publications in chronological order. You can read AND comment. Just click
GopherArchives**** Democracy has spoken, Pluto should be a planet *WASHINGTON (UPI) - When the International Astronomical Union got together in 2006 and updated the criteria for classification as a planet, thereby downgrading Pluto from "planet" to the informal title of "not a planet," many inside and outside the scientific community were upset. The California State Assembly actually half-seriously passed a resolution denouncing the IAU for "scientific heresy."
By the 2006 IAU standards, Pluto officially became a dwarf planet; its confidence was shot and the outer edge of our solar system became a much more solemn place. In the wake of the monumental decision, planetary models had to be torn from the ceilings of classrooms, and middle school science students across the country didn't know what they could believe in anymore.
Here's what the IAU claimed we should believe: in order to be a planet, a celestial body must meet three criteria. It must orbit around the Sun, be round or nearly round, and must have "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit -- meaning it must have a field of gravity dominant enough to have absorbed other major objects in its orbital vicinity.
But in America, democracy reigns, and last week the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics re-addressed the debate, putting Pluto's planetary status to a vote once again. A debate preceded the vote, with three planetary experts offering differing points of view.
Science historian Dr. Owen Gingerich, who originally chaired the IAU planet definition committee, argued the term planet is a culturally defined term not a strictly scientific one, and that history had spoken -- Pluto is a planet. Dr. Gareth Williams, associate director of the Minor Planet Center, defended the IAU definition. Dr. Dimitar Sasselov, director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative, also argued that Pluto is a planet, presenting the so-called exoplanet scientist's viewpoint. He defined -- as the Smithsonian reported -- a planet as "the smallest spherical lump of matter that formed around stars or stellar remnants."
Once the debate ended, a public vote was recorded and Sasselov turned out to be the most convincing. Audience members decided that Pluto is indeed a planet. It's not yet clear whether the IAU will take the unofficial opinions of everyday science fans into consideration.
*-- Mussel-inspired MIT glue may have naval, medical applications --*BOSTON (UPI) - A new waterproof glue -- modeled after the proteins that help mussels, barnacles and other shellfish cling to rocks, pylons, boats and other underwater debris -- may have important naval and medical applications, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The super strong adhesive may be useful in repairing ships or healing wounds.
Researchers at MIT say they didn't just mimic nature, they bested it. In the lab, the scientists were able to coax bacteria into producing a hybrid material -- part ultra-sticky mussel proteins, part super-slimy bacterial proteins. The result is a glue-like substance that's stronger than mussel proteins alone and resistant to water.
"The ultimate goal for us is to set up a platform where we can start building materials that combine multiple different functional domains together and to see if that gives us better materials performance," Timothy Lu, MIT bioengineer and author of the new study, said in a press release.
Lu and his fellow researchers say the process for creating the adhesive is extensive. Their current synthesizing techniques only allow them to create a little bit at a time, so they're now looking to come up with a more efficient production process.
One way to improve the process would be to experiment with other shellfish materials.
"We're trying to figure out if by adding other mussel foot proteins, we can increase the adhesive strength even more and improve the material's robustness," Lu said. "A lot of underwater organisms need to be able to stick to things, so they make all sorts of different types of adhesives that you might be able to borrow from."
The research was highlighted in the latest issue of the journal Nature Nanotechnology.
Missed an Issue? Visit the Gizmorama Archives