Towers of Babel

PUBLISHED: 2 FEBRUARY 2017 | VOLUME: 1 | ARTICLE NUMBER: 0053 editorial Towers of Babel

Exoplanetary science warns us against the use of improper terminology, which increases the risk of new discoveries being misinterpreted by researchers as well as the general public. Both the scientific community and journal editors can help to avoid this significant danger.

Our community is a fitting example of stellar/planetary formation and interstellar/ adopting a more conservative way of how global collaboration leads to the interplanetary medium communities, expressing results. advancement of science. This was the and potentially even biologists, through Both Comments propose a series of main message underlying the first issue of habitability studies. And finally, we solutions to overcome the status quo. Also, Nature Astronomy, as highlighted in the discovered that exoplanets, far from Nature Astronomy and other scientific Editorial (article no. 0020), the Comment being clones of our Solar System’s planets, journals must play an active role to by Abraham Loeb and Nia Imara (article come in a wide range of sizes, masses, counteract the use of misleading vocabulary. no. 0006) and the Review on planetary atmospheres and other characteristics. In the case of exoplanets, for example, exploration by Andrew Ingersoll (article Extrasolar planetary systems are extremely Nature Astronomy will work with authors to no. 0010). However, bringing groups of diverse, so we cannot apply the Solar- eliminate ambiguous or faulty terminology, people coming from different backgrounds System-centric nomenclature we have or a loose application of habitability metrics. together is easier said than done. Even developed over the last few hundred years This is going to be an ongoing process and putting aside the human factor, practical lock, stock and barrel. thus we welcome other contributions and problems invariably appear. The struggle to The risks related to the development we encourage an active dialogue within the find a common ground for communication of misleading jargon in exoplanetary community through our pages. is one of the most pressing, basic and studies is the topic of the two Comments, delicate among them. by William Moore and colleagues (article no. 0043) and by Elizabeth Tasker We have to be adamantly and colleagues (article no. 0042), that are clear on what we know, what Some words are not included in this issue. It is interesting (and neutral, but rather come quite reassuring) that these manuscripts we can know, and what we were submitted independently and almost don’t know. with baggage that leads at the same time, and that they have a to misinterpretation. substantial number of people behind them. Solving the communication issue is clearly Finally, there is an additional Tower perceived as a priority by the community. of Babel that must be considered: Astronomy, which is a highly As Moore et al. point out, some words communication with the outside world. interdisciplinary and globalized are not neutral, but rather come with In this period of relative distrust of the discipline, is particularly prone to this baggage that leads to misinterpretation. general public towards science, astronomy issue, as the following examples show. Expressions like super-Earth (or super- still enjoys a degree of attention and Astrochemistry brings together physicists Venus), mini-Neptune or hot Jupiter respect, as the Rosetta and New Horizons and chemists, who use vastly different possess a specific and often misleading missions, for example, have demonstrated. language conventions. The dialogue flavour, at least because they imply that we Nevertheless, it is very easy to convey a between the various disciplines within have a much more extensive knowledge misleading message concerning newly planetary science (astronomy, geology, of these bodies than we actually do. published research, maybe motivated by climatology and so on) is sometimes This is especially dangerous when we showing that public money is well spent, complicated. More generally, many areas deal with habitability. Habitability is a with the media always looking for catchy of astronomy involve experimental, slippery concept whose boundaries are headlines. Both Comments warn against observational and theoretical researchers, continuously being revised even within the danger of inaccurate communication with all of the related communication our own Earth, as the constant flow of between the scientific world and the public. problems that this cooperation implies. discoveries of extremophiles demonstrates. There is a risk of saturation of flashy Even relatively restricted fields may This uncertainty is magnified for rocky announcements (yet another most similar build their own little Tower of Babel, exoplanets, whose environments are still planet to Earth, yet another discovery of as a blog post by Sarah Hörst on the largely beyond our observing capabilities. water on Mars …) that could engender nomenclature of planetary aerosols shows The desire to find a second Earth can a sense of fatigue in the public and, in (http://go.nature.com/2iADBvg). lead to rushed, inaccurate or downright the long term, damage the credibility Within astronomy, exoplanetary science deceitful interpretations of research. As of our community. We cannot stop the constitutes a sort of ‘perfect storm’ for the comment by Tasker et al. underlines, media writing exaggerated headlines, miscommunication, for various reasons. we have to be adamantly clear on what but we can be precise and unambiguous It is a relatively new field and, as such, we know, what we can know, and what in the terminology and in the meaning is still developing its own terminology. we don’t know, especially if we want to of the metrics we use as researchers It is strongly interdisciplinary, involving quantify the vague notion of habitability and publishers. In the end, the primary stellar physicists, planetary scientists, the through the use of metrics, even if it means responsibility to be honest falls on us. ❒