In 2010, astrophysics professor Pavel Kroupa at the University of Bonn – he of the stellar Initial Mass Function – published a paper in which he highlighted problems with the Standard Model of Cosmology (the so-called ΛCDM model, of which cold dark matter is a crucial ingredient), particularly in its predictions related to environments of large spiral galaxies. In a provocative move, he cited the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and observations as evidence that ΛCDM “doesn’t work”, and that we should explore alternative theories. One of these alternatives is Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND.
In the months after the publication, the University of Bonn hosted a debate on this thorny subject between Kroupa and one of the architects of the ΛCDM framework, Simon White, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching. I thought this was an excellent idea, wrote a few blog posts about the matter and posted the live blog and video of the debate.
To those that read or watched the debate, it was clear that the two scientists don’t disagree in a fundamental way – ΛCDM has proved an extremely successful framework for cosmological structure formation, but the dwarf satellite problem is generally acknowledged. Kroupa’s most important point is that the community should not ignore those observables that don’t match the predictions of ΛCDM, and he encourages scientists not to get locked into a “cold dark matter” mindset, but to explore entirely novel theories, of which MOND is one example. This discussion has been expanded and illustrated further in a blog run by Marcel Pawlowski, a member of Kroupa’s group in Bonn, the Dark Matter Crisis, now hosted on SciLogs.com, which is run by Nature and the German edition of Scientific American.
When I wrote about this subject back in 2010, I was really enthused about the Kroupa’s group’s approach: it was an excellent combination of enriching traditional “offline” scientific research with an active online presence.
Recently, an upstart astroblogger sought to close down the blog, arguing that the authors’ questioning of the ΛCDM paradigm and proposing novel theories was essentially undermining all of physical cosmology and public understanding of science. There were a bunch of further twitter discussions, accusations etc – the blog was taken offline but eventually reinstated. It now has full details of this episode with commentary from other scientists outside their own team vouching for their scientific worth; however sad it is that they needed to do that in the first place.
I’m really happy that the DMC blog is back online. I’m not a cosmologist so I don’t want to comment on the ΛCDM vs. MOND debate. I have, however, read the blog and listened to both Kroupa’s and White’s arguments, and it’s clear that this is not about ΛCDM vs. MOND – it’s about not not becoming locked in to a theory before it’s 100% proven, as opposed to just 99%. Go read the latest posts on their blog for more evidence of that.
What this case does highlight is an important problem with open science discussions online. There’s great science, bad science, and craziness. Ideally the distinction is obvious, and only the good stuff floats to the top. But clearly even within the research community opinions differ on what’s good, bad and crazy. Innovative ideas, like disruptive technology, often start off a bit crazy. Imagine if Copernicus had a blog in the 1540s. Imagine if Einstein had one in the early 1900s. Their posts may well have been met with howls of protest on twitter from then-established scientists. Perhaps Einstein himself, with tens of thousands of followers after his Nobel prize, would have tweeted something negative about quantum mechanics.
What would that have done for the further development of these then-crazy theories, and their acceptance by the community?
It’s perhaps good to remember this when we judge harshly those who buy into the pseudo-scientific ideas that endanger their health and that of our planet: in the same way that bright new ideas can sound a little nuts, it’s sometimes entirely possible to create a credible-sounding narrative based on false principles. If we as scientists with a good decade in higher education sometimes misjudge the validity of a result (or discredit one that clashes with our own agenda), how are those without all that knowledge supposed to make that judgement? Sometimes the distinction between good science and bad science is crystal clear; sometimes it isn’t.
I still believe that the web holds huge promise for a vibrant, varied and egalitarian debate on science – I’m an optimist. We can use the web to discuss, inform and reach out to a huge community of fellow scientists and science enthusiasts around the world, as well as look at kittens. Unfortunately it’s also a place where very bad ideas can proliferate, and where a couple of tweets can discredit and discourage the pursuit of innovative ideas.
How do we communicate responsibly? How do we promote good, balanced debate, allow for a bit of good crazy, and get rid of the rubbish? That is the challenge for a responsible scientific debate in this networked era.
