Twenty years ago, Pluto got demoted. After a vote by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in August 2006, Pluto was relegated from major planet to dwarf planet status. Our solar system dropped from nine planets to eight. At the time, many scientists were unhappy with the decision. Two decades on, the debate is, if anything, even more polarized.
“The definition of a planet they created, you can’t use it at all,” said Philip Metzger, the director of the Stephen W. Hawking Center for Microgravity Research and Education at the University of Central Florida. “It makes the definition of a planet completely non-useful in science.”
Metzger is one of a number of scientists and lay people who consider Pluto’s demotion a big mistake.
Illustration: Mountain People
For some, Pluto’s downgraded status is the source of their affection for the ex-planet.
“Pluto represents the underdog that so many people root for, the small kid on the block that is being picked on,” said Kevin Schindler, historian at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, where Pluto was discovered in 1930.
For others, the IAU’s decision, and the way it was taken, is central to the debate.
“My being involved with advocating for Pluto started on the day of the vote,” writer, actor and amateur astronomer Laurel Kornfeld said. “I was like: Wait a minute, this is wrong.”
When we meet on Zoom she is wearing a T-shirt that says: “Pluto Resistance, 20 years: 2006-2026.”
The campaign to reinstate Pluto — with its passionate advocates, ongoing debates, occasional protests and petitions — seems to be largely confined to the US.
“It is more of an issue in the United States,” Metzger said. “This was the one we discovered.”
So, the planet’s demotion was a source of wounded pride?
“I’ll admit there was some of that — among the public, not the scientists,” he said.
More recently, the campaign has taken on a populist tinge, with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman telling a congressional committee in April that he was in favor of a rethink.
“I am very much in the camp of Make Pluto a Planet Again,” he said.
The event that sparked the IAU’s 2006 vote was the discovery of a distant celestial body that would come to be called Eris. Eris was out in the Kuiper Belt, beyond Neptune — where Pluto also resides. It was roughly the same size as Pluto (less volume, but more mass). If Pluto was a planet, the argument went, then so was Eris. And if Eris was not a planet, how could Pluto continue to be one?
Eris and Pluto were by no means alone in the Kuiper Belt. Other smaller bodies were discovered around the same time, including Haumea, Makemake and Sedna. Were these also planets? There were likely many more similar objects still to be found. How would schoolchildren manage a planetary roster that might number in the hundreds?
In search of a solution, the IAU came up with a three-point definition of a planet: It must orbit the sun; it must have sufficient mass to pull itself into a round shape; and it must have “cleared its neighborhood” — meaning it must gravitationally dominate the area in which it orbits. Nothing beyond Neptune that we knew about qualified; Pluto was out.
It was the last point in particular that upset a lot of Pluto advocates, because a body’s ability to clear its neighborhood depends a lot on the neighborhood.
“One of the biggest flaws with the IAU definition is that you can have the same object in two different orbits,” Kornfeld said. “In one, it’s considered a planet, and in the other, it’s not considered a planet.”
If the Earth were towed out to Pluto’s position, the planetary scientist Alan Stern argued, it would not be able to clear its zone either, and would no longer meet the IAU definition of a planet.
“You could even have small asteroids, that are too small to be round, clearing an orbit if they’re close to a star,” Metzger said. “It just goes to show that orbit clearing isn’t really that meaningful of a category.”
To its detractors, the IAU definition seemed crafted with a specific intent.
“A reason was invented to exclude Pluto,” Kornfeld said.
Pluto’s demotion created two opposing scientific teams: the so-called geophysical camp, which believes the physical properties of a celestial body should count toward its planethood; and the dynamicists, who are more concerned with the position a body occupies, its surroundings and its direction of travel. You could characterize the split as planetary scientists vs astronomers. Many planetary scientists, including Metzger, simply do not use the IAU definition.
When the New Horizons spacecraft made its flyby of Pluto in 2015, the geophysical camp seized what it saw as an advantage. Pluto definitely had the geophysical makings of a planet, they maintained. It had mountains, evidence of recent geological activity, and water ice hills floating on frozen nitrogen. It might even be able to support life. How could that not be a planet?
Those agitating for Pluto’s planetary status do not, by and large, recognize any problems stemming from reinstatement. They welcome a definition broad enough to take in hundreds of new planets, as taxing as that might be for children and their wallcharts.
“The more the merrier,” said Paul Byrne, associate professor of earth, environmental and planetary sciences at Washington University in St Louis. “There are 1,025 official Pokemon species, and I’ve never heard a kid say that’s too many.”
Those against Pluto’s reinstatement say the problem is not with a larger number of planets, per se, but with a primarily geophysical definition that would encompass, among other bodies, planetary moons, including our moon.
“I have no problem with having a larger number of planets,” astronomer Mike Brown said over e-mail. “My argument is simply that we decided long ago that the moon is not a planet and that also precludes Pluto.”
Brown is often described as The Man Who Killed Pluto, because he led the team that discovered Eris back in 2005, setting the whole de-planetization in motion. It is a title he leans into: He even wrote a book called How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming.
Brown often says that the moon is bigger than Pluto; it is round and has a complex geophysical history, and would certainly meet the criteria for a planet if you excluded any requirement concerning orbit. What he is saying is: If Pluto is a planet, so is the moon.
“I don’t have an issue with calling the moon a planet,” Byrne said. “Because I can be a brother and a husband at the same time, and it doesn’t require that I be one or the other. And so I don’t see why the moon can’t be a satellite and a planet.”
For the outsider, this debate can often seem mired in political, even procedural questions, with Plutonians contending that the IAU vote was incorrectly conducted and therefore void.
“You could make the argument that they never officially voted on a planet, because they didn’t follow the procedure that was required,” Metzger said.
Brown denied there was anything political about the decision.
“The only people who complain about the voting procedure were the ones who didn’t like the outcome,” he said.
So the question remains: Why does any of this matter?
“It was almost like a coup,” Kornfeld said. “And as a result, kids are learning less. They’re learning eight planets, and that’s it.”
For Metzger, the planetary definition excluding Pluto is based on an outmoded notion of the solar system.
“They were creating a reactionary view towards an orderly cosmos, rather than the more modern scientific view where it’s chaotic,” he said. “The second problem was that I think they misread the room. The public of today is not the public of the 1800s. They’re perfectly happy understanding a dynamic, chaotic cosmos, and we missed the opportunity to teach that.”
Pluto’s nature has always been elusive. In 1915, the astronomer Percival Lowell published calculations based on peculiarities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, predicting the existence of a new, ninth planet, which he called Planet X, with a mass somewhere between Earth’s and Neptune’s. In 1930, the long search for Planet X bore fruit: The new body, discovered at the observatory that bore Lowell’s name, was christened Pluto.
Gradually, however, it became clear that whatever Pluto was, it was not Planet X. It did not seem anywhere near large enough to account for irregularities in Neptune’s orbit. Scientists offered theories to explain why Pluto looked so small, but the truth was, it was small — even smaller than the moon. Only in 1992 did we learn that Lowell’s calculations were based on an overestimation of Neptune’s mass. There was no Planet X.
Pluto’s reputation as an underdog, the picked-on kid, might stem from the 2006 vote, but one could argue it was punching above its weight for years. How would they have voted on Pluto’s planetary status if they had known the truth in 1930? And will it take another vote to satisfy Pluto’s defenders?
“People have locked in,” Metzger said. “We would have a less useful vote today than we did back in the 2006 timeframe. So we don’t want another vote. What we want is for people to recognize that voting was a mistake, and we’re not going to do that any more. We’re going to go back to the scientific method.”
As part of its relentless pursuit of hegemony, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are now sustaining two regional wars while threatening further arms races that shift the global balance of power in order for the CCP to advance its ultimate objective. Russia’s and Iran’s war efforts are being materially supported by Chinese supplies of drone components and missile fuels. So far in 2026, such Chinese support has enabled a 60 percent increase in civilian casualties in Ukraine caused by long-range Russian weapons such as missiles and drones from January to June 2026 compared with the same
A controversial fenced-in smoking area installed near Taipei’s Gongguan (公館) shopping district was dismantled on Wednesday last week after it was widely ridiculed for looking like a dog cage and for being ineffective at blocking secondhand smoke. The Gongguan smoking area, which is part of Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) push for a smoke-free city, was removed in less than 10 days after its installation, while six others were removed on the same day. City councilors have continued to question other designated smoking areas in the city, including open-air spaces enclosed by potted plants, or areas in parking lots marked by only
The “quiet revolution” of Taiwan’s democratization took shape during the 12 years that followed Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) simultaneously becoming chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and president of the Republic of China (ROC). Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) then took the presidential helm in 2000, bringing an end to one-party rule in the ROC, and was re-elected in 2004. He was followed by the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who served two four-year terms; the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who also served two terms; and the DPP’s William Lai (賴清德), currently in his first term. Having
In the rush to summer vacation, some readers might have missed the launch of the renamed Diet members group supporting Taiwan. Indeed, the decision by Japan’s largest pro-Taiwan parliamentary organization to rename itself received only modest media attention. Yet historians might eventually view it as one of the most revealing symbolic acts in the evolution of post-World War II Taiwan-Japan relations. For the longest time, the group, founded in 1973, was called the Nikka Giin Kondankai (Japan-ROC Diet Members’ Consultative Council). However, after more than five decades, the organization on June 11 adopted a new name — the Japan-Taiwan Diet Members’
RSS