AAS: How astronomers die
My first AAS post was a nod to the talk I’ve just been to, a review of how astronomers meet their end by Thomas Hockney of the University of Northern Iowa. I was standing at the back having just come from another session, and so didn’t catch the names but here are the highlights:
First, the good news. Most astronomers die from natural causes. The most notable exception is probably Giovanni Bruno who was burnt at the stake. Dr Hockney noted, though, that maybe he shouldn’t be considered an astronomical martyr, having been killed for heresy not astronomy, and that he in fact deserved little sympathy having returned to Rome. As Hockney commented, any sane person should at least expect the italian inquisition.
The catalogue of slaughter included the Soviet astronomer killed in one of Stalin’s purges who unfortunately implicated the rest of his observatory staff as spies before he went, the asteroid hunter killed while one discovery away from his 100th minor planet, the great Persian astronomer Ulugh Beg who, killed by his son, goes down as the only astronomical patracide (to date) and many, many more…
on January 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I’m glad you’re enjoying your trip and hope you arrive safely back in the UK . . .
on January 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
[...] Chris Lintott, over on his blog, has been reporting from the American Astronomical Meeting (AAS). In one post he has been detailing how astronomers have died over the years (yikes) and generally he has been covering talks which he has attended. Check it out. [...]
on January 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
this talk also presented an interesting lesson in how a catchy title encourages a crowd! i watched most of the talks in the session, but people poured in right at the end to hear about “how astronomers die!”
i’d be interested in seeing a collection of statistics regarding observatory-related mishaps!
on January 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Speaking of astronomers dying, I read an interesting article recently saying that scientists actually MUST die, otherwise we would never make any progress.
The argument is that one generation of scientists will never radiacally change its views on a subject, so we need to keep having new generations to keep the new ideas flowing. Take Galileo for instance - nearly all other scientists of his generatiion would not believe his ideas of a Heliocentric Solar System, but the next few generations readily adopted his thinking.