Talk:2017 in science

stop the climate change news spam
Don't get me wrong: Climate change is real. Climate change is a huge problem. The no.1 cause of climate change is the animal agriculture. And we need to take bold action to stop climate change. But with all this being said: Am I the only one annoyed by the inflationary amount of insignificant climate change news across the months on this wiki article? The hundredth study proving decades known climate change facts is not what I would consider a 'significant scientific event occurred or is scheduled to occur in 2017', which is worth it to stand next to scientific events like discovery of the Higgs boson (last years) or first detection of gravitational waves.

Created talk page
Created talk page for 2017 in science article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

August 14 - emoticon research
Is there anyone else that thinks this junk science and doesn't belong here? — Myk Streja ( beep ) 19:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Studies" and "Adjustments" of Old Data
When people come to 2017 in Science, I think they want to read about new discoveries and inventions. There are a lot of good ones, but there are also a ton of "climate studies" which are really just repeats of looking at or adjusting old data and extrapolating it. It would be one thing if these were substantial new data discoveries with mounds of new research. However they seem to just be new interpretations of data that are NOT double-blind peer reviews as studies should be. This is especially the case for extrapolated "studies" in which people publish their predictions for rising sea levels and temperature increases. Let's just stick to the discoveries rather than predictions. I want to read about significant discoveries about advancement in science, not the same old predictions that have been repeated for decades and decades. Nothing against climate change, but the studies are somewhat out of hand and are not really within the scope of this page. Furthermore, look back at older years in this series. They are NOT full of climate studies, but scientific advances. This is because those studies and predictions quickly become outdated or at least not important to the future of science. BrainofJT (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Predictions are an important part of science, and we have multiple predictions there, not limited to the climate. I don't think your negative attitude towards them is justified. Do you have a specific item you would like to remove? --mfb (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about 2017 solar eclipse
Please go to Talk:2017 and respond to the discussion of whether or not the eclipse should have an entry in the main article. Thank you. — Myk Streja ( beep ) 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about 2017, but as the event got a lot of attention from scientists, I think we can include it here. --mfb (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I've looked at a few of these years in science articles, and haven't seen any inclusion criteria. What makes a discovery significant enough to be included? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Someone thinks it is important enough and no one objects" worked so far. --mfb (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

All these fusion startups
I suggest to remove their entries. There is no scientific contribution from a first plasma in some experimental reactor of a startup company, and most of these companies never get beyond this step because they don't create conditions relevant for fusion. This applies to the Dec 21 entry, the Nov 6 entry and the April 28 entry. It does not apply to the big international collaborations (ITER and Wendelstein) as they are known to create scientific output, and it does not apply to proper research results (e.g. Aug 21, Nov 10). --mfb (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No objections -> did that. --mfb (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These companies are trying new innovative methods to try to achieve commercial fusion, and should be included. It's not significantly different from ITER. The only difference is ITER is through government cooperation, and the others are private startups. And some of them already have achieved fusion, like TAE Technologies, but yet have not been able to derive electricity from it. And they do publish their results.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thousands of companies are trying thousands of different things. If they publish interesting results we can include them, but a press release “yeah, our test setup is making some progress, we are now where other reactors were in the 1950s“ is not. That is something that happens hundreds of times every day in research. ITER has a completely different scale and many more scientists working on it. And we know it will achieve parameters relevant for fusion. --mfb (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we then start removing any kind of research by private companies then in the articles? Because then we would have to remove many entries from the articles.--110.93.240.133 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with mfb, here. The startups, however promising and exciting, did not achieve any scientific breakthroughs and hence, have no real place here. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * TAE Technologies did manage a breakthrough through the field-reversed configuration method, that no government or other private fusion entity has managed so far yet I believe. General Fusion did build the world's largest plasma injector, though I guess that's not really a breakthrough. --110.93.240.133 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we should reference the breakthrough, not the new device. Where did they publish it, where are secondary sources reporting about this publication? --mfb (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They published it here: https://tae.com/a-high-performance-field-reversed-configuration. The company itself is credible because Google has acknowledged working with it: https://research.googleblog.com/2017/07/so-there-i-was-firing-megawatt-plasma.html & https://twitter.com/ericschmidt/status/927705471770771456?lang=en
 * Also noticed by MIT Technology Review, a credible technology magazine: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601482/go-inside-trialpha-a-startup-pursuing-the-ideal-power-source/ --110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant publications in peer-reviewed journals, not press releases. TAE has these publications (taking your link from below) - but not in 2017. Put them in the 2015/2014/... articles if you didn't do that already. --mfb (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;" The following entries should be removed: The following entries require further discussion: The following entries should stay: François Robere (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)|}
 * [[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] Response to third opinion request :
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|The question in any article reviewing scientific advancement is whether there indeed was advancement in science - not in any particular initiative (regardless of its funding sources), but in the generation of new knowledge. Whether a particular experimental discovery or experimental setup constitutes "new knowledge" should be judged by the following criteria: a) novelty - whether it is indeed new; b) detail - whether it's described in enough detail to be reproduced by a 2nd party. However, in practice this article isn't only about science, but about technology as well, and there "detail" can be dropped in favor of viability (as a technology's importance is in its use more than in the details of its operation) - whether the technology is likely to arrive to market in the foreseeable future. Note the identity of the technology's developer is not of importance per se, but it can be taken into account when considering the technology's viability. For example: The Nov. 10th announcement by IBM of a 50 qubit quantum computer has little in the way of scientific novelty, but it is significant in terms of technological innovation, and is likely to see its way to market soon. Taking all of this into consideration:
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|The question in any article reviewing scientific advancement is whether there indeed was advancement in science - not in any particular initiative (regardless of its funding sources), but in the generation of new knowledge. Whether a particular experimental discovery or experimental setup constitutes "new knowledge" should be judged by the following criteria: a) novelty - whether it is indeed new; b) detail - whether it's described in enough detail to be reproduced by a 2nd party. However, in practice this article isn't only about science, but about technology as well, and there "detail" can be dropped in favor of viability (as a technology's importance is in its use more than in the details of its operation) - whether the technology is likely to arrive to market in the foreseeable future. Note the identity of the technology's developer is not of importance per se, but it can be taken into account when considering the technology's viability. For example: The Nov. 10th announcement by IBM of a 50 qubit quantum computer has little in the way of scientific novelty, but it is significant in terms of technological innovation, and is likely to see its way to market soon. Taking all of this into consideration:
 * April 28th (Tokamak Energy) - it's just a press release, and those come a dime a dozen
 * Sept. 11th (Wendelstein) - no citation, so it's unclear whether the upgrade to the already-functioning device justifies a separate "first plasma" entry
 * Dec. 6th (ITER) - "construction is halfway" is interesting science news, but does not constitute scientific knowledge or innovation (it would when completed)
 * Nov. 6th (TAE) - is it a significant achievement, or have others done that before [in that exact setup]?
 * August 21st (PSFC et al.)
 * Nov. 10th (A&M et al.)
 * Dec. 21st (General Fusion)


 * I added citations for Wendelstein. It is a big upgrade to a unique machine, bringing it close to conditions relevant for potential power plants. Unlike all these fusion startups the big experiments have a long track record of publishing many scientific results - the next phase of plasma operation with Wendelstein is highly notable.
 * ITER is the largest project of its kind, and arguably the most expensive and complex machine ever (if we don't count the ISS as single machine), but I'm fine with removing the update on the construction status.
 * I don't see why you listed the Dec 21st entry as "should stay". It is a press release on the website and mashable.com reported about it. That is all. Poor sources, no associated publications. It is similar to the April 28th entry.
 * Two technical comments:
 * I don't know if it was intentional, but the TAE reference is misleading. It claims to be a BBC News article, but it links to the company website. I don't find a BBC article with that title. So all we have is a misleading press release from the website.
 * Sorry, the TAE Technologies thing was unintentional. I fixed it. --110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the IP's edit comments that adding things wouldn't need consensus but removing it would. With that argument you could put everything here and then disagree with the removal to keep it in. It is and was always the addition of content that needs consensus. If in doubt, don't have it in the article.
 * --mfb (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding General Fusion: The reasoning was similar to the one behind IBM new computer - the scale of their device. If indeed they've built the largest plasma injector etc., then it's a significant engineering achievement and worth mentioning. On the other hand, if it's just a big gadget that will never see the light of day (because it doesn't work, or isn't likely to find use) then it can be discarded. But of course that depends on the quality of the sources. Mind the identity of the developer - whether an established company or start-up - shouldn't prevent a technology from being listed, it just means that the assessment process should be more thorough (will need to take into account the company's commercial backers, researchers' reputations, level of detail provided, and the overall chance of the product reaching the market - all things that we tend to take as granted when dealing with an established company). It's your call.
 * I didn't find it either. This looks like a start, though.
 * Agreed.
 * François Robere (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding TAE Technologies (it just changed to that name from Tri Alpha Energy in November 2017), while that specific achievement may only be referenced by the company itself, some of it's other achievements have been well referenced by others:-
 * https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601482/go-inside-trialpha-a-startup-pursuing-the-ideal-power-source/
 * https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/human-centered-algorithm-optimizes-an-experimental-fusion-reactor/
 * https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/tri-alpha-energy-fusion-achieves-first-plasma-on-upgraded-13mw-8-beam-fusion-device.html
 * https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tri-alpha-energy-achieves-first-plasma-in-worlds-most-advanced-plasma-generator-300484827.html
 * https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-and-tri-alpha-energy-develop-algorithm-for-nuclear-fusion#gs.e8Vqc60
 * TAE's FRC achievement is also referenced by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, whom the company is working with https://twitter.com/ericschmidt/status/927705471770771456?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The company does and has published it's significant amount of research https://tae.com/research-library/ --110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another reference to their cooperation with Google https://research.googleblog.com/2017/07/so-there-i-was-firing-megawatt-plasma.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.93.240.133 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, what does "largest plasma injector" mean, and who checked this claim? Is this more than "we are using some exotic thing no one else uses, therefore we have the largest" or "we added an irrelevant 1 meter metal bar to it, now it is the largest"? I prefer to simply not consider press releases of companies unless they are backed by actual results of the company in the past: published and peer-reviewed, sold as product, or verified by others in some other way. Otherwise we get too much noise in the article by too many editors with a more than personal interest in these companies. --mfb (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell it's the part that allows ionized gas into the reaction chamber . Whether or not it is a significant improvement over existing models is again a matter of sources, and that's up to you. As an aside, searching for more sources turned up a whole bunch of people trying to build virtual fusion reactors on Minecraft. François Robere (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)