\u201cHas Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian\/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?\u201d<\/p>\n
Response: “Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT\/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he\u2019s got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush\u2019s version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It\u2019s just bizarre. To answer Delong\u2019s question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist.” \u2013 Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University<\/p>\n
Comment<\/a>: Remember that Tyson miraculously got into Harvard’s Ph.D. after flunking out of UT-Austin (but still getting a master’s). The Princeton post-doc followed, then the headship of the Hayden.<\/p>\n \u201cHas Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian\/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he … Continue reading