SCIENCE ON THE EDGE OF FRAUD: 8 Most Controversial Debates of the Past Year
The 200-inch Hale Telescope at Palomar Observatory, commissioned in 1948, was the largest and most significant telescope on Earth for half a century / nytimes.com
Scientific progress is far from a straight line. Its path is rather winding and thorny. This is evidenced by the debates surrounding numerous scientific discoveries made in 2024: from a fragment of fabric that may have belonged to Alexander the Great to an image of the central black hole in our Galaxy, from climate change to space debris… Disagreements over research results are not often brought into the public eye, but this year saw a fair share of public scientific disputes. All the more intriguing is the selection of the most controversial scientific stories of the past year, compiled by Live Science magazine.
#1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORLD’S FIRST PYRAMID
In a preliminary study published last summer, scientists made another hypothesis about the 4,700-year-old Step Pyramid of Djoser, located on Egypt’s Saqqara Plateau and considered the first pyramid in the world. They claimed that the ancient Egyptians used a «modern hydraulic system» powered by a long-lost branch of the Nile River for its construction.
The researchers suggested that the system included a dam, a water purification station, and a hydraulic cargo lift. Such technologies would fully explain how it was possible to construct a pyramid containing 11.6 million cubic feet of stone and clay without the use of heavy machinery like bulldozers and cranes.
Lead author Xavier Landreau described his hypothesis about the hydraulic system as a «watershed discovery». However, some experts disagreed, calling Landreau’s «discovery» fantastical and scientifically unsubstantiated.
The primary criticisms include the absence of any Egyptologists or archaeologists among the researchers, as well as Landreau’s doubts about the Step Pyramid being used as a burial site — something that is widely regarded as scientific consensus today.
#2 IMAGE OF A BLACK HOLE
Sagittarius A* — the name given to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way — became a focal point of scientific debate last year. The black hole’s photograph, captured by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) in 2017 and released in 2022, is the first-ever image of the central black hole of our galaxy, located 26,000 light-years from Earth.
In May of last year, a new study of this photograph caused a significant stir. The study, led by Makoto Miyoshi from Japan’s National Astronomical Observatory, claimed to have uncovered serious flaws in the image.
According to Miyoshi, the iconic photo of the orange, donut-shaped ring of gas against a black background was distorted due to the method used to stitch the data together. The ring, he argued, should appear more elongated, with the eastern side brighter than the western. Simply put, he called the image a fake. «Part of the photo is an artifact, not an actual astronomical structure», Miyoshi stated.
The EHT team dismissed these allegations, asserting that their methods were meticulously calibrated. They accused Miyoshi of bias and unethical promotion of his methodology.
#3 THE BEGINNING OF GLOBAL WARMING
A study published at the beginning of 2024 revealed that by the late 2020s, Earth is likely to warm by 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — more than a decade earlier than previous forecasts predicted. The uproar arose from the fact that a 2-degree Celsius temperature rise is considered a critical threshold, beyond which catastrophic consequences may begin to unfold.
At a press conference, the study’s authors stated that scientists had previously underestimated the level of threat. Their findings represent «a significant shift in thinking about global warming» as they extend the timeline of anthropogenic climate change by four decades.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global warming is believed to have started around 1900. However, the study’s authors pushed the starting point back to the 1860s, basing their conclusions on climate indicators found in old sponge skeletons from the Caribbean Sea.
Unfortunately for them, their conclusions faced harsh criticism from peers, who argued that the authors were making global claims based on localized data. For now, it seems humanity can breathe a little easier — at least temporarily.
#4 WEAKENING OF EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD
Satellites malfunctioning and burning up upon reentry into Earth’s atmosphere are a source of dust that harms the planet’s magnetic field. This discovery, made by Sierra Salter-Hunt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iceland, has been met with criticism from other scientists.
Theoretically, metal pollution from falling space debris could create an invisible conductive shell around Earth, thereby weakening the magnetosphere — the magnetic field surrounding Earth that extends roughly 64,000 kilometers above its surface.
This issue is exacerbated by the uncontrolled increase in the number of commercial satellites in orbit, which could «slice through» the magnetosphere and lead to atmospheric «exposure». While the study was praised for highlighting the problem, many scientists criticized the results as overly speculative and based on flawed assumptions.
The dust left behind by space debris is unlikely to form a conductive shell comparable to an actual magnetic shield.
#5 TYRANNOSAURUS CUB OR TINY DINOSAUR?
A long-standing debate persists among paleontologists over a particular set of dinosaur fossils. Some argue they belong to a young Tyrannosaurus rex, while others claim they represent a separate species, Nanotyrannus lancensis.
Recent research by Nicholas Longrich, a paleontologist at the University of Bath in the UK, supports the latter hypothesis. By analyzing the annual growth rings in the fossils, Longrich concluded that their growth pattern did not align with the rapid development typical of young tyrannosaurs, which were known to grow at astonishing rates. As a result, he argued the fossils could not belong to juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex. However, some experts strongly disagreed with this conclusion.
Critics argued that Longrich lacked a sufficient understanding of the unique growth patterns of tyrannosaurs. Meanwhile, another group of scientists refrained from making any definitive claims, stating they would await the discovery of additional fossils to finally settle the debate.
#6 THE LOST TUNIC OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT?
In Greece, there is a royal tomb believed to contain the remains of Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. Years ago, a fragment of fabric was discovered inside, leading a group of researchers to make a sensational claim — it is part of a sacred tunic that did not belong to Philip II but rather to Philip III, Alexander’s half-brother.
According to the researchers, the tunic was once worn by Alexander himself and later inherited by his brother after Alexander’s death, eventually being buried with him. But what evidence supports such a claim? Researchers cited wall paintings inside the tomb, skeletal studies, and ancient descriptions of royal garments as proof.
However, the discovery of Alexander’s «tunic» sparked mixed reactions among experts. The weakest link in their argument was the fabric itself. Paintings and texts might be convincing, but there is no concrete evidence that the fabric fragment was part of a tunic rather than something else.
Skepticism only grew when it was revealed that the lead researcher had never physically examined the fabric fragment, basing their conclusions entirely on remote analysis. Still, some historians and archaeologists agreed that there is a strong case for considering the disputed «scrap» as a remnant of the legendary general’s lost tunic.
#7 AI-POWERED TOOL FOR FINGERPRINT MATCHING
A new technology for matching fingerprints from different fingers belonging to the same person has sparked heated debate. The idea that this might be theoretically possible has existed for a long time, but forensic methods have thus far been unable to achieve it.
Traditionally, it was possible to accurately and reliably identify a suspect using the fingerprint of a single finger. But how do you determine whether fingerprints from different fingers at a crime scene were left by the same person or by other individuals? Enter artificial intelligence. A tool was developed that could match fingerprints from different fingers of the same individual with 77% accuracy, based on similarities in the angles of arches, whorls, and loops across each finger.
The study faced numerous rejections from academic journals before finally being published. The reaction to its publication was mixed. Critics argued that the research lacked real-world value — law enforcement agencies already collect prints from all 10 fingers and can easily match them visually without AI assistance.
Others pointed out that while the tool is potentially promising, it remains «raw» and has limited practical applications. Significant refinement will be required before such tools and AI-generated data can be reliably used in court.
#8 WAS THE MEGALODON MISREPRESENTED?
An analysis of megalodon fossils suggests that these long-extinct, supersized 16-meter sharks may have looked very different from what scientists previously believed. The anatomy of the megalodon remains unclear, as shark skeletons are made of cartilage rather than bone, which does not fossilize well.
Most of the available evidence consists of fossilized teeth and vertebrae. As a result, scientists have relied on great white sharks as a model for reconstructing the megalodon’s appearance and structure. However, according to the authors of the latest reconstruction, megalodons were actually much thinner and more prolonged than great whites.
The body structure of the megalodon was more similar to that of the shortfin mako shark rather than the great white. The new findings even suggest the animal’s length could have exceeded 20 meters. Yet, other specialists who previously studied megalodon fossils remain unconvinced.
Their criticism lies in the fact that the study cannot be verified because the authors did not provide all the necessary data for validation. Worse still, they accused the researchers of employing circular reasoning — using the assumption that their conclusion is correct as evidence to support that very conclusion.
Original research:
When copying materials, please place an active link to www.huxley.media
Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
