There is a reason people do not debate Flat Earthers or Moon landing deniers. It is not because the evidence is weak. It is because the conversation is rigged from the start. You can bring measurements, physics, engineering, independent tracking, international verification, and experiments they can do in their own backyard, and none of it matters. The moment the facts show up, they shout fake, edited, CGI, conspiracy, or “that’s just your belief.”
You cannot debate someone who treats every piece of evidence as invalid by default. You cannot debate someone who demands proof and then rejects the proof the second it appears. You cannot debate someone who thinks their personal disbelief outranks measurable reality.
A debate requires both sides to accept evidence. Flat Earth and Moon landing denial collapse the moment evidence enters the room, so the only move left is to deny the room exists.
That is why people do not debate them. Not because the globe is fragile, but because the argument they bring is. You cannot have a real discussion with someone who decided ahead of time that nothing you show them will ever count.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
A recently published paper on Nature Astronomy provides more info of Tianwen-3 Mars sample return mission, affirming the plan to launch in 2028 & return at least 500g samples in 2031. What makes it more interesting is the concept of collecting samples by a drone, in addition to drilling and scooping.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
For decades, peer review has been treated as the gold standard of scientific validation.
Yet many scientists know the reality: the system is far from perfect. Peer review is broken and sometimes even corrupted.
The process can be slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias. Reviewers are sometimes asked to judge work outside their true expertise. In other cases, they may be evaluating ideas that challenge the very paradigm in which they were trained. And occasionally, reviewers are simply competitors.
Ironically, the most prestigious journals can also be the most conservative. Truly new ideas are often met with skepticism, while safer work that fits the current narrative moves more easily through the system.
Increasingly, papers are judged less by the originality of the idea and more by the volume of data, the sophistication of statistics, and the beauty of the figures. Science risks becoming data-rich but idea-poor.
But there is an important reality to remember: journals do not ultimately decide the impact of scientific work. Impact is decided later, by the community. By the scientists who read it, test it, debate it, and cite it.
In the end, citations and ideas determine the legacy of a paper, not the impact factor of the journal that first published it.
Science has always advanced by questioning assumptions. Perhaps it is time we also question the system that filters scientific ideas.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
La portada es falsa. Las fechas de la portada de la imagen corresponden a la edición doble de vacaciones.
economist.com/weeklyedition/…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
I’m a chemist. I need to say this - because it’s getting dangerous out there. The biggest health myth in the world isn’t about vaccines.
Or GMOs. Or fluoride.
It’s the root of all of them.
It’s called chemophobia - and it’s killing science.
Fear of “chemicals” now drives vaccine rejection, GMO bans, food hysteria, and entire political movements.
From tampons to tap water, people have been taught to fear chemistry - the very thing that keeps us alive.
Chemophobia tells us:
“Natural is good.”
“Synthetic is bad.”
That’s a lie.
Botulinum toxin is 100% natural and one of the deadliest molecules known.
Aspirin is synthetic and life-saving.
We’ve gone from banning harmful substances for good reason…to banning safe, well-tested molecules for emotional reasons.
You’ve seen the slogans:
“If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it.”
“Paraben-free.”
“Clean beauty.”
They sound empowering. But they’re not science - they’re marketing.
And they’re making the world dumber, poorer, and sicker.
Your body doesn’t care if a molecule comes from a plant or a lab.
Vitamin C is vitamin C.
Formaldehyde is formaldehyde and your body makes more of it every day than any vaccine ever could.
Dose matters. Source doesn’t.
This fear isn’t harmless.
It shapes public policy.
It blocks innovation.
It raises food prices.
It slows down cancer treatments.
Chemophobia is now mainstream and it’s costing lives.
Scientists aren’t losing because we’re wrong. We’re losing because fear spreads faster than facts.
Because influencers sell fear for clicks. Because lawyers monetize doubt.
And because scientists are too tired to fight back. So here’s my message, as a chemist and as a citizen:
Learn how toxicology works.
Call out chemical fear-mongering.
Support policies based on evidence, not emotion.
Chemistry isn’t the enemy.
It’s the reason you have clean water, safe food, and modern medicine.
If we let fear win, we lose all of it.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
🚨 Voyager 1 is about to reach 1 light-day from Earth.
Almost 16 billion miles after 48 years. 🤯
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
Preparing for Mars Samples on Earth
Mars is an inhospitable desert planet. Billions of years ago, things were different. In Jezero Crater, for example, fed by a vast river delta ...
Read More: geologypage.com/2025/10/prep…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
#RésultatScientifique Perseverance révèle sur Mars des associations inédites entre minéraux et matière organique. Traces de vie ancienne ou processus géologiques ? Ces biosignatures potentielles ouvrent de nouvelles pistes sur l'habitabilité martienne ⤵️ insu.cnrs.fr/fr/cnrsinfo/des…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
This month marks 10th anniversary of #ASRG ✨
This comment is from Professor Tomohiro Usui.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
Un géologue sud-africain dévoile les secrets de la Terre: "J'ai une carrière très épanouissante qui me vaut même des récompenses internationales" lalibre.be/planete/environne…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
I've never really liked the slogans "follow the science" or "believe in the science". Science and scientists are not always correct. It is the PROCESS of good science that one should follow. Science, in the long run, is self-correcting. We may not ever find the final truth, but through open criticism and testing, wrongs are eventually corrected, and with time we get closer to the truth. The progression of science, of course, can be slow because scientists suffer from the same qualities that afflict all humans, the propensity to be biased.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
Ever find yourself wondering, “What’s Perseverance up to these days?”
If so, look no further. My team writes about my observations and discoveries. It's fulfilling to contribute to humanity’s understanding of Mars — one data point at a time. Follow along: go.nasa.gov/4k1aqMp
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
First blog post on our next Antarctic adventure, let's go!
@AMGC_VUB @AMGC_FLUX_Team @vdebaille @pourkhorsandi
froidultimo.wordpress.com/20…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
New work!
Check it out!
Open access version in the following tweet.
Cerium Stable Isotopic Composition of Non-Carbonaceous Chondrites 🌠🌠🌠
doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspac…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
🥳 Happy New Year, Mars!
📅 At 10:32 CET/09:32 UTC, the Red Planet begins another orbit around the Sun. It's year 38 on Mars.
🔴🔁🌍 A year on Mars vs Earth esa.int/Science_Exploration/…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
Do you intend to publish in the diamond open access journal AGC in 2025?
Here are the different manuscript types:
-full-length articles
-reviews
-technical notes
-comments
if you have any question about the editorial policy, please go the website page journals.uu.se/AGC/editorial…
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
AGC is planning to open for submission in January 2025!
In order to plan our initial workload, please register your interest in submitting your work to AGC using this form:
forms.gle/GHHmHioBdRSijPas7
note that registering interest is not a pre-requisite for submission.
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
📸 #MetSoc2024 group photo ❤️
A big thank you to all participants, presenters, organizers, volunteers, sponsors, external providers, and conference hosts! 🙏👍
#Brussels #Belgium #WonderfulWeek
Vinciane Debaille retweeted
#MetSoc2024 Group picture of participants to Curation Workshop with the Iguanodon of Natural Science Institute #Brussels #Belgium
Thanks to presenters, attendees, chairs, organizers and @nat_sciences_be !😊👍
Back for last talks on regulations for extraterrestrial samples


































