In a controversial decision in 2006, Pluto was re-classified from 'planet' to 'dwarf planet,' in part because it does not clear the area around its orbit. The passages below give you the opinion of two scientists on this decision.
The classification of a 'planet' as distinguished from a 'dwarf planet' or a 'plutoid' is ultimately arbitrary. It does not spring from some self-evident law of the universe, but from the human desire to sort objects into types and classify them by consistent standards. Clearing the neighborhood around its orbit is a standard that humans created for defining our term 'planet' - but what's stopping us from changing that standard? Nothing: the definition is as arbitrary as the collection of syllables we use to refer to it. Linguistic nit-picking, not science, is the reason why Pluto is no longer a 'planet.'
Scientific language cannot just mean whatever we want it to mean: without a clear and objective definition, terms like 'planet' would be useless. And when we find that an object has been misclassified, the only way to keep our language useful is to re-classify it appropriately, not to simply change words to cover up our own mistakes. This is what has happened with Pluto. It simply does not meet the definition of a 'planet,' and expanding the term 'planet' to cover it would make the word meaningless. However fond our memories of 7th grade Science class might be, the only true solution is to reclassify Pluto.
If you were going to nickname Scientist 2 in a way that helped you distinguish her from Scientist 1, which would be the best nickname?