Interesting, but for decades pre-DNA biology had justifyably been criticized as being simply a 'descriptive' science as opposed to being a computational or derivative science like physics. The debate about what's a planet is simply one of simple nomenclature and definition, something that self-important world federations get hard over as they wax pedantic. ( As a telecom engineer, I used to observe the ISO as they defined and 'internationally mandated' the utterly useless and inefficient ISO protocol stack while the real world went merrily ahead with TCP/IP - you all know the rest.) Seems to me that we're somewhat premature in ejaculating a NEW definition of planets before we've observed other planetary systems at some level of detail and really understand the physics of the formulation of both fusion and non-fusion bodies. Why not wait a decade or two before necessitating yet another total revision?

OTOH, I really don't object to a logically consistent empirical working definition if it serves a useful purpose. Let me know what that scientific purpose is and I'm in.