There are a lot more from outside the US than the two you mention. Of course most leading planetary scientists are from the US. Did you miss out on who's been exploring the solar system for the most part over the past 4 decades? While the US does not dominate all astonomy it does dominate planetary astronomy which is currently conducted more by probe than telescope. People are still analyzing probe data from decades ago.

As for Brown he seemed fairly neutral about Pluto being a planet and stated he could see both sides of the arguements before the original proposal was announced. He said he may go down in history as the man who killed Pluto not because he championed it, but because his discovery brought the issue to a head. Where did you see him state he was against the original proposal? I never saw anything like that and thought he was mildly disappointed by the final definition. Why would he have submitted a proposal for a planetary name if he thought that wasn't a possibility? I think it is very appropriate for him to remain neutral as the potential benificiary of a decision reversal. No one would believe he was objective by complaining.

I notice you once again avoided engaging on any of the technical issues. The cultural bias angle is bunk Raoul. Just like your statemnt that Pluto's status as a planet was inquestion since it's discovery. There were plenty of people in the US like Marsden, Jewitt, and Tyson argueing vocally for a demotion of Pluto. Please try and address the real issues.

Regards,
Mark