Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Witnessing the editorial deterioration of Scientific American over the years has been a sad disappointment. I began to read SA in my high school library nearly fifty years ago. From the 60's through the 80s' it was a serious and dignified journal with explanations by major scientists of their own work. The Amateur Scientist and Mathematical Recreations columns had many devotees. In these years many who chose careers in science credited SA as an inspiration. Apparently it was not considered cool or profitable enough by its publishers however; sometime in the 90's SA was taken over by a new crowd, the articles now written by journalists, and it became strongly politicized, with a shrill liberal agenda. They turned away from hard science and devoted more pages to psychology and social issues, often with a clear bias attached. Many of the columnists were no longer significant thinkers but just some cronies of the editor - borderline cranks whose monthly "thoughts" are not worth the paper. Steve Mirsky, the "humorist," is simply a waste of a page and Michael Shermer has nothing new to say. (Jeff Sachs however is an exception - he is a genuine leader in international development.) There has also been an ongoing obsession with the evolution / creationist debate, not bringing any new scientific insights as a leading science magazine could and should have done, just elitist religion-bashing and constant ridicule of the "stupid" creationists. Embarrassing even to non-religious readers. Even the art direction is wacky, highly impressionistic (people with blue heads and swoopy arcs in outer space seem to be used for ALL subjects) and of no value for illustrating the content. During most of this phase the editor was John Rennie, a mediocre mind who had no business leading such an important institution. He guided Scientific American down a soft path which dissipated fifty years of prestige. Very sad. Recently his understudy Mariette DiChristina has taken over. She also is a journalist rather than an intellectual leader with a personal grasp of the vastness of modern science. None of these people are PhDs. The advisory board of famous scientists seems to be only for show; I am surprised they allow their names to be used as the magazine slides downhill. The bottom point so far has been the September, 2009 issue where the magazine's hack staff (not a panel of real scientists) took it upon themselves to choose the greatest "origins" in the history of the universe. Among their choices; Scotch tape, the vibrator (female sex toy), the paper clip, intermittent windshield wipers, and cupcakes. Yes, cupcakes. The venerable Scientific American, continuously published for 160 years, chose the paper clip and the cupcake as two of the most important innovations of all time. What a pack of idiots. This is what happens when Nobel Prize winners are replaced by Steve Mirsky. It didn't have to be like that. Magazines like Smithsonian and National Geographic have maintained their identity and high editorial standards consistently, decade after decade, while SA has lost it. During a period where science itself has exploded on every front, Scientific American has been surpassed by many other sources in print and on the Web. HowStuffWorks attracts ten times the readership of the SA website, likewise Discovery. Popular Science has become much more sophisticated in recent years. Wired News is brilliant. PhysOrg is an excellent way to keep up across the sciences. The Web pages of Science and Nature highlight recent discoveries. Physical Review Focus interprets recent developments for students and non-experts, and does a very good job. After forty years of subscribing, I will not renew. Others who may not be renewing include your local library or university - after being taken over recently by the Nature Group, the most aggressively profit hungry of the academic publishers, Scientific American announced they were raising their subscription price to libraries by a factor of 10X - as if they were a major archival research journal rather than a pop-science disposable like Psychology Today. Good strategy folks - piddling away the uniqueness of your franchise while arrogantly raising the price.