Scientific American

But that Scientific American disappeared years ago. Today's magazine isn't written by scientists, but by staff writers and free lancers, few of whom are scientists, and some of whom display and amazing ignorance of science. The writing is shallow, and the illustrations over simplified; what's left is a magazine with less depth than Discovery. The Amatuer Scientist column isn't bad, but it's a lone gem in a sea of dross. Once a magazine that stimulated thought, and that you poured over, Scientific American is now a magazine you thumb through, and discard. What a shame.

There are still some good, thought provoking science magazines for readers not afraid to think a bit. New Scientist presents a mix of brief pieces and longer articles and the occasional in-depth piece in a friendly (and sometimes amusing) way without insulting the reader. American Scientist provides excellent writing and some superb regular columnists, like Henry Petroski. There are others as well. But there's nothing like the old Scientific American.


The go-to science magazine   March 22, 2003
J Scott Morrison (Middlebury VT, USA)
68 out of 82 found this review helpful

Scientific American has been in existence for more than 150 years; admittedly in its earlier years it was more about mechanical inventions and the like. But since the late 1940s, if I remember correctly, it has been the non-journal magazine that one goes to for in-depth articles from all areas of science. The articles are written by experts in their fields, usually the men and women who did some of the important research referred to in the article. Of inestimable value, particularly for non-scientists (or for scientists reading in fields other than their own), are the superb illustrations. In fact, one way the magazine has improved over the years is in its ability to illustrate complex scientific concepts graphically. And since the inception of computer graphics that aspect of the magazine has gotten even better.

I will admit that I still miss the articles by Philip and Phylis Morrison, and the mathematical column by Martin Gardner (and later, Douglas Hoffstadter), but new regulars like the 'Skeptic' writer Michael Shermer, the cartoonist Roz Chast, and humor columnist Steve Mirsky enliven its pages. And I've always enjoyed the '50, 100 & 150 Years Ago' column that excerpts articles from past issues.

It is hard to imagine my own life without Scientific American; I've subscribed for most of the past fifty years.


The best of popular science   May 27, 2002
P. A. Cook (USA)
46 out of 48 found this review helpful

I have read Scientific American for several years. It's not actually a scientific journal: editors decide the content, and the articles are accessible to the general public. Scientific papers are rigorously scrutinised by professionals with knowledge of the field, and are very different indeed. I'm not criticising Scientific American in this respect, I just want to make clear what the magazine is about. It's not a "proper" scientific journal where the raw results of original research are reviewed, published and criticised (for that, try Nature).

Ultimately, Scientific American is a magazine of interest to Scientific Americans (and this Scientific Brit, among many international readers). It offers insight into the world of science that is still accessible to people who haven't studied the subject of the articles at an advanced level.

Scientific American also has occasional features on technology, sometimes directly related to scientific inquiry (such as new particle accelerators) and sometimes not. There was a recent article on how virtual reality technology might one day be used to integrate computerised information into our lives: "augmented reality" glasses could overlay text or images onto your vision. You'll never have to get lost (arrows tell you where to go) or spend ages shopping (the price of the item you want could be overlaid on your view of the entire street).

Past Scientific American features have dealt with efforts to combat slavery in the modern world (which tried hard to be science by dealing with the psychological issues raised by slavery), and the issue of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. I think there is a good balance between science, technology, the environment, and social issues arising from scientific progress (such as the use of genetic information).

The in-depth articles are five or six pages, with about two of these being sidebars and illustrations. The articles are clear enough to understand, but often there is a lot to take in. The reader has to be attentive, but there is enough explanation for me (a physicist) to understand articles about biology and evolution.

Regular columns include "working knowledge" on how things that affect our lives work, from computer assisted braking in cars, to the use of cell cultures in medical labs. In a similar vein, "Ask the Experts" takes questions from readers. "Antigravity", the humour column, is hit and miss but sometimes funny, and only one page.

The accompanying website is well worth looking at before (and after!) you buy. The publishers put the news, regular columns and a couple of articles from each issue on the web, and you can get a feel for the general format of the magazine.


Informative Info on Social and Physical Sciences   April 5, 2004
Bryan Carey (Houston, TX)
42 out of 49 found this review helpful

Scientific American is a good magazine for those who enjoy reading about modern science, advancement in technology and medicine, economic improvements, and anything else of a scientific nature. Each issue is about 130 pages in length and can be counted on to stimulate your intellectual curiosity.

One thing that makes Scientific American more appealing than other science magazines is the fact that it includes articles on more than just the physical sciences, like physics, chemistry, geology, etc. It also contains timely and informative articles on social sciences, like economics and politics. This adds a lot to the magazine's appeal, and it's one of the main reasons why I choose to read it each month.

One thing that might bother some potential readers of this magazine is that Scientific American does tend to present a mostly pro- government angle on the social and human interest stories that it presents. In almost every instance, the writers of Scientific American draw the immediate conclusion that only the government can possibly solve the pressing issues of the day. They don't even give much consideration to anything else. They immediately concede most any problem to the authority of the state.

In spite of the "liberal" leanings, however, I feel that Scientific American is still a very good publication to read. It includes puzzles that test your knowledge of science, book reviews on recent scientific book releases, and some good, well- written articles about science and how it relates to our day- to- day life. It's a good magazine for those who like to stay informed.


Used to love it, now I've become disappointed with it.   September 5, 2007
R. Noonan (Illinois, USA)
33 out of 39 found this review helpful

I've subscribed to this magazine for around 15 years now, and I have always loved it. There is a great variety of science and technology subjects covered and the articles have always seemed to have the right level of technical detail for me.

Unfortunately this magazine has changed over the past year or two. The past six months have been so bad that I'm finally throwing in the towel and cancelling my subscription and looking for a replacement. Every issue now contains a steady dose of environmentalism that often only vaguely resembles science and could be better described as sensationalism. I've also noticed a recent trend of religion bashing, with the underlying message being that anyone who believes in God must be an ignorant rube.

It is really a shame because before this trend it was an excellent, un-biased magazine that was pretty much a perfect fit for me. Had I written this review a couple years ago I would have certainly given it 5 stars. Maybe in a couple years I'll check and see if they've gotten it back on track and removed much of the bias. This magazine has been around for over 150 years, so I suspect they are adept at change.