This is how cool science can be
When a team of scientists last week heard the gravitational wave chirp created by two black holes combining a billion light years away, confirming the last of Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, it got us thinking. Not of anything in particular, mind you, just about how cool science can be — and why it’s the right time to bone up on the brainiac mags.
American Scientist
American Scientist is published by Sigma Xi, the honor society of scientists and engineers. It reads like it is written by a bunch of eggheads. It is thick and dense and lacks a sense of humor and a thirst for adventure. It is almost always very boring. Editor-in-chief of the 103-year-old publication, Jamie Vernon, Ph.D., needs to rush out, like now, and invent a better game plan. He could start with better editing and bolder photos. That’s not to say there aren’t stories worth finding in the bi-monthly’s 64-page issue. The Q&A with UCLA professor Krishna L. Foster about air pollution and its effect on climate change is the real deal. But longer pieces on steel and on penguins left us wanting — wanting to know if we could get our money back.
Popular Science
On the other hand, Bonnier’s Popular Science, which just switched to a bi-monthly format after 114 years as a monthly, has mastered the art of making science fun and interesting. It should be required reading for every grade-schooler … and his or her parents. From explaining the insulating properties of goose down in winter jackets (and jackets’ laboratory-improved alternative stuffing), to explaining the head trauma issue plaguing the NFL — and even stepping into politically spiced debates such as the police shooting in Ferguson, Mo. — EIC Cliff Ransom really gets it. The issue is jam-packed with fun and interesting facts. An eight-page feature on the rapid rise in the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma — brought on by fracking — is worth the newsstand price by itself. In the last four years, the number of quakes per year in the Stillwater area has increased from 35 to 109 to 584 and then, through late last October, 700-plus in 2015.
Discover
Discover is like a run-down amusement park. We used to remember having lots of fun between its covers — and always couldn’t wait to go. After a bit of a separation, the trip back for the Kalmbach Publishing’s January/February issue left us disappointed. I like to think it’s because it hasn’t been treated right. Look at it, five owners in 35 years, and 3½ years ago, it was rudely moved from New York to Wisconsin — losing some staffers. Don’t get us wrong: It’s still an OK read. But it could be a lot better. In the current issue, an item about how Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring has wa-aay more magma (pre-extruded lava) than previously thought is what we’re talking about. But too often there are items on the standard topics — from outer space to dinosaurs — that are just too flat. We hope a change at the top — Pulitzer Prize-winsning Becky Lang was announced last month as the new boss — will shake things up for the better.
Scientific American
We’ve always been a big fan of Scientific American for its ability to take a deep dive into science without losing that Main Street touch. Congrats to Editor-in-Chief Mariette DiChristina for keeping the mojo going. Ex-New York Times tech columnist David Pogue turns up with a column that wonders why technology has not taken hold of the election process in the US. Voting via smartphone — or through another technology — would cut costs, improve accessibility and get younger people to vote, Pogue argues. The monthly has 1.22 million Twitter followers, and we can see why. The photography is best in show. Why don’t other science magazines copy this successful formula?
New Yorker
Is the New Yorker’s Nicholas Schmidle specializing in assignments nobody else wants to touch with a 10-foot pole? In August 2011 he penned an account on the Navy SEALs raid on Osama bin Laden that critics said looked heavily managed by the Pentagon, noting that no SEALs on the mission were interviewed. This week, he’s parachuting in to write about gossip site TMZ’s habit of paying sources for its scoops — a topic that longtime media reporter Ken Auletta evidently had little appetite for. In a similar vein, after months of political writer Ryan Lizza heralding the implosion of the GOP, Jill Lepore restores a bit of balance in her article on populism in US politics : “More attention has been paid to the unraveling of the GOP,” she writes. “The Democratic party is no less frayed.”
Time
“A radical new drug could change old age,” Time declares in a cover story on the latest “Alzheimer’s pill.” Please forgive us if we have trouble remembering how many times we’ve heard this one before. Indeed, the actual contents of the report inside don’t live up to the hype, instead laying out the latest pains of researchers who are battling the degenerative disease. Likewise, we were a bit befuddled by a couple of articles on the financial aspects of living to age 100, with one asking what the retirement age will be in 2050, and another a few pages later asking how we’ll pay for it. Neither addresses what might be a more pressing issue: Will there be any jobs to retire from?