|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 10/19/2009 : 13:54:49
|
Here is some news.
NCSE's Scott joins Scientific American's revamped Board of Advisers
… In her letter to Dr. Scott, acting editor in chief Mariette DiChristina noted, "We at Scientific American admire your work, and would greatly value having the benefit of your opinions."
Other members of this select group include Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner for physics); Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School professor and founder of the Center for Internet and Society; physicist and author Lawrence M. Krauss; microbiologist and immunologist John P. Moore of Cornell University; Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute; Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at University of Pennsylvania; and Martin Rees, Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. |
I put this announcement here because of Genie Scott's focus on evolution and creationism. For my part, I'm wishing her the best.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 15:04:39 [Permalink]
|
| I, for one, welcome our new materialist overlords. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/19/2009 15:12:41 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 15:20:27 [Permalink]
|
Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there.
Anyway, kudos to Genie. I guess it's a respectable gig. I hope she can help raise the magazine's profile with younger readers.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 16:48:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there. |
I finally let my subscription to Discover drop because there was too much soft stuff in there. SciAm (which I still get) has much "harder" popular science pieces.
I haven't read more than one Smithsonian, but NatGeo had, until recently, a whole different subscriber model than most magazines and a whole different audience than SciAm or Discover. A lot of the people I knew who were/are NatGeo subscribers were subscribers for the photos and/or for collection purposes (shelves and shelves of yellow spines), or they are doctors who just put the magazine in the waiting room. In short, I think comparing NatGeo subscription numbers to just about any other magazine is a bit unfair.
SciAm's numbers were probably higher in the past, as they seem to be shifting to an online model. The paper magazine is filled with "find out more at [SciAm Web URL]" on just about every article. If they actually make money with the online content, I wouldn't be surprised to see the hardcopy version vanish in a few years.
But yeah, congrats to Eugenie! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2009 : 16:59:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Does anyone read Scientific American anymore? I didn't even think it was still published. I think National Geographic, Discover, and Smithsonian magazines are all more popular today. According to wiki, Scientific American has about 3/4 of a million subscribers, Smithsonian has about 2 million, and National Geographic boasts over 9 million subscribers. Couldn't find numbers for Discover, but with popular online bloggers like Phil Plait and Carl Zimmer, I imagine they have to be up there.
Anyway, kudos to Genie. I guess it's a respectable gig. I hope she can help raise the magazine's profile with younger readers.
|
To my way of thinking, Scientific American Magazine is superior to Discover or National Geographics because it was, and probably still is, more straight science and less populist science than the other magazines. Michelle buys the print version of Scientific American Mind and plows though it. She doesn't always agree with an article that's of interest to her, but she likes that it the articles aren't a bunch of fluff pieces.
It's a respectable magazine which may explain why it has never had the circulation that Discover or National Geographic enjoys.
As for Smithsonian, I think that's comparing apples to oranges. The Smithsonian covers a wide range of subjects and probably most of them have nothing to do with science. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Genie Scott joins Scientific American's Board of..
