Image: Matt Collins
The headlines were different when the biweekly broadsheet began, but the engine of innovation behind them was the same as it is today: science. Readers of Scientific American’s first issue, dated August 28, 1845, must have been struck by the front-page story on “Improved Rail-Road Cars” that were “calculated to avoid atmospheric resistance.” They may have marveled at the item about Morse’s telegraph, which speculated: “This wonder of the age, which has for several months past been in operation between Washington and Baltimore, appears likely to come into general use through the length and breadth of the land.”
Reflecting the profound changes in science and society in the past century and a half, the top stories today have changed—global warming, stem cells, and technologies for energy independence, to name a few. But science is still at their roots. Indeed, it is clearer than ever that it is not some remote endeavor that occurs in walled-off ivory towers, removed from the concerns of humankind. Far from it. Science, and the technologies that grow out of it, touches the lives of all people. And as advances have arisen, Scientific American has been there to explain and enlighten.
We could not do so without the generous amounts of time provided by our scientist sources and contributors. The researchers who author articles for us are at the pinnacles of their fields; more than 120 Nobel laureates are among them. The scientists spend hours explaining their research and findings to our reporters and editors. They help to check the accuracy of informational graphics, charts and tables. And they, along with our expert journalists and editors, suggest ideas for stories that deserve coverage in the pages of the magazine and online at ScientificAmerican.com. That working relationship has always been implicit in everything we do.
Continuing in that tradition of close collaboration, we have now expanded our board of advisers. Below, you will see the names of people who have agreed, as friends of the magazine, to assist in our mission of being for you, our readers, the best source for information about science and technology advances and how they will affect our lives. The advisers give us feedback on story proposals and manuscripts from time to time. We may tap their expertise for planning. I personally hope that they will critique and challenge us as well, holding us up to the kind of scrutiny that every endeavor requires to excel.
In responding to my invitation, many of the advisers reacted with warm words about Scientific American, telling me how it had inspired them as readers or reminding me of its critical role in informing the public. That is a daunting level of expectation to live up to, but in those same scientists and experts we also have a powerful tool toward that end. Our goal, of course, is to better serve you, our readers.
Board of Advisers
Leslie C. Aiello
President, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Roger Bingham
Professor, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego
G. Steven Burrill
CEO, Burrill & Company
Arthur Caplan
Emanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania
Sean Carroll
Senior Research Associate, Department of Physics, Caltech
George M. Church
Director, Center for Computational Genetics, Harvard Medical School
Rita Colwell
Distinguished Professor, University of Maryland College Park and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Drew Endy
Professor of Bioengineering, Stanford University
Ed Felten
Director, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentSciAm has come a long way since 1845 - and not all of it is good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease SciAm - get back to your roots and concentrate on science, not pop, gossip and all the other crap.
A heartfelt thank you to the busy people on the Board of Advisers for their time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisditto
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too would like more accuracy. You latest articles on peak oil of instance were so far off the facts it's sad. While there is no lack of energy, there is a serious lack of oil reserves. Just the fact that over the last decade only 1bbl for every 3+ bbl's used should give you a clue.
And the news items on this website are far worse with little detail, no links to find more and much wrong info.
On the matter of oil reserves: the author of the peak oil article, I believe, pointed out that estimates for certain fields have been repeatedly revised upward. Doubtless the concern for having reached or passed peak oil is a real and legitimate concern, but there is great uncertainty regarding the true figures for reserves. I do not mean to suggest that the matter of reserves is an unimportant issue - it clearly is of major importance and concern. The author of the peak oil article is suggesting, I believe, that we need to review the facts on what reserve picture is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a MIT graduate '64 XXIB BS physics and history, I'd like to see support for the facts about toxicity from methanol in wines and aspartame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver 100 mg methanol impurity per liter wine becomes formaldehyde and then formic acid in humans -- co-factors for "morning after" hangovers -- folic acid protects most people: Rich Murray 2009.10.22
There is the same level of methanol from the 11% methanol part of the aspartame molecule in 2 L [ 6 cans ] aspartame beverages, as in 1 L dark wine or liquors.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/579335
Dermatitis. 2008; 19(3): E10-E11.
© 2008 American Contact Dermatitis Society
Formaldehyde, Aspartame, and Migraines:
A Possible Connection
Sharon E. Jacob; Sarah Stechschulte
Published: 09/17/2008
Abstract
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener
that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.
Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.
We present the first case series of aspartame-associated
migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions
to formaldehyde on patch testing.
formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series,
Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD,
Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm
Friday, July 18, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553
consider co-factors (methanol, formaldehyde, and protective
folic acid), re UK FSA test of aspartame in candy bars on
50 reactors, Stephen L Atkin, Hull York Medical School:
Rich Murray 2009.09.29
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1587
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
Get rid off the sort of populist street entertainment type of 'science' that of the ilk of Jesse seems to promote!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with those who desire more science and less pop culture. Also, I wonder if sponsors like Shell Oil are coloring your content when it comes to the biggest challenge of all for science: Energy. There are many working technologies out there that need no development to implement immediately to get us off our dirty addiction to fossil fuels. One example, HHO. Hundreds of thousands of DIY world-wide have been using water to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water onboard their cars and trucks. Why aren't technologies like this not being explored and discussed within the pages of Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think sci-am focuses too much on changing their web page layout and the pop media and not enough on interesting scientific articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho comes up with the perspective perceptions of the topics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone make these claims?
What if I have theories that do not support the purported findings?
How are articles submitted and accepted?
Brilliant research bro, love it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this