Feel the Burn

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Bounding down the stairs to my health club’s locker room at lunch today, I spied a new poster that caught my attention: “Leave your stress where it belongs: in your cubicle!” Usually I roll my eyes at marketing exhortations, but this time I had to agree that the writers had a point. In an era of lean staffing and multitasking, workers are at greater risk of making themselves sick from long-term stress, as Ulrich Kraft explains in his article “Burned Out.” Workaholics who pull long hours year in and year out can drive themselves to a state of mental and physical collapse, called burnout. Fortunately, there are ways for the brain and body to ward off such dire consequences. Turn to page 28 to find out how.

Tension can be beneficial, of course, if it is part of the time-tested system of improving explanatory arguments, or interpretations, based on experimental data. Such debates advance science’s pursuit of discovering the truth about any given phenomenon. In “Beyond the Neuron Doctrine,” starting on page 20, neuroscientist R. Douglas Fields describes a century-old question about the nature of neural communication. One side contends that each brain cell is a discrete functional unit, a scheme now known as the neuron doctrine. The opposing view holds that the nervous system is a highly interconnected, free-flowing data meshwork, or reticulum. The surprising news? Both camps are right.

As the neuron debate shows, hardly any matter is a simple, black-or-white issue. Especially not our perception of those two polar opposites, the colors black and white themselves. Psychologist Alan Gilchrist relates how the brain deciphers the often contradictory and confusing visual inputs that we receive from our surroundings. Scientists “ask” the brain about its thinking by showing volunteers striking optical illusions, some of which you will see in Gilchrist’s article “Seeing in Black and White,” beginning on page 42. Such research may be one of the few instances in which the routine use of deceptions serves the greater good of revealing reality.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 3This article was published with the title “From the Editor” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 3 (), p. 1
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0606-1

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe