New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Letters to the Editors, March 2006

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.


"BE PREPARED," the Boy Scouts' motto, is simple enough for children to remember. Why then can it be so difficult to plan for foreseeable disasters? Two November 2005 articles addressed that question: "Preparing for a Pandemic," by W. Wayt Gibbs and Christine Soares, and "Preparing for the Worst" [SA Perspectives], which also discussed events such as Hurricane Katrina. Reader Colin Buss of Campbell River, B.C., observes, "If global health is at stake, the international community, including the U.S., may be better off not allowing the wealthier nations to dictate health strategy if it is at the expense of the greater good." Kelsey DeForge warned via e-mail not to assume treatment will be free: "The U.S. must assure that those who require vaccinations receive financial help if necessary. Otherwise treatment will be accessible only to those who can afford it, rather than those most at risk."

Expecting the Expected
In "Preparing for the Worst" [SA Perspectives], the editors again do not waste an opportunity to stick a thumb in the Bush administration's eye. And although you are truthful in what you say, what is telling is that which you omit: it was the Louisiana congressional delegation that coveted the funding for levee improvement and then led the charge to divert it to other purposes.

Van Snyder
La Crescenta, Calif.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 294 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Letters” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 294 No. 3 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican032006-4M39s5oWXyNhe5MmTPqmXq

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe