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

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