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.
The August issue garnered much interest--that is, vigorous reader dissent, questions and analysis. Although most letter writers welcomed guest essayist Mihail C. Roco's optimistic look at nanotechnology in "Nanotechnology's Future" [Forum], some issued thoughtful caveats about its unforeseen dangers.
The bulk of the dissent, however, was reserved for the cover story "The Expert Mind," by Philip E. Ross, which suggested that studies of the development of chess grandmasters' mental processes may reveal how expertise in all fields is fostered. For those readers who assume that innate ability is the foundation of great achievement, Ross cited research--relating to motivation and the ability to "chunk" information--indicating that experts are made, not born. Much of the criticism was echoed by Doug Jannusch of Kaneohe, Hawaii: "This is an insufficient dismissal of the role of talent in music, chess and sports," its greatest shortfall being "the lack of explanation for the role of intelligence in determining success. Let's face it--some people are simply smarter, faster or stronger than others."
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
