Letters to the Editors, May 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.

JANUARY'S ISSUE drew letters addressing articles that ranged from an exploration of how motherhood changes the structure of the female brain in "The Maternal Brain," by Craig Howard Kinsley and Kelly G. Lambert, to the sociopolitical and psychological factors that drive individuals to become suicide bombers in "Murdercide," by Skeptic columnist Michael Shermer.

The topic of animal experimentation, covered in "Saving Animals and People" [SA Perspectives] and "Protecting More than Animals," by Alan M. Goldberg and Thomas Hartung, generated the most heat and light in letters. Readers generally agreed that minimizing or eliminating animal testing wherever possible is a laudable goal; however, it is ethically acceptable to continue animal research if it is the only way to promote advances benefiting humanity. But to some, a "humans first" guideline rang hollow: Richard Dingman of Montague Center, Mass., wrote, "Just what is the 'ethical' basis for declaring that animal experimentation is preferable to testing on humans? The editors assume our acceptance of human superiority has an objective foundation so obvious that it need not be mentioned." The heartfelt debate goes on.

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