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.

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