New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Mind Field

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When you think of this morning's breakfast table, what exactly appears in your mind's eye? How sharp is the image? Do you “see” the colorful bits of cereal floating in the bowl, the glinting steel spoon on the napkin, the half-full coffee mug—or do you just “know” they are there?

More than a century ago Francis Galton, the famous anthropologist and statistician, asked numerous colleagues and friends to recall their breakfast spreads and was startled by how varied the answers were. Some people said their mental view was as vivid as reality; others reported their internal images were faint or even nonexistent. What brain mechanisms could account for such differences? Physician and science writer Thomas Grueter synthesizes the latest research on the topic in his article “Picture This,” starting on page 18.

The everyday picture for soldiers in Iraq can be disturbingly uncertain. Service members must be alert for surprise attacks anyplace, anytime. The emotional and psychological effects of such conditions can be devastating. Writing from Iraq, psychologists Bret A. Moore and Greg M. Reger, two U.S. Army captains, describe their work to maintain the well-being of service members. Their article, “Combating Stress in Iraq,” begins on page 30.


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.


An entirely different battlefield is the one being fought for understanding. In “Do Gays Have a Choice?” psychologist Robert Epstein discusses the science behind the controversy of sexual “preference” (a term he disdains as judgmental). As it turns out, the answer is not black or white: rather human sexuality exists on a spectrum. Turn to page 50 for more.

One distinctive feature of Scientific American Mind is that such insights about the workings of our brains frequently come straight from the expert researchers who are at the front lines of their fields. To tap even more of that kind of authoritative wisdom, we have created a board of scientist advisers. Their names appear in the masthead, to the left of this column, and their expertise will help shape our coverage in the coming months. We hope you like the results.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 1This article was published with the title “From the Editor” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 1 (), p. 1
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0206-1

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