New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

10 Science Letdowns of the New Millennium [Slide Show]

Few flying cars and no fountains of youth: Since 2000 many old science goals have remained as far away as ET's signals

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.


Ever since the wildly optimistic projections of progress from the mid-20th century—robot companions, extra-orbital sojourns, 200-year life spans—scientists have been gently dialing back the public's expectations. So, perhaps it is no sobering surprise that many of the hopeful predictions for scientific advancements for the new millennium have yet to come to pass.

"We were supposed to have cities under domes, jet packs and space planes that could take commuters from Los Angeles to Tokyo in two hours," Paul Milo, author of Your Flying Car Awaits: Robot Butlers, Lunar Vacations, and Other Dead-Wrong Predictions of the Twentieth Century (Harper, 2009), told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month.

Of course science thrives on a powerful elixir of optimism and challenge. So, enthusiasm for lofty goals can grease the wheels of inquiry—not to mention funding. And even if crucial breakthroughs remain unachieved for now, little ones help to pave the way toward a new solution. That's in science's accretionary nature.

Even so, hopes for some of the big missed marks—from climate regulation to cognitive cures—were high even as late as the 1990s. So, in the spirit of hoping that science can save the world a little more expeditiously in the next decade, here are 10 scientific disappointments of the "aughties" as seen through the eyes of the editorial staff at Scientific American.

View Slide Show: 10 Science Letdowns of the New Millennium

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