The Science of Parenting

Scientific American is launching a new column about parenting to evaluate the staggering amount of information available and the evidence behind it

Shadow on wall of mom holding baby

Oleg Breslavtsev/Getty Images

There is a lot of parenting advice out there. Scientific American wants to wade through it and give you the most current, rigorous evidence to help you make the best decisions.

This piece is part of Scientific American's column The Science of Parenting. For more, go here.

When I first became a mom, I was buried under the avalanche of information you could find on how to be a good parent. Try this, don’t try that. Do this, don’t do that. Buy this, don’t buy that. For every possible question, there were a billion different answers from a billion different people. As a science journalist, I had to put my training to use: What was their evidence? What were their incentives? Could I trust this expert or that?

It was daunting.


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.


To this day, as things crop up with my kids, I still try to dig through data. Is what my kid doing normal? (Usually.) Has this medicine been tested on children? (Usually not.) Is screen time okay? (It depends.) Is there any part of the Internet that is safe for kids? (Hahahaha.)

The way I see it, if I’m asking these questions, so are millions of parents worldwide. And if I’m confused, I’m not alone. To try and cut through the noise around parenting and child development, Scientific American is launching The Science of Parenting, a regular column offering evidence-based advice on issues related to parenting and parent-child relationships, including caring for our elderly parents.

You’ll hear from researchers who are studying some of the most interesting biological, psychological and sociological questions around raising children. You’ll hear from journalists and writers who are reporting deeply on these relationships and the questions they raise. And you’ll hear from parents themselves on how they’ve gotten through issues that span infancy to adulthood.

We know that what works for one family will not always work for the next. We want to look at what people are saying in the quest to raise good humans and see if those claims (a) have been examined and (b) can be backed up. We want to help you cut through all the clutter to better understand what is real and what is fake.

So, please tell us what you want to know. Send your ideas and questions to opinion@sciam.com.

And we want to be clear that this column isn’t just for parents. It’s for any of us who are child-adjacent, whether your role is cool aunt, fun uncle, stepparent, grandparent, guardian or simply someone who cares. Furthermore, this column isn’t just about babies, toddlers, tweens and teens. It’s also about adult children, and for so many of us in our sandwich years, becoming a parent to our parents.

Two hands holding an old photograph

Shestock/Getty Images

Generational relationships define societies, drive policy and, for better or for worse, define politics. If some of the pieces we run in this column can help you be a more informed member of the electorate, we would be thrilled.

When my first was a baby, I’d look at her and wonder, “What’s the best way do this?” I’d read. I’d query friends. I’d query random parents. And of course, I’d ask my mom and dad. Sometimes, I’d even do what they suggested (don’t tell them this—it will only make them smug). With my second, I mine the recesses of my mind and say, “What did I do last time?” And then I’m like, “Wait, do we still do that now?” and start those calls and queries all over again. It is very true what they say—raising a considerate, ethical, compassionate, happy human really does take a village. We at Scientific American would be honored if you would add us to yours.

Megha Satyanarayana is chief special projects editor at Scientific American. She is a former scientist who has worked at several news outlets, including the Detroit Free Press and STAT. She was a Knight-Wallace Fellow, a cohort member of Poynter’s Leadership Academy for Women in Digital Media and a Maynard 200 Fellow.

More by Megha Satyanarayana

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

Subscribe