Hi Mathieu

This can be a fun discussion. I wish that you had raised it on a Monday, rather than a Friday.  We will be too soon swept off the front page and into oblivion.

I have a lot of comments, and I am going to post them separately because there is just too much to say.

First, the SciAm editorial is really more a discussion of Scientific American policy than science.  It speaks to what they want to publish.  SciAm has gone through a number of such policy changes over the years.  I discuss them as I recall them, not as a history.

I first started to read SciAm around age 14 in the early '60s.  At that time the magazine was understandable.  I was not a prodigy.   But I was able to get a lot out of it, even though I had to work for it.  Yet it provided a good survey of what happening in science.  

SciAm changed policy.  Many of the articles became so deep that they were impenetrable unless they were in my field.  Worse, the math was usually not included in the article, so I found them even more difficult.  That phase didn't last long.  Circulation plummeted and advertisers withdrew.  The physical magazine became rather thin.

A new policy was instituted where the articles became more readable.  It emphasized social responsibility.  but it too often seemed like a soap opera version of science.

Over the years I have subscribed, unsubscribed to SciAm.  Depended more or less on SciAm, Nature or Science for my survey needs.  

From the tone of the referenced editorial, I am not looking forward to this newest change.  Science is not about fair and balanced.  We all know what "fair and balanced" has done to a news network.  Science is about discovery, understanding and truth.

But, I think that you really want to talk about the war against science.  And that is just a part of a greater war against the intellectual world.  

hope to comment more later

but sheesh, surely we can wait for April 1 'fore posting it?

Beta, I am sure we will keep it on the FP on April 1!

Perhaps SciAm needs to include emoticons for literal-minded scientists who may be a bit, shall we say, irony-impaired.

Hi AMC

No, I am not irony impaired.  I caught it.  But, I still think it is a discussion worth opening.  There is an anti-intellectual sentiment in our nation, and its favorite target is science. Its a bankshot.  

is that this supposed satire is indistinguishable from SciAm's actual editorial policy.  The ruin of this once fine magazine is a national tragedy.

and Mathieu will further this discussion on the Agonist Front Page. It is urgently needed and I, as well as the other editors, encourage you both to do so.

If you recognized the editorial as satire in an April Fools joke guise, why this reaction on your part?

From the tone of the referenced editorial, I am not looking forward to this newest change.  Science is not about fair and balanced.  We all know what "fair and balanced" has done to a news network.  Science is about discovery, understanding and truth.

Because it speaks to the continuation or exacerbation of the current policy.

Because I do think that SciAms current policy is in fact one of the  "fair and balanced" that it ostensibly disdains via its satire.  

This is not a question of the "good old times", I think Science and Nature have both improved over a similar period.  Though it must be said,  they do not  fit the same niche, being half journal half magazine.

I also believe that Sean-Paul had this in mind when he promoted it to the front page from the science section.

now you are asking me to actually know what date we are ???

the positions of the anti-scientific forces would have been a hopeful sign.

http://agonist.org/comments/2005/3/20/73129/2905/54#54

was a debate about the objectively anti-science policies and attitudes of the current powers that be and what the hell we are going to do to correct it. America has always relied on technology as a key aspect of its economic and social development. This retrograde movement of the Radical Right scares the hell out of me. Republic of Gilead here we come.

I can truly appreciate that point of view.

And yes, even when I get the humor, I have often been criticized for taking things to the serious side.