Scientific American

Ultimately, Scientific American is a magazine of interest to Scientific Americans (and this Scientific Brit, among many international readers). It offers insight into the world of science that is still accessible to people who haven't studied the subject of the articles at an advanced level.

Scientific American also has occasional features on technology, sometimes directly related to scientific inquiry (such as new particle accelerators) and sometimes not. There was a recent article on how virtual reality technology might one day be used to integrate computerised information into our lives: "augmented reality" glasses could overlay text or images onto your vision. You'll never have to get lost (arrows tell you where to go) or spend ages shopping (the price of the item you want could be overlaid on your view of the entire street).

Past Scientific American features have dealt with efforts to combat slavery in the modern world (which tried hard to be science by dealing with the psychological issues raised by slavery), and the issue of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. I think there is a good balance between science, technology, the environment, and social issues arising from scientific progress (such as the use of genetic information).

The in-depth articles are five or six pages, with about two of these being sidebars and illustrations. The articles are clear enough to understand, but often there is a lot to take in. The reader has to be attentive, but there is enough explanation for me (a physicist) to understand articles about biology and evolution.

Regular columns include "working knowledge" on how things that affect our lives work, from computer assisted braking in cars, to the use of cell cultures in medical labs. In a similar vein, "Ask the Experts" takes questions from readers. "Antigravity", the humour column, is hit and miss but sometimes funny, and only one page.

The accompanying website is well worth looking at before (and after!) you buy. The publishers put the news, regular columns and a couple of articles from each issue on the web, and you can get a feel for the general format of the magazine.


The premiere general science mag.   May 30, 2002
 14 out of 14 found this review helpful

None of the other general science magazines (Discover, Popular Science, etc.) even come close to this gem. The highlights of Scientific American are the in-depth feature articles; the writers manage the difficult feat of tackling complex subjects in modern science without losing the interest of the non-scientist reader. But don't get the wrong idea - these articles can be pretty challenging, even for someone with a formal education in a scientific field. Many of the writers are scientists themselves with first-hand knowledge of what they're talking about. Definitely written for the intelligent and reasonably well educated reader.

SA isn't narrow in its range of interests: everything from high-energy physics to electronics technology to archaeology gets extensive coverage. Both pure and practical science gets thorough treatment. This is perhaps the only general science magazine that gives enough attention to pure science research (they're particularly strong on physics). Also included in every issue is a nice collection of news snippets - well worth a regular read.

Oh, and did I mention the illustrations? They're spectacular!


The go-to science magazine   March 22, 2003
 68 out of 82 found this review helpful

Scientific American has been in existence for more than 150 years; admittedly in its earlier years it was more about mechanical inventions and the like. But since the late 1940s, if I remember correctly, it has been the non-journal magazine that one goes to for in-depth articles from all areas of science. The articles are written by experts in their fields, usually the men and women who did some of the important research referred to in the article. Of inestimable value, particularly for non-scientists (or for scientists reading in fields other than their own), are the superb illustrations. In fact, one way the magazine has improved over the years is in its ability to illustrate complex scientific concepts graphically. And since the inception of computer graphics that aspect of the magazine has gotten even better.

I will admit that I still miss the articles by Philip and Phylis Morrison, and the mathematical column by Martin Gardner (and later, Douglas Hoffstadter), but new regulars like the 'Skeptic' writer Michael Shermer, the cartoonist Roz Chast, and humor columnist Steve Mirsky enliven its pages. And I've always enjoyed the '50, 100 & 150 Years Ago' column that excerpts articles from past issues.

It is hard to imagine my own life without Scientific American; I've subscribed for most of the past fifty years.


The best magazine for an amateur scientist   March 14, 2003
 10 out of 10 found this review helpful

I used to only get Popular Science, and I was always disappointed that they would avoid going into the details. They would always give a general overview of what's going on, and specs of new inventions.
Scientific American, on the other hand, picks two or three topics each issue that it goes into on a much deeper level. If you're like me and wish you had gone into physics, engineering, or any other related field, you'll be happy with the magazine. They do use some scientific jargon, and if you're a newcomer to a field it might be a little difficult, but that's the price of a real article. They don't go into the nitty gritty data, of course. But they always explain all the scientific principles involved in the article.
I happen to be partial to physics, but they cover a lot of biology, anthropology (which I skip), geology, astronomy, and others. And they intersperse tidbits, which I like.
I'm going to keep my PopSci subscription though. The two magazines often overlap in topics, but they also have very different areas. PopSci keeps me up to dat in new gadgets, for instance. But this is a better magazine, overall. Pick it up at a newsstand, if you doubt it.


Great magazine   May 9, 2007
 13 out of 14 found this review helpful

Classic monthly that I truly enjoy. Articles are not newsbites, but moderate-length texts written mostly by scientists involved in the actual research. It is refreshing to read "My team" or "I" researched this or that subject in the articles - unlike some mass-market science monthlies. The 'new' SA does go further now in explaining the basics behind a subject, with a phrase or word of background interjected here and there. I say, if you want pure science, read Science. This is a magazine for the somewhat better informed individual who wants to keep informed on many facets of science.