Scientific American's descent from respected publication to ideological tabloid is nearly complete. The magazine is now promoting anti-GMO activism under the guise of "social justice."
Scientific American
Scientific American says there's good evidence to support mandatory masking in schools. A careful look at the data suggest the situation is more complicated.
Scientific American, a once preeminent magazine that thoughtful and curious people read (or at least respected), has become an outlet for pseudoscience and politics. What a shame.
September marks the 175th anniversary of Scientific American, one of the magazines from a memorable era in journalism that included Life as well as Time – periodicals longer than 20 pages. In honor of SA's anniversary, the editors devoted an article to the words used in articles since the founding of the magazine back in 1845.
In the past few months, Scientific American published an article that attacked biotechnology, another that repeated conspiratorial nonsense about 5G technology, and a third that went on an anti-medical rant aimed at a high-profile gynecologist.
Well, it's official. Scientific American, the once-reputable publication, will publish absolutely anything. Just like The Huffington Post or InfoWars.
In an invited essay in Scientific American this week, Dr. Nina Fedoroff explains why genetically engineered crops and foods benefit both people and the environment.