The best “science” stories of the year from Scientific American

December 27, 2022 • 12:00 pm

Scientific American, once a respectable publication but now a woke joke of a rag, recently put out special edition highlighting the top science stories of 2022. (Click on cover to read.) I will make no comment except to say that the “epigenetics” article has none of the caveats about epigenetics in the nice piece by Razib Khan I highlighted recently.

Oy, my kishkes!

There are other and more science-y stories, too, but these constitute nearly half of the top science stories of the year:

And let’s not forget the “departments”:

I will leave it up to the readers to comment.

14 thoughts on “The best “science” stories of the year from Scientific American

  1. I can remember in the late 60s, early 70s, as I was awakening to the wonders of science, how much I would look forward to my monthly delivery by mail of Scientific American.

  2. Martin Gardner, who I met in the pages of (all things) Humpty Dumpty magazine as a child during the 60s, would be spinning in his grave.

  3. I still buy old issues (elder than 1995) on the flea market. Just by reading random articles, I still learn something new…f.e.recently on the challenges for organisms living in the tidal zone …And the experiment of the month is often still worth doing.

  4. “How misleading information is misleading society” and “Evidence shouldn’t be optional”…sounds like good reading. Do they apply those ideas to their own articles?

  5. At the Smithsonian | December 27, 2022 11:24 a.m.
    Fourteen Discoveries Made About Human Evolution in 2022

    Smithsonian paleoanthropologists reveal the year’s most riveting findings about our close relatives and ancestors

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourteen-discoveries-made-about-human-evolution-in-2022-180981344/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20221227daily-responsive&spMailingID=47807938&spUserID=MTAwOTA4NTE0MjE5MQS2&spJobID=2363141943&spReportId=MjM2MzE0MTk0MwS2

  6. Sciency, yes not science. I can remember when half the articles were so technical I couldn’t understand them. So I’m wondering if this isn’t just an attempt to broaden their audience in the face of a declining readership?

    1. They could broaden the audience by dumbing down the articles, which is one thing they’re doing, but they’re also becoming explicitly “progressive”, which means appealing to a DIFFERENT audience.

  7. As I’ve mentioned, media institutions can rot: see Time Magazine, even CNN. Better they scuttle off and die like Newsweek than turn political / woke / stupid.
    D.A.
    NYC (FL currently)

Leave a Reply