 |
 |
Hear hear! I'm pleased somebody has spoken up for New Scientist. I personally think is an excellent publication but even if I didn't rate it at all somebody needed to put the grumpy comments we've been getting into perspective. The responses so far seem to be addressing features rather than reporting and comment sections. It may be that the features are the least 'useful' to scientists qua scientists, but it would be a mistake to judge the utility of the whole magazine by just one type of article. A large chunk of the high-quality science reporting and comment (as distinct from features) we've come to rely upon is accounted for by New Scientist. Scientists should value New Scientist simply because it helps to keep reporting standards high. Who else could you rely upon to place your field in its wider context? Adam -----Original Message----- From: psci-com: on public engagement with science [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Murphy Glenn Sent: 23 November 2006 13:13 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] Does New Scientist help scientists? The pretext for this question was "does NS help scientists?" Most of the answers so far seem to have been to the question "does NS give you watertight, peer-reviewed, up-to-date information on work being done in your field, leading you to new avenues of inquiry?" I would argue that this is not the purpose of a generalist publication like NS. And I would also argue that it does help scientists, by providing a wider context for our work. True, NS might not tell you anything new about your own field - but why would you expect it to? The very nature of science determines that fields of study are divided and sub-divided until each individual ends up working on a very narrow, specific question or area of research. Once there, you become an authority on that area, and the longer you work on it, the more of an authority you become. Possibly THE authority, depending on how narrow the field is. (It's much easier to become the world authority on the breeding behaviour of one species of abyssal trench fish, for example, than it is to become the world authority on marine ecosystem evolution, worldwide.) Hence, it's easy to scoff at a NS article (about your, specific sub-field) as being "old news" or "outdated" if all you ever do is study that field and its developments. But unless you're so arrogant as to presume that you know everything about every field of science (and if so, please ignore my humble musings, as you are clearly a remarkable polymath the likes of which I could not even hope to understand)...then there is always something new to learn about other people's work (and possibly even your own), provided you're open to it. The way I see it, generalist publications like New Scientist have the near-impossible task of trying to keep pace with rapid, worldwide developments in an almost infinite range of infinitely-subdivided fields...and then writing something new and interesting about them that SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THE FIELD might want to read. I'm not talking about someone outside the field of science - just outside the scope of the article (be it marine ecosystems, abyssal trench fish, or whatever). We are all laymen outside of our own fields of knowledge. Anyone that tells you different is deluded or selling something. Personally, I've always found NS to be extremely engaging and interesting, and I feel that it helps by placing a huge variety of contemporary research in context. In doing so, it can also introduce us to associations between fields, and to the wider environmental, socioeconomic and political issues involved - making us think about how we feel about them. If you'd rather avoid dallying with these tedious trifles, then a good field-specific journal should provide a welcome and preferable haven. Regards G This e-mail and attachments are intended for the named addressee only and are confidential. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from your computer system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not reflect the views of the National Museum of Science & Industry. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail 2. To resume email from the list, send the following message: set psci-com mail 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail 2. To resume email from the list, send the following message: set psci-com mail 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk **********************************************************************