Very readable (New Scientist)

Member Name: Bryn Pearson

Product:	New Scientist
Date:	15/05/02 (52 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: braod range of topics, easy enough to read

Disadvantages: lack of detailed information

I know I can't be alone in being a passably intelligent lifeform with only a tiny amount of science knowledge but a desire to have some understanding of the developments that shape the world I live in. At Uni, I encountered 'journals' where all the modern science happens - these were actually psychology journals, I found them almost totally unreadable. Every area of scientific thinking seems to have them, and mostly they are written by experts, for experts.

What little science you get on TV usually assumes that you know next to nothing (From what I remember) and while radio 4 has a bit of science programing, it isn't superb. I'd like to be one of those rennaisance type people who has some broad understanding of all the relevant issues.

I was delighted when my wonderful other half introduced me to New Scientist and assured me I would be able to read it. It is a weekly magazine covering any scientific area you can think of, but written to be readable. The reality is that being a 'scientist' does not equip you to understand all 'science' - my husband is a metallurgist, he knows a good deal about alloys, and nothing at all about medicine. The magazine is written so that it can be read by those who are not working in the given field - for biologists who want to know about the latest geological findings, for chemists with an interest in sociology and cloning.... you get the idea. The result is a magazine that is accessable to any reasonably intelligent adult - if you can handle a broadsheet, this will be fine for you.

Articles range in size and scope, from little soundbites about popular issues to many pages of more detailed thinking. Articles aim to give a broad overview and reasonable insight without bogging you down in the details. Not only do writers report on science news, but they also consider social and ethical dimensions, which again makes the magazine very readable to those outside the science field
- after all, what a lot of lay people want to know is 'and how is this going to affect me?'.

The downsides - if the writing is in an area you know a good deal about, then its going to seem superficial. if you are the sort of person who likes to be presented with all the facts, this isn't going to work for you - you get findings, not details of how the findings were made - this is not a science journal and they aren't expecting you to want to try it for yourself. Some of the science is a bit 'poppy' - the sort of weird links through statistics stuff that always makes it into the media - you might find it amusing, you might find it irritating.

Generally the content is interesting, informative and digestable, although unless you have a good deal of time for reading, there's probably more there than you could expect to get through in a week.

The other thing to mention - if you are looking for a job in scientific work, this is the place to look, there are extensive adverts for that sort of thing.

I heartily recomend this - it is surprisingly palatable and it does supply certain needs. it has a rboad range -a rticles on DNA in trees sit next to information about the effects of cloning and observations about the impact of Star wars films on the American workplace. You can pick it up and put it down, dip in as you want and find something of interest. it isn't going to tell you everything you ever needed to know, but it will give you an idea about the sorts of questions you might want to be asking.

Summary: