The New Lysenkoism
City Journal,
by
Nicholas Wade
Original Article
Posted By: TunnelEffect,
1/28/2022 11:51:07 PM
A strange thing is happening to the venerable magazine Scientific American. It has decided to kick its science-loving readers in the teeth and embrace a modern equivalent of Lysenkoism—the doctrine that required Soviet biologists to ignore evolution and the genetics of plants. The great biologist Edward O. Wilson died on December 26. Few readers of Scientific American could be unaware of Wilson’s towering contributions to biology and conservation, or of his rare gifts as a synthesizer and writer. They surely didn’t expect that the oeuvre of this globally renowned scientist would be labeled (snip) as “built on racist ideas.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
VAPMAN 1/29/2022 12:16:50 AM (No. 1054411)
Scientific American used to be an informative magazine where one could catch up on new theories and information from throughout the scientific community. Over now many years they have completely morphed into a leftist woke rag. I can’t believe that anybody with a trickle of intelligence would subscribe to such garbage.
12 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 1/29/2022 1:06:27 AM (No. 1054426)
Fascinating article, thanks for posting! Also - I want Nicholas Wade to write MY obituary!
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 1/29/2022 1:31:14 AM (No. 1054435)
I used to subscribe to Scientific American. In the early 2000s it became entirely insufferable. Non-scientific claptrap was taking over. I stopped subscribing and reading.
Like my 30+ year National Geographic subscription, it was a shame to see the old magazine go down into being a political hack rag for climate change and any other leftist nonsense.
10 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 1/29/2022 1:48:52 AM (No. 1054442)
What a great idea! At least now people wont accidentally pick up such a silly magazine by mistake.
5 people like this.
I could not get enough of Scientific American, back when it was scientific. I adored waiting and waiting each month for the next issue. The Letters to the Editor were also great sources of information. Like other comments on this thread, I ceased subscribing. I also ceased Nat Geo. I hung on to the Nat Geo subscription, waiting those very cool Mars editions, but no more. When the Great Northern Ice Sheet extends all the way from Canada to Middle America, the Scientific American and Nat Geo editions full of Globull Gloaming will be the future's versions of comic books.
7 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 1/29/2022 5:36:58 AM (No. 1054501)
The same is true of AAAS' Science magazine. The research articles are good, if woke in their choice of studies to publish, but the whole front third consisting of op-ed, "news", letters. climate and race nonsense, and book reviews are total leftist claptrap.
It's an important journal, and I've been a AAAS member for decades, but it's very aggravating
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
varkdriver 1/29/2022 7:19:40 AM (No. 1054553)
Indeed, agree with all posters. Both SA and Nat Geo became "All Global Warming, All The Time!"
And to think I first learned about anatomy from National Geographic, long ago. "But Mom, I'm studyin' here..."
2 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
BarryNo 1/29/2022 7:40:42 AM (No. 1054563)
It has to do with values.
When Government starts throwing money... and penalties around for discovering or proposing ideas it finds distasteful, Science loses its meaning.
1 person likes this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
erobot 1/29/2022 8:56:22 AM (No. 1054635)
When my son, the theoretical physicist, was in high school, he used to run home from school on the day the magazine was due and immediately devoured it. It started to decline long before the 2000's. Now it's joke.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
greyseal 1/29/2022 9:23:21 AM (No. 1054667)
While Wade makes several good points in the article, he misses the one about injecting politics by himself injecting it with statements about "...Trumpist anti-intellectualism."
Pardon me, but most of the problem stems from leftist academics and "scientists" who seem all too happy to throw rational objective thought out the window for idiocy like "transgenderism", "climate change", and most of all "settled science".
greyseal
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/29/2022 9:25:10 AM (No. 1054670)
Bought and paid for 'Science' is JUNK Science!
0 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Strike3 1/29/2022 10:08:56 AM (No. 1054712)
The same path was taken by Smithsonian and Psychology Today. Racism comes from one place only, an inferiority complex and the belief that if you are not rich, successful and famous, it must be because others are holding you down. Guess what, if you feel inferior, you really ARE inferior. Get some psychiatric help.
1 person likes this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
petrichor 1/29/2022 10:53:03 AM (No. 1054774)
Sad to see so many old SA readers disappointed with the current flavor of the magazine. It's demise began slowly (as demises do -- [see U.S.A.]) , but it fairly quickly became unreadable. I never bought each issue, but did rely on their September edition which used to spotlight a particular slice of science.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "TunnelEffect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
More egregious opinion from Scientific American. How they have fallen.