# Scientific American alternative, suggestions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 19, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087 "2014-11-19T16:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/1 "2014-11-19T16:55:10Z")
I’ve been buying a subscription to SA for the last couple of years as a Christmas gift, for my niece. I think I’d like to switch to another magazine, just to change it up a bit. She works in public health, almost became a Dr, very science savvy. I have no science background, but have a feeling Popular Science won’t cut it, can’t remember why though. At any rate, I’m open to suggestions, please share your likes and dislikes and knowledge. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![cormac262](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@cormac262](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cormac262)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/2 "2014-11-19T17:20:46Z")
I would recommend “Skeptic” magazine (not to be confused with “Skeptical Inquirer”). Awesome articles, and a bit more accessible than Scientific American. A bit of a magazine version of “MythBusters” - they challenge and mostly disprove a lot that gets bandied about as “fact”…with the scientific method. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/3 "2014-11-19T17:37:09Z")
I’ve been unhappy with SA for a while now. I’m finding the articles are too high level and … well “fluffy” is the wrong word but you get the idea I hope. I found [American Scientist](http://www.americanscientist.org/) scratched the “needs more detail” itch better than SA did. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/4 "2014-11-19T17:40:34Z")
I like the British mag “New Scientist”. It’s weekly, so note it costs more. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/5 "2014-11-19T17:42:19Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > She works in public health, almost became a Dr, very science savvy. Are you looking for something “lighter” or “heavier” than Scientific American? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/6 "2014-11-19T17:52:35Z")
I agree with Grey. SA hasn’t gone down as far as Discover or BBC Science, which went to almost all pictures and I think still folded, but it’s not as good as it used to be. _New Scientist_ is still the best popular science magazine, but its a British weekly. There’s an “American” edition, which is the one you subscribe to here, but it’s pretty expensive. _American Scientist_ is also not what it was - they took out the huge section of book reviews which was my best resource for new science books - but it’s aimed at scientists in general, while SA is shifting over toward a popular audience. _Science News_ might be the best compromise. It’s a biweekly digest, 12 or 16 pages, of news from across disciplines. You can give it a quick glance or enjoy the longer cover feature. Or you can try _Scientific American Mind_, which prints 6 issues a year and concentrates on psychology and medicine, which may be more to her interest. (And is cheaper.) I don’t read _Brain World_ or _Psychology Today_, but those are competitors. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/7 "2014-11-19T21:36:23Z")
[The Scientist](http://www.the-scientist.com/?) is another magazine that purports to be aimed at professional scientists who like to keep up with other scientific disciplines. I do not know it well enough to give it a confident positive or negative recommendation, however. From what little I have seen of it, the “level” does not differ much from that to be found in science magazines aimed at the general, educated public, like _Scientific American_ and _New Scientist_, but maybe there is a little less emphasis on the reporting of the latest and whackiest incomprehensible speculations of cosmologists and quantum theorists. I guess it is trying to position itself more as a rival to _American Scientist_. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/8 "2014-11-20T07:46:07Z")
I enjoyed my subscription to SA during the 1990s, but gave it up years ago. It had drifted too far in the Discover direction for my taste. I currently subscribe to _Science_ magazine. In the back are scientific articles. They won’t hurt you. In the front is very readable science journalism. Some of the front articles even cover the articles written in the back. $50/yr for students, $100 for everyone else. Recommended. [http://www.aaas.org/](http://www.aaas.org/) ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/9 "2014-11-20T15:06:04Z")
You know what I used to really love about Scientific American (circa 1960)? Every illustration had a caption that was perfectly justified right – even the last line – I can’t even imagine how (or why) the editors did that… One could get the gist of an article just by reading the captions on the illustrations. I also loved Martin Gardner’s Mathematical Games, before they sold out to computerized gamesmanship. And Philip Morrison’s Book Reviews were stunning microcosms of great ideas. Through the 50s and 60s and later, Scientific American was by far the most important and influential periodical I ever read. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/10 "2014-11-20T16:36:08Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I like the British mag “New Scientist”. It’s weekly, so note it costs more. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I enjoyed my subscription to SA during the 1990s, but gave it up years ago. It had drifted too far in the Discover direction for my taste. I currently subscribe to _Science_ magazine. In the back are scientific articles. They won’t hurt you. In the front is very readable science journalism. Some of the front articles even cover the articles written in the back. Seconded on both. _Popular Science_ is just technoporn; it has no relationship to any actual research or innovations except by accident. It is the _National Enquirer_ of science journalism. _Scientific American_ is a few steps above, and at least features some articles written by actual researchers, but is far from authoritative and as a strong tendency to follow popular trends rather than looking on the cutting edge of research across all fields. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![jharvey963](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@jharvey963](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharvey963)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/11 "2014-11-21T21:31:31Z")
Slightly off the pure science track, I’d recommend \*\*Atlantic \*\*magazine. I subscribe to both it and SA, and tend to like \*\*Atlantic \*\*slightly more. J. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-american-alternative-suggestions/705087/12 "2014-11-22T05:07:39Z")
Not for the OP, but the _Economist_ does decent science reporting every week. I used to read the _New York Times_’ Tuesday section, _Science Times_ with some regularity, though I no longer do. At any rate, the Times asks decent questions when they report; their work is several cuts above the stuff AP hacks out.