Science is the only new news. There is more and more of it than ever and I have trouble keeping up. I’ve been an off-and-on subscriber to the richest source, Science, but I am currently off it simply because I could not keep up with the weekly deluge of diamond-dense information it dumped on me. Scientific American is drastically uneven, and recently too preachy, so although I subscribe, it is not essential. Discover is okay but not as, well, scientific. Over the years, the only periodical that has remained a constant source of readable science news, with no dumbing down, and much uplifting of ideas, as well as providing a great sense of important frontiers, is New Scientist. It is smart, ahead of the curve of other publications, deep, accessible, and reliable. If you can only subscribe to one source of the new news, New Scientist is it.
I value it most for what it does not run. It doesn’t explain what DNA is again. Rather it talks up to its readers, assuming you have basic science literacy. Think of it as an Economist for science. It wisely selects pattern-shifting stuff, and I’ve come to concur with its nose for interesting news that will stay new. Issues from years ago still read fresh. Yet it avoids hype and sci-fi wet dreams.
Much of its power stems from its reliance on subscribers rather than consumer advertisers for its income; it really does serve readers. But that also means this weekly British publication is on the expensive side. Rather than the normal $18 per year that most ad-inflated magazines in the US charge, this weekly will run you $150 annually. (There’s a cheap intro price to get you hooked.) It is well worth the investment. May it live long and prosper.
51 issues per year
$99 new print/online subscriptions
$85 online access only
Available from Amazon
$70-$150 custom subscriptions & renewals available for students, educators, seniors, low income, and others. Call Elsevier publishers 888-822-3242.