I once loved this magazine - my subscription has run out - I will not renew. Pay close attention to the reviews here that note that SA now uses its power as a Science Authority to support a political ideology and now ignores the value of open debate on scientific issues. Truly a sad development - I hope SA wakes up and returns to its egalitarian roots - big interests and money is not the answer.

I've subscribed to this magazine for around 15 years now, and I have always loved it. There is a great variety of science and technology subjects covered and the articles have always seemed to have the right level of technical detail for me.

Unfortunately this magazine has changed over the past year or two. The past six months have been so bad that I'm finally throwing in the towel and cancelling my subscription and looking for a replacement. Every issue now contains a steady dose of environmentalism that often only vaguely resembles science and could be better described as sensationalism. I've also noticed a recent trend of religion bashing, with the underlying message being that anyone who believes in God must be an ignorant rube.

It is really a shame because before this trend it was an excellent, un-biased magazine that was pretty much a perfect fit for me. Had I written this review a couple years ago I would have certainly given it 5 stars. Maybe in a couple years I'll check and see if they've gotten it back on track and removed much of the bias. This magazine has been around for over 150 years, so I suspect they are adept at change.

I am not a professional in the sciences which is exactly why this publication is so important. It provides timely articles, written in more or less layman's language, that are relevant to our world. Refreshingly, the reporting does not include so much of the political noise and nonsense that bombard from so many media these days. In addition, this magazine gives the reader access to the current trends in research, academia, and general tenor of scientific-related work itself. Due to the consistently excellent writing, photography, and accompanying footnotes of explanation, I must recommend this magazine to anyone remotely interested in our sciences but does not have a particularly strong scientific background.

I enjoy the brief glimpses of relatively new scientific discoveries, but I've noticed when I research more on a topic the articles are not always accurate. The opinions are always slanted liberal, which is diappointing since I'd like both sides of issues. Sachs, in particular, has glaring inaccuracies in the last 3 issues. If the magazine is liberal biased, fine, I just wish they would be accurate. There has not been a good essay writer since James Burke. I try to skip over those now. Their essayists are not only inaccurate, but lousy writers and boring as well. I realize Burke is impossible to replace, but they could try a little harder! Scientific American is worth getting for overviews of science today, but keep in mind that the fact check level is about the same as tv news. Think of Scientific American as a stretched out tv news science section!

For anyone who wishes to be more involved with our life on earth whether it be our planet and how it was formed or the health of our body Scientific American walks you down the paths of your interest with fascinating articles to captivate each of us.

Classic monthly that I truly enjoy. Articles are not newsbites, but moderate-length texts written mostly by scientists involved in the actual research. It is refreshing to read "My team" or "I" researched this or that subject in the articles - unlike some mass-market science monthlies. The 'new' SA does go further now in explaining the basics behind a subject, with a phrase or word of background interjected here and there. I say, if you want pure science, read Science. This is a magazine for the somewhat better informed individual who wants to keep informed on many facets of science.

I read the first copy of my gift subscription from cover to cover. My wife, who gave me the gift, knew that I always pick up Scientific American whenever we go to the library so her gift was pretty much a sure bet. Over the years Scientific American has clearly made a big effort to make its articles much more readable by people with a normal education. At no time was I overwhelmed by scientific shorthand. Neither was I presented with high level concepts that assumed I would bring the necessary (sometimes esoteric) intellectual framework needed to understand them.

Every month this magazine presents very interesting articles that expand your knowledge around science.

For those who are curious about the world of Science, this is a good magazine. There is no dumbing down here as is common in "Popular Science." There is a balance of articles covering Technology, Astronomy, Archaeology, and Geology. The four things that I like most, are the detailed articles, the corresponding references, it is accessible to persons who do not have a science background, & the ads are at a minimum. Perhaps, it is not as good as some reviewers stated that it was five years ago? I can't comment on that, I have only been reading it for two years.

Without a doubt Scientific American is the best magazine to keep you updated on the latest news and findings from AI to Quantum Physics!

If you're a fan of science, this is a great magazine that covers a wide range of topics. Most of the time the topics are over my head, but the magazine gives you enough information to get the gist of it and prompt you to learn more about it. The subscription definitely took about 6-8 weeks to kick in, but they did send me 2 consecutive issues to make up for the delay. I would definitely recommend this magazine.

An excellent source of interesting science and technology articles. The magazine covers a variety of topics, and presents information so the reader's knowledge base is enhanced and challenged. Illistrations, within the perodical, further enhance the reader's grasp of the topic material, all excellently done. A must read for those who desire a deeper understanding of our technical, scientific world, and cosmos.

I guess I still subscribe for the pictures. ;-)

Yes, there was a time when Scientific American was so difficult to read and understand that I always felt like an idiot, even when I was an award-winning physics major in college (yeah, hard to believe!).

Now it's a great way to keep up with cutting-edge scientific thought. I still don't entirely grasp the latest String Theories or Loop Quantum Gravity, but I can read those articles and--admittedly with the help of graphics--get an idea of the implications of the theories, and how they work with or conflict with other theories.

Most of the hard-core articles are still written by research scientists, but these authors have become better writers, and they have learned that the audience is like me: The general population, wanting to keep up on the latest cool stuff. There are still purely scientific periodicals where they can publish their equations and use the latest jargon. I'm thankful they "dumb it down" for the rest of us. In a time when good science is often dismissed by the general public in favor of "What the BLEEP..." and other popularized pseudo-science, I am incredibly thankful that Scientific American is still true to the scientific method.

I purchased this subscription for my 13yr old nephew, who just loves it. It is wonderfully informative reading matter that really has something for everbody in it. Now only if he would put it down so others can look at it.

This science magazine should be held as a standard for the intelligent general science minded person. Articles are good, not overly technical in depth. At times it gets in its doldrums of articles, but generally it holds it own. You don't have to be a specialist in the field or hold degrees of the same. But it doesnt treat you like you were an idiot. It does at times takes some thought of getting used to. Their 'special topic issues' may be avoided unless you want compendium issue of that topic.Well received for the high-schooler either as the magazine or the website. At least the layperson can be science informed. The title of the magazine says it all.

I read Scientific American occassionally back in the 80's. At that time I found the articles (especially the physics articles, which I love) to be especially dense and poorly supported by graphics. The quality was there but it didn't quite get across to my younger self.

Now, I find the text to be very good and superbly well-supported by side matter and graphics. I would call this an improvement (both in the magazine and, perhaps, in myself).

However, I didn't read it regularly back then, so perhaps the negative reviewers are correct in saying the magazine has been "dumbed down". If so, then it was from a very lofty level as the articles continue to require a reasonable background in their subject areas. For example, the article "Computing with Quantum Knots" was just right for somebody who has read a number of non-mathematical treatments of this topic and who, like me, has read parts of the Feynman lectures and things of that nature. It was a sophisticated and intelligent article. There are many more examples I could give.

My only gripe with Scientific American (and this has been true for decades) is that I just don't like medical articles and the magazine regulary has them. This, however, is a personal matter and reflects my interests not the quality of the magazine.

I strongly suspect the "format was changed", as some said, because the publisher wanted to improve it for everybody and catch a few more readers. Certainly, I would not have subscribed to the old Scientific American. It was too dense and too boring. Now it is just about right for me.

But that's me. Your mileage may vary.

After getting a sample copy (no, not because of my illustrious career as Amazon reviewer--as if), I have plans to subscribe for a year or three. The articles are relevant, meaningful and well-written, and what more can one ask for? I sometimes wonder if being subscribed to two science magazines is overkill, but nah... what with all the new discoveries shaping our world, it is a good idea to keep abreast of every little thing happening in Vulcan's Lab.

Scientific American is more, well, scientific than Discovery which tends more towards popular subjects such as Darwinism, under attack by a minority in the U.S. political sphere, but largely unquestioned in the scientific community. While I support Discovery's positions, they are preaching to the choir as far as I am concerned, and I do not need persuading as to the relevancy, veracity and applicability of Darwin's theories and the theories of scientists who have built even larger and more fascinating structures based upon Darwin.

So if you're looking for Science Lite, go with Discover, but if you're a serious amateur scientist who already knows all the basics, go with Scientific American, or if you're like me and just can't get enough, go with BOTH, because both are REALLY good.

Many readers complain that 'Scientific American' has fallen from its former glory, and that the articles are not written with the depth and expertise they once were. I cannot really comment on this as I was never a close reader of it.
What I can say is that as a general reader 'Scientific American' through the years has informed me about many of the latest developments in various areas of science. It has also provided a vocabulary in understanding certain scientific concepts. I have learned often from 'Scientific American' what major experts say about subjects which are of great interest to me such as development of artificial intelligence, human evolution, the search for extraterrestial life, cosmology, and much else.
I always find the articles very clearly written and understandable.
I learn from it and enjoy it, and on this basis highly recommend it to others.

Simply stated,if you want a politically correct magazine that panders to the socialistic academic minority, buy the mag. I'll pass and go online to the authors ignored and enjoy reading about the real new horizons.

I used to pore over this magazine religiously, cover to cover, every month back in the mid to late 90's. I found that it gave me a great deal of understanding about fields of study outside my own. Indeed, I found myself one of the most broadly informed of the professional scientists whose company I enjoyed. Then the magazine "changed the format".

They did away with some of the more challenging and useful columns and drained some of the depth out of the articles. However the graphics, which were good to begin with, became truly dazzling illustrations that alone made the magazine worth reading, and still do. I have never seen better representations of some scientific concepts that are very difficult to illustrate. And the articles still constituted a decent general overview of the sciences. Then, a couple of years later, they "changed the format" again.

Well... the illustrations can still be quite amazing. However the articles are little more than what you will find in the science column of a newspaper. The magazine no longer provides a source for the eager and interested layman to truly keep abreast of the cutting edge issues and ideas in the sciences. While the fields covered are still the same, the writing is geared to a much more casual reader than the issues of eight to ten years ago. If that's what you're looking for, this may be a good choice but it's reached the point where I don't bother with this magazine anymore; rarely is the the general knowledge I pick up from other sources augmented by anything in SA. I would recommend others consider this before subscribing.

I suppose these changes must make sense from a business point of view, yet it's sad that the unique niche once dominated by this iconic publication has been abandoned in favor of what I suppose is a reach for a larger (though certainly more competitive) market. I haven't really found any source that approaches what Scientific American used to be, and that most certainly includes the present version of the magazine. Still, if judged by the standards set by its current competitors it is an okay-to-middling science magazine and I give it an extra star for the terrific pictures.

Scientific American is still am excellent magazine even if the title is becoming increasingly ironic in an age when any attempt to stem the tsunami of radical right wing propaganda is labeled "liberal agenda". One obvious example; a previous reviewer called evolution an "ism". Pointing out the basic scientifc fact of evolution in a science magazine no more constitutes evidince of a liberal agenda than would mentioning that the earth is a ball. Millions of easily lead illeducated people believing in a flat earth does not make it true.

I've read this magazine since I was 18, when I decided I wanted to be better read in the sciences. I must have struggled hundreds of times to get through some of the articles. In doing so, however, I found myself taking interest in a very wide range of subjects, from anthropology to astrophysics, over the course of my lifetime. While I feel that the magazine has gotten a little less "professional," I'm not certain if that's a change in data presentation or a change in writing style. Writing for the sciences has become a literary form these days taught in colleges as part of their comp corriculum, and many scientists since the 70's have come to prefer a more conversational approach to writing that non-professionals appreciate and comprehend. Even the journal Nature tries to encourage a more readable style from its contributors. Their aim is to make findings in all fields of science more accessible for those not necessarily practicing in the particular field of the author. The intention is to encourage a cross fertilization of ideas from one field to another, and Scientific American was one of the pioneers in that process. The magazine is still about current science, and the articles are still submitted by the scientists themselves; there is no science journalist interpreting results for the unitiated or quoting from an interview. I'm still impressed to find that books I'm reading now for the lay public, especially in anthropology and geology, are just beginning to incorporate information that Scientific American had already discussed 3-5 years previously.

My college freshman physiololgy teacher turned me on to this magazine.

They had presented a new and scientifically supported theory on arteriosclerosis and other causes of 'plaque' buildup, showing that it is not mostly a 'fat buildup' in the arteries, but an inflammatory immune response. This issue was in 1997... my wife, who is is nurse practitioner school didn't initially beleive it, until she was taught the same theory (recently) by her pathophysiology proffessor! Amazing, it took almost 8 years to reach the classrooms.

I got a subscription, but have cancelled... it does seem that it has been 'dummed' down a bit. Its moving more toward the lay public audience as its focus for readers, and from the looks of it, as writers too.

Its still a good quick read to see what's new on the horizon, especially if you don't want all of the scientific jargon, stats and other supportive information.

Its much easer to read than Science, geared specifically toward scientists, but it is loosing some of its former scientific edge in keeping scientific writers and topics ( keep the politics out please ).

This would be a good magazine for high-school science fans, or the lay public, but it is quickly losing is college level academic appeal.

This magazine gives me information that is not usually available anywhere else. For instance, there was an article about "mad cow" disease being found in the Northeast woods from deer feces. After I read it, realized the news we get about mad cow disease may be lacking this knowledge and we better find out before it spreads. I like to read about "dark matter" in the universe and about gravity.Perhaps if more of us would read this magazine, we could come up with some answers to fix our major problems, like global warming.All of us don't go out to the ballgame. Some people like to feed their minds knowledge in order to solve problems.

Not what it used to be. Since the 80's changes in the magazine occurred that caused it to be "dumbed down" perhaps in a misguided attempt to appeal to a larger readership. Some of the articles are still good but the magazine just does not have the quality it once had.

I enjoy reading as widely as I possibly can. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN by subscription is available at such a low cost that a general reader who knows just how good this publication is, can indulge in this magazine for a fraction of the cost at the news-stand.
All of the articles are detailed and substantial without being puerile. In fact, they provide an excellent source of understanding, and they can be collected, simply because very little of this dates in any real sense. The information may be superceded, but it allows a great view of the state of any particular Science topic, and doubles as both a topical magazine with up to date material, and an excellent reference magazine that you can keep for an indefinite period of time.
Highly recommended for the educated Lay-person who enjoys such authors as Stephen Jay Gould, et al.

This magazine brings the reader high quality articles in science and technology. A good science education is needed to be able to read and understand the articles. The articles are not dumbed down for a more general reader. Hence, the articles are very interesting to the more knowledgeable reader. This is the best broad-based science and technology magazine and has been for many years.

This is a magazine that is well respected for its high quality articles that cover current science and technology. Given the popular media's trend to sensationalize the news it is a breath of fresh air. Scientific American articles are usually written in such a way that people with only a very basic background in science can understand them. Articles are often written by leaders in the field being discussed. Although it was started in 1845 I have only been reading Scientific American for about 50 years. It has added greatly to my education in science and technology, moreover it has been a joy to read.

I must agree with an earlier review ("How the mighty have fallen"). I began subscribing to SciAm in 1976. Back then, each issue was eagerly anticipated and then savored for the month until the next issue. Now, I rarely make it through a single article. SciAm is a watered-down shadow of its former self. Other science magazines have undergone makeovers without reducing quality (e.g. Sky & Telescope). SciAm needs to return to its original mission--providing in-depth, insightful, well-written articles for scientifically literate readers that are pitched between the level of professional journals and pop journalism.

This is my 6th year of subscription to SA, and I've come to look forward to it every month. I also read Nature and Science News in my office, and subscribe to Physics Today, though SA is the only one I regularly read cover-to-cover.

In the past I've been given subscriptions to Discover and Popular Science. However, I would recommend SA to anyone who understands general science at a college freshman level, or who really paid attention in science class in high school. To other science enthusiasts I would recommend a somewhat lighter publication like Discover.

The articles are informative popularizations, written in an accessible way by researchers in a wide spectrum of fields (from archaeology to physics). There is usually enough background information to jump in and understand the idea behind their current research. I also look forward to the regular columns, such as the Skeptic column by Michael Shermer.

The subscription opportunity sent by Scientific American offered a free review of the first magazine. Since the publication that I received did not meet my expectations, I cancelled the subscription in a timely manner. Subsequently, the publisher sent my name to a collection agency to pursue the subscription fee for the outstanding magazines that I did not receive and, as you can guess, I do not want.

I hate that this SCIENCE mag is often political and it's not really written for human interest, I prefer DISCOVER.

Scientific American is a good magazine for those who enjoy reading about modern science, advancement in technology and medicine, economic improvements, and anything else of a scientific nature. Each issue is about 130 pages in length and can be counted on to stimulate your intellectual curiosity.

One thing that makes Scientific American more appealing than other science magazines is the fact that it includes articles on more than just the physical sciences, like physics, chemistry, geology, etc. It also contains timely and informative articles on social sciences, like economics and politics. This adds a lot to the magazine's appeal, and it's one of the main reasons why I choose to read it each month.

One thing that might bother some potential readers of this magazine is that Scientific American does tend to present a mostly pro- government angle on the social and human interest stories that it presents. In almost every instance, the writers of Scientific American draw the immediate conclusion that only the government can possibly solve the pressing issues of the day. They don't even give much consideration to anything else. They immediately concede most any problem to the authority of the state.

In spite of the "liberal" leanings, however, I feel that Scientific American is still a very good publication to read. It includes puzzles that test your knowledge of science, book reviews on recent scientific book releases, and some good, well- written articles about science and how it relates to our day- to- day life. It's a good magazine for those who like to stay informed.

Twenty years ago, a Scientific American cover consisted of the magazine's title, date, and an illustration or photo connected to one of the articles..., they were often astoundingly beautiful. Now the cover is bloated with sensational copy that seems aimed at pushing sales. Topic choice seems to be driven more by marketing concerns as well. I still read it, but...,

If I could only subscribe to one magazine in the entire world, Scientific American would be it. In-depth, wide ranging, and smart, SA doesn't dumb down their articles like Discover or especially Popular Science. Unlike some news sources, Scientific American really does provide a "fair and balanced" view of scientific research even if those conclusions aren't necessarily congruous with a reader's opinion. As a longtime subscriber, it comes highly recommended. And it has a good sense of humor, too.