-
Contents
- Sweet Confusion: Does high fructose corn syrup deserve such a bad rap?
- Closed Thinking: Without scientific competition and open debate, much psychology research goes nowhere
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Teens take home science gold: A low-cost, self-driving vehicle; battery alternatives and analyses of galaxy clusters claim top prizes at a global high school science competition
- Flagging loose bolts: “Smart alert washer” automatically flags when a nut is coming loose, warning of potential danger
- Pee is for power: The water in urine can be a source of hydrogen for electrical generators
Web edition: April 20, 2012
Print edition: May 5, 2012; Vol.181 #9 (p. 35)
Happy 90th, Science News
My father has generously given a subscription of Science News to me since I was small. In the ’60s I received a package in the mail each month containing science experiment materials and directions. So cool! We celebrated Dad’s 90th birthday in April. He was an aeronautic engineer; I’m an architect. I am sure the magazine you deliver to us each month gives us the same joy. Thank you for making Science News a joy for so many of us for so many decades.
Becky Thompson, South Pasadena, Calif.
I’ll add to what has probably been a flood of congratulations for 90 years of comprehensive coverage of all things science. I am 56 years old and a third-generation subscriber. If your records go back that far, my grandfather, Dr. Charles Wright MacMillan, was a devoted reader probably in the ’20s, as was my mother from the time she was a child. My parents have been providing gift subscriptions to me and my siblings our entire adult lives, and I intend to continue that tradition for my grown children. Not sure if we win the prize for longest family subscription, but I do know that Science News has had a profound influence on our lives, inspiring curiosity and instilling great respect for the timeless pursuit of new discoveries.
It was a thrill to see that Janet Raloff got the plum assignment of combing through the archives. I’ve been a huge fan of Janet’s writing for many years, and could recognize her clever, articulate style without looking at the byline.
Jack Connell, Raleigh, N.C.
Regarding the article “Cancer drug shows promise as treatment for Alzheimer’s” (SN: 3/10/12, p. 5): Tom Siegfried (in his editorial from the same issue) talks about undue hype of breakthrough cures. Turning the page, I find two photos showing the great improvement that this wonder drug can do. Then, reading the caption I see that the second photo is “the brain of a similar mouse after three days of bexarotene treatment.” These photos are unrelated! You are hyping a “soon to be” miracle drug for Alzheimer’s with photos of two different mice.
Bob Clauson, via e-mail The images in the story are indeed from different mice, but they illustrate a valid way to show that bexarotene reduced brain plaques. To spot A-beta plaques, brain tissue had to be removed from the skull, so multiple tests on the same animal were impossible. The scientists selected representative images from each group of animals (usually six or more) and combined data from individual mice to spot trends. — Laura Sanders
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.