New Scientist

{{media}}{{DISPLAYTITLE:''New Scientist''}}
{{cquote|Our [[philosophy]] at ''New Scientist'' is this: [[science]] is interesting — and if you don't agree, you can fuck off.|||[[Richard Dawkins]]' thug life<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=70TBBiUXPsM#t=33</ref>}}
'''''New Scientist''''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[popular science]] magazine based in [[London]] and  published weekly.  It features new developments in pure and applied science as well as technology.  The magazine covers a wide range of scientific work ranging from speculative material to hard science.  Both scientists and lay readers value ''New Scientist'', as do news reporters who frequently base newspaper articles on material originally published in the magazine.  There are also editions in [[Australia]] and the [[United States]].

==Professor Lenski==
The ''New Scientist'' article on Professor [[Richard Lenski]]'s ''E. coli'' experiment<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.htm "Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab"], ''New Scientist''.</ref>  launched the "[[Lenski affair]]", accelerating him to 15 minutes of [[internet]] fame and an email exchange described as "All time classic creationist pwnage".<ref>[http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time-classic-creationist-pwnage/ Bad Science - All time classic creationist pwnage]</ref>

=="Darwin Was Wrong"==
''New Scientist'' is ''not'' a [[scientific journal]]. Although its articles are usually well-written and report quite respectable science, it does have a bad habit of [[Science woo|sensationalizing]] things a little. Often trivial things will be [[Quote mining|quote mined]] to produce a fancy cover and headline, the most controversial being the "Darwin Was Wrong" cover.<ref>http://www.texscience.org/reports/NewScientistDarwinCover.jpg</ref> This was criticised by many evolutionary scientists in the blogosphere as being potentially misrepresenting scientific discovery.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/new_scientist_says_darwin_was.php Darwin was wrong?], [[Pharyngula]]</ref>

In fact the article revealed nothing of the kind,<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html Darwin Was Wrong], New Scientist</ref> and the supposed breakthrough on the cover was actually a fairly minor point in regards to changing the [[Theory|theories]] of [[natural selection]] — specifically the "tree of life," used by Darwin in developing his theory but now mostly rejected.

Why would any self-respecting magazine do this sort of thing? Firstly, sensationalism sells and most of the [[media]] openly admits it.<ref>[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/the-new-scientist-has-no-shame-again/ New Scientist has no shame again], ''[[Jerry Coyne|Why Evolution is True]]''</ref> Like any other magazine, ''New Scientist'' relies on selling copies in order to remain a profitable business. Secondly, writers ''never'' get the chance to write their own headlines; there are specialist staff writers and sub editors for that. Any evolutionary biologist writing for ''New Scientist'' would have known that the headline was misleading, and would provoke a backlash from those on the front line of the [[origins debate]], but the headline writers may not have cared.

==See also==
*''[[Scientific American]]''

==External links==
*[http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns ''New Scientist'' website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:British media]]
[[Category:Journalism]]
[[Category:Magazines]]
[[Category:Popular science]]

Categories: British media, Journalism, Magazines, Popular science