- Email: [email protected]
Journey through time
50 YEARS OF NEW SCIENTIST
Journey through time In 1956 an astute publisher called Maxwell Raison realised there was a thirst among ordinary people to know more about science and technology. The result was New Scientist THE past, it is said, is another country. Look back at the first issues of The New Scientist and this sentiment is wholly believable. They certainly did things differently in 1956: oral contraceptives did not exist, electronic gadgets were packed with valves, not transistors, nobody was sure if genes would be found in DNA and cavity-wall insulation had yet to be invented. You will find a virtual tour of this and other countries in this special supplement, with the 1950s beginning on page 2, 1960s on page 10, 1970s on page 18, 1980s on page 22, 1990s on page 26, and 2000s on page 30. On the principle that more distant countries are more exotic and so more intriguing, we linger longer on the 1950s and 1960s than on more recent times. This collection charts some astonishing scientific and technological changes, but it is not intended to be a definitive history. The articles are snapshots, frozen in time. The story about deciphering the genetic code (page 12) marks the discovery as important, but like the scientists who conducted the work it can only grapple for understanding. Hindsight gives us a much better idea of its significance. The report of the Chernobyl disaster (page 25) was written as the reactor burned and so was in no position to foresee the farreaching impact the accident would have on nuclear power. Nor is this a complete history. A number of gaps have arisen because some seminal advances are only recognised as such after many years. Also, New Scientist (the title lost its definite article in 1961) reported some stories in ways that do not travel well through time. Its main coverage of the moon landings, for example, consisted of a guide to Apollo 11’s mission in the week before Neil Armstrong took his small step. The reports in following
weeks were rather curmudgeonly, focusing on the hyperbole of television presenters and the low profile of science during the spectacle. Seen through New Scientist’s eyes, the world had its humorous side too. From the start, the magazine gave space to entertaining advances, regardless of whether they would turn out to be feasible or practical. Yet how much duller it would be never to have heard about the circular runway, underground trains that split down the middle and roads that run across the roofs of houses. The reporting does reveal changing attitudes through time. In 1956, science and technology were seen as unalloyed forces for good. This optimism applied especially to nuclear power: soon we
Another country – but even after half a century not a completely alien one
would fly in atomic aircraft, wear nuclear-powered watches and clean cloth by spraying it with radiation. It was not long, however, before that enthusiasm was dented, when in 1957 a reactor went up in flames at Windscale (now Sellafield) in England (page 9). When Sputnik reached orbit, scientists were delighted that their hypotheses of how a spacecraft should behave were correct. It seems strange today that something as routine as the trajectory of a rocket was a matter of debate. The cold war underlies many stories, such as America’s decision not to use atomic bombs to dig a new Panama canal for fear of disrupting arms talks (page 16). Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight receives only grudging compliments from the US (page 10). Thanks are due to those who helped put these articles together. Firstly, to those reporters, often unnamed, whose skill created such a superb archive of ideas. Also, to the many New Scientist staff who flicked through a year’s worth or more of yellowing pages to pick out the stories they found most revealing. Special thanks go to Ben Crystall, Richard Fisher, Melanie Green, Lucy Middleton, Justin Mullins and Mick O’Hare for refining those lists. This is only a tiny fraction of New Scientist articles from the past halfcentury. Hundreds of parallel histories could have been constructed just as easily. Sadly, there is no room here for discussions of race and intelligence or the treatment of scientists in the Soviet Union when Lysenkoism ruled the roost, or for the smoke blown by the tobacco industry to confuse findings that cigarettes were dangerous. Some of these issues can be found now at newscientist.com/classic-articles. Better still, when the full 50 years is available on our web archive everyone will be able to find their own routes through the country of their choosing.
www.newscientist.com/classic-articles www.newscientist.com
061118_Arch_Intro.indd 1
Fifty years of New Scientist | 1
8/11/06 5:12:57 pm
Journey through time In 1956 an astute publisher called Maxwell Raison realised there was a thirst among ordinary people to know more about science and technology. The result was New Scientist THE past, it is said, is another country. Look back at the first issues of The New Scientist and this sentiment is wholly believable. They certainly did things differently in 1956: oral contraceptives did not exist, electronic gadgets were packed with valves, not transistors, nobody was sure if genes would be found in DNA and cavity-wall insulation had yet to be invented. You will find a virtual tour of this and other countries in this special supplement, with the 1950s beginning on page 2, 1960s on page 10, 1970s on page 18, 1980s on page 22, 1990s on page 26, and 2000s on page 30. On the principle that more distant countries are more exotic and so more intriguing, we linger longer on the 1950s and 1960s than on more recent times. This collection charts some astonishing scientific and technological changes, but it is not intended to be a definitive history. The articles are snapshots, frozen in time. The story about deciphering the genetic code (page 12) marks the discovery as important, but like the scientists who conducted the work it can only grapple for understanding. Hindsight gives us a much better idea of its significance. The report of the Chernobyl disaster (page 25) was written as the reactor burned and so was in no position to foresee the farreaching impact the accident would have on nuclear power. Nor is this a complete history. A number of gaps have arisen because some seminal advances are only recognised as such after many years. Also, New Scientist (the title lost its definite article in 1961) reported some stories in ways that do not travel well through time. Its main coverage of the moon landings, for example, consisted of a guide to Apollo 11’s mission in the week before Neil Armstrong took his small step. The reports in following
weeks were rather curmudgeonly, focusing on the hyperbole of television presenters and the low profile of science during the spectacle. Seen through New Scientist’s eyes, the world had its humorous side too. From the start, the magazine gave space to entertaining advances, regardless of whether they would turn out to be feasible or practical. Yet how much duller it would be never to have heard about the circular runway, underground trains that split down the middle and roads that run across the roofs of houses. The reporting does reveal changing attitudes through time. In 1956, science and technology were seen as unalloyed forces for good. This optimism applied especially to nuclear power: soon we
Another country – but even after half a century not a completely alien one
would fly in atomic aircraft, wear nuclear-powered watches and clean cloth by spraying it with radiation. It was not long, however, before that enthusiasm was dented, when in 1957 a reactor went up in flames at Windscale (now Sellafield) in England (page 9). When Sputnik reached orbit, scientists were delighted that their hypotheses of how a spacecraft should behave were correct. It seems strange today that something as routine as the trajectory of a rocket was a matter of debate. The cold war underlies many stories, such as America’s decision not to use atomic bombs to dig a new Panama canal for fear of disrupting arms talks (page 16). Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight receives only grudging compliments from the US (page 10). Thanks are due to those who helped put these articles together. Firstly, to those reporters, often unnamed, whose skill created such a superb archive of ideas. Also, to the many New Scientist staff who flicked through a year’s worth or more of yellowing pages to pick out the stories they found most revealing. Special thanks go to Ben Crystall, Richard Fisher, Melanie Green, Lucy Middleton, Justin Mullins and Mick O’Hare for refining those lists. This is only a tiny fraction of New Scientist articles from the past halfcentury. Hundreds of parallel histories could have been constructed just as easily. Sadly, there is no room here for discussions of race and intelligence or the treatment of scientists in the Soviet Union when Lysenkoism ruled the roost, or for the smoke blown by the tobacco industry to confuse findings that cigarettes were dangerous. Some of these issues can be found now at newscientist.com/classic-articles. Better still, when the full 50 years is available on our web archive everyone will be able to find their own routes through the country of their choosing.
www.newscientist.com/classic-articles www.newscientist.com
061118_Arch_Intro.indd 1
Fifty years of New Scientist | 1
8/11/06 5:12:57 pm