Nautilus, a new science magazine whose first issue appeared online April 29, has New York Times reporter Dennis Overbye, one of the beat’s veterans, feeling a bit a nostalgic. In a review on Monday, he wrote:
Many science writers at The New York Times, including me, hatched their careers working at a wave of glossy monthly science magazines that were started in the late 1970s and early ’80s, fueled by the belief that curiosity about the universe was not only part of the good life but a necessity in a democratic society facing decisions about nuclear energy, medicine, the space program and the arms race.
The Times started its science section in 1978. A year later the same folks who publish Penthouse brought forth Omni, a mix of science and speculation. In rapid succession the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the journal Science, started Science79; Time Inc. started Discover; and Science Digest expanded to a full-size glossy magazine. The New York Academy of Sciences published The Sciences.
This profusion led to a hiring frenzy for science journalists, who, for a golden while anyway, had a blast producing magazines on scales of time and money that seem unworldly today.
A decade later most were gone or struggling for lack of advertising, despite circulations in the range of half a million and despite the growing importance of science in an age of climate change, energy crises and AIDS. The lone survivor of that golden era, Discover, has been sold four times. A more recent arrival, Seed, noted for its edginess, exists only online.
The audience has fragmented among stalwarts like National Geographic and Scientific American; blogs; and new-media adventures like the TED talks, the World Science Festival and Edge.org, the online salon, and Simons Science News, a new effort by the mathematician and philanthropist James H. Simons.
It’s easy to sympathize with Overbye. Since the number of science writers and newspaper science sections began to plummet at the end of the ’80s, there has been a sense among the concerned that there is a crisis in science journalism. Thanks to new online ventures like Nautilus, however, that feeling has begun to dissipate.
In fact, some of the blogs that are driving the renaissance in science writing have been around for a decade, and critics have long recognized their role in the revival. As recently as 2009, many experts in the field were only guardedly optimistic about the degree to which such efforts could or would compensate for the cutbacks happening in legacy media, but a lot has changed since then.
Blogs have “won a place at the table,” even in breaking-news situations, and magazines like National Geographic, Discover, Wired, and Scientific American have redoubled their efforts to adapt to the digital age, building outstanding science-blogging communities in the process. Old-timers like The New Yorker and newcomers like The Verge recently launched new science verticals on their websites. Academic magazines like Ensia, which focuses on the environment, are making a play for wider appeal online. NGO-sponosred magazines like the Natural Resources Defense Council’s OnEarth are showing their journalistic chops. And Web-native outlets like InsideClimate News are winning Pulitzers.
Is it too soon to say that the “golden era” of science writing that Overbye misses so much has returned? Perhaps. But the fragmentation of the current media ecosystem that Overbye seemed to worry about is likely a red herring. It’s easier than ever to stumble upon great coverage from a wider variety of sources than ever, and it’s all there at the touch of a button.
Still, Nautilus could mark a new high in science writing’s comeback in the sense that it’s the first outlet dedicated only to science to come out in a while, and it even plans to launch a quarterly print issue. Overbye got his hands on a sample copy and says: “Its 44 thick, color pages have the luxurious productions values of a corporate report.”