Essays from the Editors
Camaraderie and commitment: 1995-98 
Richard Gallagher, current editor of The Scientist, reflects on how far we've come and where we're headed in the years ahead.
Barbara Spector, editor of The Scientist from 1995 to 1998, recalls a period of excitement and transition. Read her essay now. Read her essay now.
Tabitha Powledge, who served as The Scientist's first editor, reflects on the publication's beginnings in Washington, DC, and its reception by the scientific and publishing communities.
|
by The Staff of the Scientist
By the time The Scientist was born on October 20, 1986, weighing in at 32 broadsheet pages, it had been gestating in Eugene Garfield's brain for about 25 years. "At this time there exists no single publication that systematically reports the ‘news' of interest to the scientific community," Garfield, who remains our president, founding editor, and inspiration, wrote several months before the magazine's launch. "As I see it, there is a need for a publication that supplies news about the economics and financing of science, as well as science policy, regulatory issues, and the ethical debates of science."
And so The Scientist was born. Its first editor was Tabitha Powledge, who recalls that at least one person called her crazy for starting a science magazine. She corrected all such doubters by saying her Washington, DC-based staff was starting a trade magazine for scientists, but no one seemed to know what that meant. Read her recollections here.
Despite the naysayers, the magazine flourished – informing readers, breaking news, and stimulating debate. It was a pioneer on the Web, going online in 1996 when Barbara Spector was editor. Another highlight of Spector's tenure, she recalls, was syndicated columnist Jack Anderson's citation of a story on radiation poisoning in medical labs. Read the rest of Spector's recollections here.
The magazine continued to grow and change, but remained true to its original mission: "The Scientist's subject matter will range, therefore, from political questions of science policy to financial topics affecting the economics of science, from the tough moral conundrums of scientific ethics to the frank pragmatism of "how-to" articles," Garfield wrote in his first editorial.
Sounds an awful lot like The Scientist of today, as you'll see in editor Richard Gallagher's comments.
We hope you'll pardon us – and join us – for this walk down Nostalgia Lane. And more importantly, that you'll stay with us for the next 20 years. |