I grew-up reading Scientific American. My father brought the magazines home from work and gave them to my brother and me. In those days, Scientific American tended to be technical in nature, often assuming the reader had a basic understanding of chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, etc. I particularly liked stories about astronomy and space travel.

The other day I picked up a recent issue of Scientific American from the used book bin at Hannaford. The stories looked interesting, particularly the one about Perseverance, NASA’s rover, which is still exploring the surface of Mars. I was surprised that the thrust of the story was that President Trump is a big meany (my words) because he has cancelled the Mars Sample Return program (MSR program). The program was conceived more than twenty years ago with the following concept: a space craft would land on Mars, load up on rock samples, blast-off, and deliver the samples to scientists back here on Earth. These Martian rocks would be studied and tested with the hope of revealing the history of the Red Planet. And now, because of Trump, we may never know if there was ever life on Mars.

To be fair, the story did include some “science” mixed in with the political smearing. And it was a smear job because, not only did Trump not cancel the MSR program, the program was “paused” for lack of congressional funding in November of 2023, before Trump took office for his second term!

Another story is about plastic. (I’m guessing you know where this is going.) From a science perspective, plastics were one of the GREATEST INVENTIONS of all time. When I was a kid, plastic was synonymous with “junk”. Soda, beer, and milk still came in HEAVY glass bottles. Cars were made of steel and ran on tires made of rubber. Water flowed through pipes made of copper or lead. There was no such thing as “Styrofoam” or “Formica”! Bags were made of paper. But, over time, modern plastics changed the world. Today, products made from specialized plastics are lighter and stronger than steel. Plastic doesn’t rust and it is ductile (the opposite of glass which is brittle). But the story in Scientific American hardly mentions these benefits. The thrust was plastic is bad. It takes up space in landfills and pollutes the ocean. Etcetera.

There is some “science” in the story e.g. explaining why plastic is difficult to recycle. But the story lacks an honest cradle to grave cost benefit analysis of products made of plastics vs the same product made of legacy materials like glass and steel. For example, today’s cars are lighter, safer, and more durable because many components are made of plastic instead of steel. One of the reasons new cars get better gas mileage is they are lighter!

These two stories have an important commonality: the author’s background. Jonathan O’Callaghan wrote the Mars story. His education included science studies at The University of Birmingham. But O’Callaghan, who lives in Bangkok, is a writer, not a scientist. Beth Gardiner wrote the story about plastic. She has a degree in political science. Gardiner frequently writes stories that are critical of “Big Oil”. In essence, both stories are opinion pieces. There is nothing wrong with espousing your opinion. (You are reading mine!) But when stories like these appear in (what once were) prestigious journals, it gives the reader the impression the story is peer reviewed fact vs personal opinion. Yes, Trust the Science. But beware of opinions masquerading as science.