The six staffers at The Sciences all got pink slips on 1 June.
The New York Academy of Sciences folded its 40-year-old, award-winning magazine because, says academy president Rodney Nichols, putting resources into other activities “will be more effective in raising the visibility and impact of the academy’s programs.”
“The Sciences was never the voice of the academy. It was a freestanding magazine for which we were the angel for many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—most of our discretionary spending went to the magazine,” says Nichols. “Even if we had considerably more money, we would be reallocating resources to what we see as our central mission.” A newsletter detailing academy affairs will be expanded, and the academy will focus on, among other things, three new interdisciplinary centers, international conferences, its book series, and its Web site, he adds.
Readers, however, have consistently rated The Sciences one of the chief benefits of academy membership. It had a circulation of 46 000.
“I have always faulted [the academy] for not marketing more,” says Hans Christian von Baeyer, a physicist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, and a contributor to The Sciences for 15 years. “Many of the scientists to whom I have shown the magazine had never heard of it before, but none failed to be bowled over.”
“There are several good popular science magazines,” von Baeyer adds. “But this one was absolutely unique and was by far the most sophisticated. It was hip. This magazine spoke to people who made great demands on literature and art. It bridged the gulf between the humanities and the sciences.”
In February, The Sciences was cut back from six to four issues a year. “We knew something was going to happen. What we didn’t know was that they were going to shut it down altogether,” says Jeffrey Winters, a senior editor at the magazine, who forwent his severance package—a week’s salary per year of service—for the freedom to talk. “In my heart, I think that the head of the academy was never a strong supporter of the magazine. If he had to make some cuts, he would prefer to cut the magazine than other projects.”
“I fought against the decision [to close The Sciences] for a year. I think it’s treacherous,” says Jacqueline Leo, who oversees online editorial operations for the media and marketing company Meredith Corp and is a member of the academy’s board of governors. “I am sympathetic to the financial situation at the academy and want to make sure it’s healthy and viable for the long run. But what would have happened if they had tested a less expensive membership fee? Would the economics have drawn a critical mass? We never tested the package.” Still, Leo voted to close the magazine rather than try to keep it on life support because, she says, a sudden, dramatic end increases the likelihood that the magazine will be rescued.
