From the Editor: Let’s get uncomfortable

We have been able to obtain several very nice articles for this issue. Lieber and Press have submitted a fascinating article on the current challenges in nuclear deterrence. I have been happy to make an exception of our usual length guidelines for this article: it is worth reading every word. Alvin Saperstein gives us some deep insight on the difference between “is” and “does”, which is so often forgotten in academia. Anybody who has thought about this question will love it. We have also a follow up on our special issue (October 2017) on M. Curie: an article by a member of our own board of Editors, Maury Goodman, edited in a special way by Laura Berzak Hopkins. We have also our usual two book reviews. No letters to the editor this time: the previous issue did not contain anything controversial after all.

Tabitha Colter, our recently appointed Media Editor, will really ramp up our Newsletter’s media presence starting with this issue.

We need contributions: we accept articles on any relevant topic, and do not shy away from controversy. This time I have a suggestion: we need articles that will get the readership thinking and make some of them uncomfortable. Take superstition for example. We all love to think that it is confined to uneducated people but it is thriving at universities. Look at the website https://www.csh.umn.edu/ at my own institution. Do you think our silence, as scientists, on such matters diminishes our credibility? I think so. Or take Darwinism: we love to pretend that only nuts do not believe in Darwin’s theories. Please go to Chapters XI and XII (I bet you never got that far, did you?) of “On the origin of the species” and you will see many things that would not be too popular among the educated green set. There are many other examples. Please pick your favorite and write an article or persuade a friend to write one.

Oriol

Oriol T. Valls
University of Minnesota
otvalls@umn.edu

These contributions have not been peer-refereed. They represent solely the view(s) of the author(s) and not necessarily the view of APS.