Scientific American Sold as Publisher Divests Itself of the Bud Light of Science Journals
Hopefully, the new owners will reboot the publication’s priorities. Otherwise, they will find it harder to rebrand the product than Bud Light.
I have been following the antics of Scientific American, the Bud Light of science journals, for quite some time now.
The low-lights from the magazine’s stack of articles include:
- Scientific American colluding with other media to normalize “climate emergency” terminology, despite vast swaths of scientific evidence showing the Earth’s climate has continuously changed over 4 billion years.
- The magazine pushing “birth parent” terminology, which is utter nonsense in the face of real biology.
- The magazine offering a ridiculous take on football injuries…tying them to racism.
- Endorsing Kamala Harris for President.
Now comes news that Springer Nature, the publisher, announced it is divesting both of its flagship consumer science magazines, Scientific American and Spektrum der Wissenschaft (Spectrum of Science) in Germany. The company says that the sales are part of a strategic pivot to concentrate exclusively on its core academic, health, and education publishing business.
The publisher says the move forms part of a strategic decision to focus on its core global publishing activities across research, health and education, while supporting the long-term development of the two consumer-facing brands.
According to Springer Nature, both titles are being acquired by new owners with significant consumer media expertise and the capacity to support their future growth.
Frank Vrancken Peeters, Chief Executive Officer of Springer Nature, said: “Scientific American and Spektrum der Wissenschaft are respected and loved science media brands with a long and valued history, and we are grateful to the teams who have built and sustained them. We have taken the time to ensure these strong brands find the right homes – organisations with the consumer media expertise and ambition to invest in their future.”
Springer Nature said it is working with both buyers to ensure continuity of publication throughout the transition process. Scientific American is to be acquired by LabX Media Group, a global science-focused media company; the transaction will complete on 24 June 2026.
“Concentrating on its core business” is essential marketing-speak for “spending more time with the family”. Springer Nature indicates the transactions will not affect its 2026 financial guidance, and it is likely to be modestly more profitable without them in future years.
Financial terms of the deals have not been disclosed. Together, the two publications contributed approximately €25 million to Springer Nature’s group revenues in 2025. The company stated that the transactions will not affect its 2026 financial guidance and are expected to be slightly accretive to adjusted operating profit in 2027.
Interestingly, Scientific American staff was informed of the sale in an all-staff meeting shortly before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was scheduled to count votes on a union election that workers said they had already won by an overwhelming majority.
The staff had unionized with the Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) in April 2026, with an approximately 40-member bargaining unit citing concerns about compensation, workload, job security, and editorial independence. As part of the sale transition, LabX Media Group announced it would lay off 15 employees, including 11 union members, which is about one-third of the bargaining unit and 60% of the organizing committee.
The union issued a sharply worded statement calling the layoffs “blatant union-busting“.
We should call this action what it is – blatant union-busting. But there’s worse: we also have reason to believe that the sale was motivated by fear within Springer Nature that our attempts to doggedly report on the crisis facing science in America today would lead to repercussions from the Trump administration. On multiple occasions the company has sought to quash or tone down political or sensitive stories that were journalistically sound.
We are calling on our new owners to immediately recognize our unit and meet us at the bargaining table to work together to steer a sustainable future of Scientific American–including, but going far beyond, a commitment to respecting our editorial independence. We have already developed a number of proposals for making our journalism more profitable that we look forward to discussing in these negotiations.
The decline of Scientific American in both respect and profits offers a cautionary tale: when a once-venerable science publication abandons rigorous, evidence-based journalism in favor of ideological advocacy by endorsing political candidates, adopting contested social terminology, and framing sports injuries through a racial lens, it erodes the very credibility that made it indispensable to its readers.
Had the magazine’s leadership chosen to trust its audience’s intelligence and doubled down on accessible, accurate science coverage rooted in empirical reality, it would have retained the broad American readership that sustained it for nearly 180 years, rather than shrinking into a niche ideological outlet.
The sale to LabX Media Group may yet represent a second chance, but only if new ownership recognizes that scientific literacy and editorial integrity are the foundation on which a sustainable, respected science publication must be built. Based on the union drama, I fear it will be a significant challenge.
If the new owners don’t reset the publication’s priorities, they will find it harder to rebrand the product than Bud Light did.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’ve never been able to understand a single article in Scientific American. The illustrators and the authors have no common ground. That was before wokeness even.
Back in the 70s SciAm was a worthwhile read. I had a subscription. (Also had subs to Natural History and Smithsonian mags.) During the Reagan administration it ran some obviously (to my eye) slanted articles about nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons, and arms control. It wasn’t long after that I allowed my sub to expire, as the direction further issues were taking became bleedingly obvious, to the point at which an article’s slant and use of appropriate lingo (as today we predict the use of “woke” language from certain outlets) could be predicted by the subject matter. For decades now the only issues that have been of any value are the single-subject special issues dealing with non-political issues (like paleontology and astrophysics).
Lancet likewise has a lot of advocacy articles masquerading as science.
The recent article (not a study) claims 10m-14m will die from cuts to USAID by 2030. Harvard has a study dated Nov 20, 2025 claiming that 600k have already died from cuts to usaid. ( 6 months .
Yet 15-16 months there is no actual evidence.
Both studies are simply calls to restore funding. Though worth noting that actual services are less that 10% of the total budget. Far too much money gets skimmed off the top though it gets counted as program services)
The point is Scientific american, Lancet and many other science journals publish a lot of leftist advocacy junk science.
As Talarico would say, “The person with a Uterus next door
The left got hold of it.
Turned it to shit.
Deja vu.
American officer calls for Trump arrest on WH steps
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/watch-us-air-force-major-arrested-illegally-protesting/
That was interesting. I read some of the comments to the article; they had little military knowledge. He will probably be court martialed, serve some time at Leavenworth, bust back to 0-3/Captain (that is all they can do but I would love to see him busted back to E-1/Airman Basic) and given a dishonorable discharge when he leaves Leavenworth. I am sure some Leftist organization will give him a nice job. He may even be trying to set himself up to run for Congress as a member of the Democratic Socialist of America. There was too much DEI at the Air Force Academy back under The Lightbringer.
Rename the rag “Scientific Canada” please.
“Legends of Turtle Island.”
Once upon a time, SA articles were mostly written by well-established scientists, including many Nobel Prize winners: Albert Einstein: Authored pieces on his Generalized Theory of Gravitation. Marie Curie: Wrote extensively on radioactivity between 1902 and 1911. Thomas Edison: Described his invention of the phonograph in 1878.Jonas Salk: Published an article on the development of the polio vaccine in 1955. Stephen Hawking: Wrote about quantum mechanics and black holes. Carl Sagan: Co-authored a famous 1975 article with Frank Drake on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Alexander Graham Bell: Penned an article on the telephone. E.O. Wilson wrote several outstanding papers on sociobiology and other current fields.
In recent years, SA has had far fewer articles written by the actual scientists, and many more “prize-winning science journalists.” Many of these “journalists” have had much less expertise than the scientists who used to write for SA. Many of these articles also included irrelevant left-leaning social justice material. One article on E.O. Wilson, written by a non-biologist after he died and could not defend himself, trashed him as a racist.
I subscribed to SA for over 50 years. But in the last few years, the magazine has become less scientific and more political. I dropped my subscription two years ago.
Yes! In olden days SciAm articles were written by the scientists and researchers themselves, not by barely scientifically-literate “science journalists” or political operatives disguised as purveyors of “science.”
“On multiple occasions the company has sought to quash or tone down political or sensitive stories that were journalistically sound.”
“Sound” journalism is obviously different from reproducible science and logical inference.
“The Bud Light of Science Journals” — that is a marvelously and appropriately savage barb!
My father had a subscription, in the 60s. I think he would be mortified by what it turned in to.
“In recent years, SA has had far fewer articles written by the actual scientists, and many more “prize-winning science journalists.”
****
That’s when I stopped reading about 25 years ago when I noticed that the majority of articles were written by science “explainers”.
When I was a second Lieutenant pilot in the USMC, I would go to the base library and two of my favorite magazines were Scientific American and Aviation Week and Space Technology. Both were very technical but devoid of any political subject. I have stopped reading both for obvious reasons and it is a shame because both offered things most magazines never cover. As Dennis Prager said, “Everything the left touches, it ruins”.
Scientific American, which is neither.
America’s Test Kitchen provides a more worthy service than SA.