IT HAS been, as keen readers of The Economist’s science and technology coverage no doubt already know, an eventful year in matters both scientific and technological. And it is the time, as readers of just about any periodical know, to reflect on the biggest stories of the year.
But how to define that? Ask a scientist or technology expert what the most momentous events of the year were and you are bound to get a different list than the one that follows. What seems clear is that the interest of readers of The Economist is piqued not by the most newsy tales; the top ten is instead a study in revealed preferences.
There is clearly a preoccupation, for example, with intelligence. The second most-clicked story of the year tackled one of the most thorny of genetics questions: whether and how variations in intelligence can be traced back to variations in genetics. Not content with the contentiousness of that topic, readers were so interested in the differences in relative cognitive abilities of men and women, and how they can change, to bring a story on the topic to number ten.
But how to define that? Ask a scientist or technology expert what the most momentous events of the year were and you are bound to get a different list than the one that follows. What seems clear is that the interest of readers of The Economist is piqued not by the most newsy tales; the top ten is instead a study in revealed preferences.
There is clearly a preoccupation, for example, with intelligence. The second most-clicked story of the year tackled one of the most thorny of genetics questions: whether and how variations in intelligence can be traced back to variations in genetics. Not content with the contentiousness of that topic, readers were so interested in the differences in relative cognitive abilities of men and women, and how they can change, to bring a story on the topic to number ten.