First, the art. The Wellcome Trust has gone live today with the first issue of its new weekly publication, Mosaic, "dedicated to exploring the science of life."
From the About page:
Each week, we publish a feature on an aspect of biology or medicine that affects our lives, our health or our society; we tell stories with real depth about the ideas, trends and people that drive contemporary life sciences.
All Mosaic’s articles can be reproduced or distributed free of charge – in fact, we encourage you to share or republish our content. All that we ask is that you attribute the work to Mosaic and link back to our website. In turn, we will seek out and republish the most interesting comments and conversations that our features provoke.
The Wellcome Trust, based in London, is an important funder of biological research. It describes itself as "a global charitable foundation that seeks to drive extraordinary improvements in human and animal health." It says Mosaic will cover "subjects that fit with the Trust’s mission and vision, but isn’t limited to the research the Trust funds." (Coincidentally, "Mosaic" was the name of a magazine with similar intentions published in the U.S. by the National Science Foundation from 1970-1992.)
All of that sounds good. But about the art.
The lead story, by Emily Anthes, is a very nice discussion of the history, current status, and future prospects of the female condom. I was particularly interested in this story because I'd written about an early iteration of the female condom in the 1990s for the AP, and then again for Glamour. Anthes is careful to give us the case for the female condom without overselling it. Its latest versions "may finally be positioning the female condom for a breakthrough," she writes.
Mosaic banked a few stories for its debut, including stories on Alzheimer's disease, a piece on city cycling by Lesley Evans Ogden, and a conversation with Steven Pinker.
But it was the art that caught my eye. The art for Anthes's story, in particular. I tried to insert the home-page image into this post, but it kept coming up "Censored." Must be some technical glitch.
Despite that, this is an auspicious debut. I'm a little disappointed by what Mosaic is paying, which seems to be around $1 per word. That's a decent wage compared to some other online news sites, but it doesn't compete with some of the best magazines, which pay $2 to $3 per word. And Mosaic's decision to allow its articles to be reproduced means writers cannot sell them elsewhere.
And it doesn't reflect the foundation's investment portfolio of £16.4 billion, or about $27 billion. With that kind of money–orders of magnitude more than the bankrolls of most news sites–the foundation should be able to throw writers another buck or two per word.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply