0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views2 pages

GDP Is The Wrong Tool For Measuring What Matters - Scientific American

This document discusses how GDP is an inadequate measure of societal well-being and progress. It argues that solely focusing on GDP growth can compromise long-term economic sustainability and resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic has further illustrated some of GDP's shortcomings, as countries with higher GDP have not necessarily fared better. The document outlines international efforts to develop supplemental metrics to GDP that can better measure quality of life factors like health, sustainability, inequality, and economic security.

Uploaded by

andrew ichijo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
31 views2 pages

GDP Is The Wrong Tool For Measuring What Matters - Scientific American

This document discusses how GDP is an inadequate measure of societal well-being and progress. It argues that solely focusing on GDP growth can compromise long-term economic sustainability and resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic has further illustrated some of GDP's shortcomings, as countries with higher GDP have not necessarily fared better. The document outlines international efforts to develop supplemental metrics to GDP that can better measure quality of life factors like health, sustainability, inequality, and economic security.

Uploaded by

andrew ichijo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

GDP Is the Wrong Tool for Measuring What Matters

AUGUST 1, 2020 16 MIN READ

GDP Is the Wrong Tool for Measuring What Matters


It’s time to replace gross domestic product with real metrics of well-being and
sustainability
BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

Credit: Samantha Mash

August 2020 Issue Economics

S
ince World War II, most countries around the world have come to
use gross domestic product, or GDP, as the core metric for prosperity.
The GDP measures market output: the monetary value of all the
goods and services produced in an economy during a given period, usually a
year. Governments can fail if this number falls—and so, not surprisingly,
governments strive to make it climb. But striving to grow GDP is not the same
as ensuring the well-being of a society.

In truth, “GDP measures everything,” as Senator Robert Kennedy famously


said, “except that which makes life worthwhile.” The number does not measure
health, education, equality of opportunity, the state of the environment or
many other indicators of the quality of life. It does not even measure crucial
aspects of the economy such as its sustainability: whether or not it is headed
for a crash. What we measure matters, though, because it guides what we do.
Americans got an inkling of this causal connection during the Vietnam War,
with the military's emphasis on “body counts”: the weekly tabulation of the
number of enemy soldiers killed. Reliance on this morbid metric led U.S.
forces to undertake operations that had no purpose except to raise the body
count. Like a drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost (because that is
where the light is), the emphasis on body counts kept us from understanding
the bigger picture: the slaughter was inducing more Vietnamese people to join
the Viet Cong than U.S. forces were killing.

ADVERTISEMENT

The New Fisker Ocean


Reserve your all-electric, zero-emissions Fisker Ocean today.

Fisker Inc. Open

Now a different body count—that from COVID-19—is proving to be a


horribly good measure of societal performance. It has little correlation with
GDP. The U.S. is the richest country in the world, with a GDP of more than
$20 trillion in 2019, a figure that suggested we had a highly efficient economic
engine, a racing car that could outperform any other. But the U.S. has recorded
more than 600,000 deaths, whereas Vietnam, with a GDP of $262 billion (and
a mere 4 percent of U.S. GDP per capita), has had fewer than 500 to date. In
the race to save lives, this less prosperous country has beaten us handily.

In fact, the American economy is more like an ordinary car whose owner saved
on gas by removing the spare tire, which was fine until he got a flat. And what
I call “GDP thinking”—seeking to boost GDP in the misplaced expectation that
that alone would enhance well-being—led us to this predicament. An economy
that uses its resources more efficiently in the short term has higher GDP in
that quarter or year. Seeking to maximize that macroeconomic measure
translates, at a microeconomic level, to each business cutting costs to achieve
the highest possible short-term profits. But such a myopic focus necessarily
compromises the performance of the economy and society in the long term.

ADVERTISEMENT

The New Fisker Ocean


Reserve your all-electric, zero-emissions Fisker Ocean today.

Fisker Inc. Open

The U.S. health care sector, for example, took pride in using hospital beds
efficiently: no bed was left unused. In consequence, when SARS-CoV-2
reached America there were only 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people—far fewer
than in other advanced countries—and the system could not absorb the sudden
surge in patients. Doing without paid sick leave in meat-packing plants
increased profits in the short run, which also increased GDP. But workers
could not afford to stay home when sick; instead they came to work and spread
the infection. Similarly, China made protective masks cheaper than the U.S.
could, so importing them increased economic efficiency and GDP. That meant,
however, that when the pandemic hit and China needed far more masks than
usual, hospital staff in the U.S. could not get enough. In sum, the relentless
drive to maximize short-term GDP worsened health care, caused financial and
physical insecurity, and reduced economic sustainability and resilience, leaving
Americans more vulnerable to shocks than the citizens of other countries.

The shallowness of GDP thinking had already become evident in the 2000s. In
preceding decades, European economists, seeing the success of the U.S. in
increasing GDP, had encouraged their leaders to follow American-style
economic policies. But as signs of distress in the U.S. banking system mounted
in 2007, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy realized that any politician who
single-mindedly sought to push up GDP to the neglect of other indicators of
the quality of life risked losing the confidence of the public. In January 2008 he
asked me to chair an international commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. A panel of experts was to answer
the question: How can nations improve their metrics? Measuring that which
makes life worthwhile, Sarkozy reasoned, was an essential first step toward
enhancing it.

Related Stories

Tech Billionaires Need to Stop Trying to Make the Science Fiction They Grew
Up on Real

CHARLES STROSS

Christmas Tree Economics, Explained

JAY L. ZAGORSKY, PATRICK ABOUCHALACHE & THE CONVERSATION US

The Ivy League Gets Attention, but Public Universities Are Far More
Important

NAOMI ORESKES

Net-Zero Emissions Would Save 32,000 Lives and $1 Trillion in the U.S.
Alone

MINHO KIM & E&E NEWS

Coincidentally, our initial report in 2009, provocatively entitled Mismeasuring


Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up, was published right after the global
financial crisis had demonstrated the necessity of revisiting the core tenets of
economic orthodoxy. It met with such positive resonance that the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—a think
tank that serves 38 advanced countries—decided to follow up with an expert
group. After six years of consultation and deliberation, we reinforced and
amplified our earlier conclusion: GDP should be dethroned. In its place, each
nation should select a “dashboard”—a limited set of metrics that would help
steer it toward the future its citizens desired. In addition to GDP itself, as a
measure for market activity (and no more) the dashboard would include
metrics for health, sustainability and any other values that the people of a
nation aspired to, as well as for inequality, insecurity and other harms that they
sought to diminish.

These documents have helped crystallize a global movement toward improved


measures of social and economic health. The OECD has adopted the approach
in its Better Life Initiative, which recommends 11 indicators—and provides
citizens with a way to weigh these for their own country, relative to others, to
generate an index that measures their performance on the things they care
about. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
traditionally strong advocates of GDP thinking, are now also paying attention
to environment, inequality and sustainability of the economy.

A few countries have even incorporated this approach into their policy-
making frameworks. New Zealand, for instance, embedded “well-being”
indicators in the country's budgetary process in 2019. As the country's finance
minister, Grant Robertson, put it: “Success is about making New Zealand both
a great place to make a living and a great place to make a life.” This emphasis
on well-being may partly explain the nation's triumph over COVID-19, which
appears to have been limited to roughly 3,000 cases and 26 deaths in a total
population of nearly five million.

APPLES AND ARMAMENTS

Necessity is the mother of invention. Just as the dashboard emerged from a


dire need—the inadequacy of the GDP as an indicator of well-being, as
revealed by the Great Recession of 2008—so did the GDP. During the Great
Depression, U.S. officials could barely quantify the problem. The government
did not collect statistics on either inflation or unemployment, which would
have helped them steer the economy. So the Department of Commerce
charged economist Simon Kuznets of the National Bureau of Economic
Research with creating a set of national statistics on income. Kuznets went on
to construct the GDP in the 1940s as a simple metric that could be calculated
from the exceedingly limited market data then available. An aggregate of (the
dollar value of) the goods and services produced in the country, it was
equivalent to the sum of everyone's income—wages, profits, rents and taxes.
For this and other work, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic
Sciences in 1971. (Economist Richard Stone, who created similar statistical
systems for the U.K., received the prize in 1984.)

Kuznets repeatedly warned, however, that the GDP only measured market
activity and should not be mistaken for a metric of social or even economic
well-being. The figure included many goods and services that were harmful
(including, he believed, armaments) or useless (financial speculation) and
excluded many essential ones that were free (such as caregiving by
homemakers). A core difficulty with constructing such an aggregate is that
there is no natural unit for adding the value of even apples and oranges, let
alone of such disparate things as armaments, financial speculation and
caregiving. Thus, economists use their prices as a proxy for value—in the
belief that, in a competitive market, prices reflect how much people value
apples, oranges, armaments, speculation or caregiving relative to one another.

This profoundly problematic assumption—that price measures relative value


—made the GDP quite easy to calculate. As the U.S. recovered from the
Depression by ramping up the production and consumption of material goods
(in particular, armaments during World War II), GDP grew rapidly. The
World Bank and the IMF began to fund development programs in former
colonies around the world, gauging their success almost exclusively in terms of
GDP growth.

Credit: Amanda Montañez; Sources: World Bank (GDP data); U.S. Census Bureau (inequality data); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (Better Life Index data)

Sign Up for Our Daily Newsletter

Enter your email

By giving us your email, you are agreeing to receive the Today In Science newsletter
and to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Sign Up

Over time, as economists focused on the intricacies of comparing GDP in


different eras and across diverse countries and constructing complex economic
models that predicted and explained changes in GDP, they lost sight of the
metric's shaky foundations. Students seldom studied the assumptions that went
into constructing the measure—and what these assumptions meant for the
reliability of any inferences they made. Instead the objective of economic
analysis became to explain the movements of this artificial entity. GDP became
hegemonic across the globe: good economic policy was taken to be whatever
increased GDP the most.

In 1980, following a period of seemingly poor economic performance—


stagflation, marked by slow growth and rising prices—President Ronald
Reagan assumed office on the promise of ramping up the economy. He
deregulated the financial sector and cut taxes for the better-off, arguing that
the benefits would “trickle down” to those less fortunate. Although GDP grew
somewhat (albeit at a rate markedly lower than in the decades after World War
II), inequality rose precipitously. Well aware that metrics matter, some
members of the administration reportedly argued for stopping the collection
of statistics on inequality. If Americans did not know how bad inequality was,
presumably we would not worry about it.

The Reagan administration also unleashed unprecedented assaults on the


environment, issuing leases for fossil-fuel extraction on millions of acres of
public lands, for example. In 1995 I joined the Council of Economic Advisers
for President Bill Clinton. Worrying that our metrics paid too little attention
to resource depletion and environmental degradation, we worked with the
Department of Commerce to develop a measure of “green” GDP, which would
take such losses into account. When the congressional representatives from
the coal states got wind of this, however, they threatened to cut off our
funding unless we stopped our work, which we were obliged to.

The politicians knew that if Americans understood how bad coal was for our
economy correctly measured, then they would seek the elimination of the hidden
subsidies that the coal industry receives. They might even seek to move more
quickly to renewables. Although our efforts to broaden our metrics were
stymied, the fact that these representatives were willing to spend so much
political capital on stopping us convinced me we were on to something
important. (It also meant that when, a decade later, Sarkozy approached me
about heading an international panel to examine better ways of measuring
“economic performance and social progress,” I leaped at the chance.)

I left the Council of Economic Advisers in 1997, and in the ensuing years the
deregulatory fervor of the Reagan era came to grip the Clinton administration.
The financial sector of the U.S. economy was ballooning, driving up GDP. As
it turned out, many of the profits that gave that sector such heft were, in a
sense, phony. Bankers' lending practices had generated a real-estate bubble that
had artificially enhanced profits—and, with their pay being linked to profits,
had increased their bonuses. In the ideal free-market economy, an increase in
profits is supposed to reflect an increase in societal well-being, but the bankers'
takings put the lie to that notion. Much of their profits resulted from making
others worse off, such as when they engaged in abusive credit-card practices or
manipulated LIBOR (for London Interbank Offered Rate of interest for
international banks lending to one another) to enhance their earnings.

But GDP figures took these inflated figures at face value, convincing policy
makers that the best way to grow the economy was to remove any remaining
regulations that constrained the finance sector. Long-standing prohibitions on
usury—charging outrageous interest rates to take advantage of the unwary—
were stripped away. In 2000 the so-called Commodity Modernization Act was
passed. It was designed to ensure that derivatives (risky financial products that
played a big role in bringing down the financial system just eight years later)
would never be regulated. In 2005 a bankruptcy law made it more difficult for
those having trouble paying their bills to discharge their debts—making it
almost impossible for those with student loans to do so.

By the early 2000s two fifths of corporate profits came from the financial
sector. That fraction should have signaled that something was wrong: an
efficient financial sector should entail low costs for engaging in financial
transactions and therefore should be small. Ours was huge. Untethering the
market had inflated profits, driving up GDP—and, as it turned out, instability.

OPIOIDS, HURRICANES

The bubble burst in 2008. Banks had been issuing mortgages indiscriminately,
on the assumption that real-estate prices would continue to rise. When the
housing bubble broke, so did the economy, falling more than it had since the
immediate aftermath of World War II. After the U.S. government rescued the
banks (just one firm, AIG, received a government bailout of $130 billion), GDP
improved, persuading President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve to
announce that we were well on the way to recovery. But with 91 percent of the
gains in income in 2009 to 2012 going to the top 1 percent, the majority of
Americans experienced none.

As the country slowly emerged from the financial crisis, others commanded
attention: the inequality crisis, the climate crisis and an opioid crisis. Even as
GDP continued to rise, life expectancy and other broader measures of health
worsened. Food companies were developing and marketing, with great
ingenuity, addictive sugar-rich foods, augmenting GDP but precipitating an
epidemic of childhood diabetes. Addictive opioids led to an epidemic of drug
deaths, but the profits of Purdue Pharma and the other villains in that drama
added to GDP. Indeed, the medical expenditures resulting from these health
crises also boosted GDP. Americans were spending twice as much per person
on health care than the French but had lower life expectancy. So, too, coal
mining seemingly boosted the economy, and although it helped to drive
climate change, worsening the impact of hurricanes such as Harvey, the efforts
to rebuild again added to GDP. The GDP number provided an optimistic gloss
to the worst of events.

These examples illustrate the disjuncture between GDP and societal well-being
and the many ways that GDP fails to be a good measure of economic
performance. The growth in GDP before 2008 was not sustainable, and it was
not sustained. The increase in bank profits that seemed to fuel GDP in the
years before the crisis were not only at the expense of the well-being of the
many people whom the financial sector exploited but also at the expense of
GDP in later years. The increase in inequality was by any measure hurting our
society, but GDP was celebrating the banks' successes. If there ever was an
event that drove home the need for new ways of measuring economic
performance and societal progress, the 2008 crisis was it.

Credit: Samantha Mash

THE DASHBOARD

The commission, led by three economists (Amartya Sen of Harvard University,


Jean-Paul Fitoussi of the Paris Institute of Political Studies and me), published
its first report in 2009, just after the U.S. financial system imploded. We
pointed out that measuring something as simple as the fraction of Americans
who might have difficulty refinancing their mortgages would have illuminated
the smoke and mirrors underpinning the heady economic growth preceding
the crisis and possibly enabled policy makers to fend it off. More important,
building and paying attention to a broad set of metrics for present-day well-
being and its sustainability—whether good times are durable—would help
buffer societies against future shocks.
We need to know whether, when GDP is going up, indebtedness is increasing
or natural resources are being depleted; these may indicate that the economic
growth is not sustainable. If pollution is rising along with GDP, growth is not
environmentally sustainable. A good indicator of the true health of an
economy is the health of its citizens, and if, as in the U.S., life expectancy has
been going down—as it was even before the pandemic—that should be
worrying, no matter what is happening to GDP. If median income (that of the
families in the middle) is stagnating even as GDP rises, that means the fruits of
economic growth are not being shared.

It would have been nice, of course, if we could have come up with a single
measure that would summarize how well a society or even an economy is
doing—a GDP plus number, say. But as with the GDP itself, too much valuable
information is lost when we form an aggregate. Say, you are driving your car.
You want to know how fast you are going and glance at the speedometer. It
reads 70 miles an hour. And you want to know how far you can go without
refilling your tank, which turns out to be 200 miles. Both those numbers are
valuable, conveying information that could affect your behavior. But now
assume you form a simple aggregate by adding up the two numbers, with or
without “weights.” What would a number like 270 tell you? Absolutely
nothing. It would not tell you whether you are driving recklessly or how
worried you should be about running out of fuel.

That was why we concluded that each nation needs a dashboard—a set of
numbers that would convey essential diagnostics of its society and economy
and help steer them. Policy makers and civil-society groups should pay
attention not only to material wealth but also to health, education, leisure,
environment, equality, governance, political voice, social connectedness,
physical and economic security, and other indicators of the quality of life. Just
as important, societies must ensure that these “goods” are not bought at the
expense of the future. To that end, they should focus on maintaining and
augmenting, to the extent possible, their stocks of natural, human, social and
physical capital. We also laid out a research agenda for exploring links between
the different components of well-being and sustainability and developing good
ways to measure them.

Concern about climate change and rising inequality had already been fueling a
global demand for better measures, and our report crystallized that trend. In
2015 a contentious political process culminated in the United Nations
establishing a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Progress toward them
is to be measured by 232 indicators, reflecting the manifold concerns of
governments and civil societies from around the world. So many numbers are
unhelpful, in our view: one can lose sight of the forest for the trees. Instead
another group of experts, chaired by Fitoussi, Martine Durand (chief
statistician of the OECD) and me, recommended that each country institute a
robust democratic dialogue to discover what issues its citizens most care about.

Such a conversation would almost certainly show that most of us who live in
highly developed economies care about our material well-being, our health,
the environment around us and our relations with others. We want to do well
today but also in the future. We care about how the fruits of our economy are
shared: we do not want a society in which a few at the top grab everything for
themselves and the rest live in poverty. A good indicator of the true health of
an economy is the health of its citizens. A decline in life expectancy, even for a
part of the population, should be worrying, whatever is happening to GDP.
And it is important to know if, even as GDP is going up, so, too, is pollution—
whether it is emissions of greenhouse gases or particulates in the air. That
means growth is not environmentally sustainable.

The choice of indicators may vary across time and among countries. Countries
with high unemployment will want to track what is happening to that
variable; those with high inequality will want to monitor that. Still, because
people generally want to know how they are doing in comparison with others,
we recommended that the advanced countries, at least, share some five to 10
common indicators.

GDP would be among them. So would a measure of inequality or some pointer


toward how the typical individual or household is doing. Over the years
economists have formulated a rash of indicators of inequality, each reflecting a
different dimension of the phenomenon. It may well be that societies where
inequality has become particularly problematic may need to have metrics
reflecting the depth of the poverty at the bottom and the excesses of riches at
the top. To me, knowing what is happening to median income is of particular
importance; in the U.S., median income has barely changed for decades, even
as GDP has grown.

Employment is often used as an indicator of macroeconomic performance—an


economy with a high unemployment rate clearly is not using all of its resources
well. But in societies where paid work is associated with dignity, employment
is a value in its own right. Other elements of the dashboard would include
indicators for environmental degradation (say, air or water quality), economic
sustainability (indebtedness), health (life expectancy) and insecurity.

Insecurity has both subjective and objective dimensions. We can survey how
insecure people feel: how worried they are about adverse effects or how
prepared they feel to cope with a shock. But we can also predict the likelihood
that someone falls below the poverty line in any given year. And some
elements of the dashboard are “intermediate” variables—things that we may
(or may not) value in themselves but that provide an inkling of how a society
will function in the future. One of these is trust. Societies in which citizens
trust their governments and one another to “do the right thing” tend to
perform better. In fact, societies in which people have higher levels of trust,
such as Vietnam and New Zealand, have dealt far more effectively with the
pandemic than the U.S., for instance, where trust levels have declined since the
Reagan era. Policy makers need to use such indicators much as physicians use
their diagnostic tools. When some indicator is flashing yellow or red, it is time
to look deeper. If inequality is high or increasing, it is important to know
more: What aspects of inequality are getting worse?

STEERING THROUGH STORMS

Since we began our work on well-being indicators some dozen years ago, I
have been amazed at the resonance that it has achieved. A focus on many of the
elements of the dashboard has permeated policy making everywhere. Every
three years the OECD hosts an international conference of nongovernmental
organizations, national statisticians, government officials and academics
furthering the “well-being” agenda, the most recent being in Korea in
November 2018, with thousands of participants.

Whenever the conference next convenes, the global crisis in human societies
that a microscopic virus has precipitated will surely be on the agenda. The full
dimensions of it could take years or decades to become clear. Recovering from
this calamity and steering complex societies through the even more
devastating crises that loom—catastrophic climate change and biodiversity
collapse—will require, at the very least, an excellent navigational system. To
paraphrase the OECD: We have been developing the tools to help us drive
better. It is time to use them.
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ is a University Professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt
Institute. He received the Nobel prize in economics in 2001. Stiglitz chaired President Bill Clinton's Council of
Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997 and served as the chief economist and senior vice president of the World
Bank from 1997 to 2000. He chaired the Sarkozy commission (2008–2009) and an expert group (2013–2019) at
the OECD for devising measures for well-being and sustainability.

More by Joseph E. Stiglitz

This article was originally published with the title “Measuring What Matters” in
Scientific American Magazine Vol. 323 No. 2 (August 2020), p. 28

doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0820-24

View This Issue

ADVERTISEMENT

A shoe for any occasion


gb.ecco.com

Popular Stories

SOCIOLOGY JANUARY 11, 2024 BEHAVIOR JANUARY 10, 2024 PALEONTOLOGY JANUARY 10, 2024

Thousands of U.S. Cities Could Sludge Videos Are Taking Over What Killed the Largest Known
Become Virtual Ghost Towns by TikTok—And People’s Mind Ape Species Ever?
2100 “Sludge content” is a type of viral video that features multiple The massive ancient ape Gigantopithecus blacki disappeared
These projected findings about depopulation in U.S. cities clips playing simultaneously on a screen. Experts unpack in a mystery that scientists are eager to crack
are shaped by a multitude of factors, including the decline of what it may be doing to the brain MEGHAN BARTELS
industry, lower birth rates and the impacts of climate change ANNA MATTSON

RACHEL NUWER

PUBLIC HEALTH JANUARY 1, 2024 WEATHER JANUARY 12, 2024 PLANETARY SCIENCE JANUARY 11, 2024

How Much Vitamin D Do You Need What’s Behind the ‘Arctic Blast’ NASA’s Troubled Mars Sample
to Stay Healthy? Plunging into the U.S.? Mission Has Scientists Seeing Red
Most people naturally have good vitamin D levels. This week’s cold snap across the U.S. will be one of “the NASA’s Mars Sample Return program is the agency’s highest
Overhyped claims that the compound helps to fight diseases most impressive Arctic outbreaks of this century,” one priority in planetary science, but projected multibillion-
from cancer to depression aren’t borne out by recent climate scientist says dollar overruns have some calling the plan a “dumpster fire”
research MEGHAN BARTELS LEONARD DAVID
CHRISTIE ASCHWANDEN

Expand Your World with Science


Learn and share the most exciting discoveries, innovations and ideas
shaping our world today.

Subscribe

Sign up for our newsletters

See the latest stories

Read the latest issue

Follow Us:

Return & Refund Policy FAQs Advertise Privacy Policy

About Contact Us SA Custom Media California Consumer Privacy Statement

Press Room Site Map Terms of Use Use of cookies/Do not sell my data

International Editions

Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American
maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.

© 2023 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC.


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

You might also like