Journalism, Science News, and the Bold Stance of Leaning Into the Science

Laura Helmuth announced her resignation as the editor-in-chief of Scientific American on Nov. 14. I think it is important to think in broad terms about Helmuth’s tenure at Scientific American and why it was remarkable.

Those who wish to know more about Helmuth’s departure from Scientific American can find relevant details elsewhere. I would like to focus on how she approached news during her time as editor-in-chief and why that matters.

Science culture does not exist in a vacuum. The way we think about, talk about, and conduct science is intertwined with every other aspect of society, from pop culture and politics to the social constructs we use to categorize things like race, ethnicity and gender. These are all aspects of the human experience and cannot be easily separated from each other.

Scientific American has been in print since 1845. One of the things that sets it apart from other news outlets that cover science is that it not only captures emerging research findings, it is also a record of science culture in the U.S. Acknowledging the ways in which science culture influences — and is influenced by — other aspects of our society is incredibly important. This has always been true, and is certainly true today.

Science provides information we can use to inform our understanding of the world. This makes some people mad when they don’t like what the science has to say (e.g., vaccines work; climate change is real; biological sex is not binary).

What’s more, the way we understand the world also informs the science we do and how we do it. For example, cultural and political considerations play a key role in determining what sort of science is funded and prioritized.

Under Helmuth’s leadership, Scientific American has done an exceptionally good job of addressing these issues — which many news publications have balked at, presumably for fear of alienating part of their audience, drawing negative attention from political figures, or out of a misguided sense of false balance.

To be clear, Scientific American was not muddling the science. Instead, during Helmuth’s tenure Scientific American leaned into the science — including science that some are uncomfortable with. It took steps to articulate what science can actually tell us about hot-button social issues such as those involving gender and race. It explicitly addressed social factors that influence scientific research and how research findings are used.

In an ideal world, Scientific American’s work under Helmuth would only be evidence of good journalistic sensibilities and critical thinking skills (which it was).

But in the world we actually live in, Scientific American’s work has also been evidence of courage and leadership. And it should be applauded.

Helmuth did a remarkable job, and the next editor-in-chief has big shoes to fill.

More broadly, let us hope that Helmuth’s departure does not discourage other editors and reporters who cover science news from applying good news judgment and critical thinking — even if the news doesn’t comply with the worldview of vocal political gadflies.