David Ewalt is convinced that “all the main issues of the world are fundamentally scientific issues”, which is why science journalism remains vital. | Photo: Sara Merians Photography

David Ewalt, you took up your post as the Editor-in-chief at Scientific American in June this year. How are you doing so far?

It’s going well. It’s a very important time for science journalism in general and also for Scientific American. We are having our 180-year anniversary, and we are preparing ourselves for the next 180 years. We are thinking a lot about issues such as: How is our audience changing? How can our coverage evolve? What new formats and which new platform should we be paying attention to?

It’s a long time, 180 years. What’s Scientific American’s recipe for success?

We were one of the first places people could go to find out what was happening in the world of science, engineering and innovation. That was a key element for a long time. We began even before the US had a patent office, in a time when industrialisation had just started to bloom. There was always an effort to make the content accessible to the layperson, but at the same time the editors wanted the content to be detailed and smart enough to be of use to researchers. That’s a fine line to walk. One of the current reasons for our ongoing success is that people recognise that all the main issues of the world are fundamentally scientific issues: the pandemics, climate change, how AI is going to change the world.

Does the anti-scientism of the current US administration hurt science journalism and Scientific American?

People are concerned about the cuts to research funding, and they want to stand up for science. One of the ways to do this is to subscribe to a science magazine. But if I look at what’s happening to the science establishment, I can’t say it is good for us. Because it is a bad thing for science.

Do the numbers show this?

Not yet. In marketing we are just starting to experiment using some very straightforward messaging. It goes: If you support us, you support science. I certainly see in the media world that those appeals work. It is a general thing happening right now: People are subscribing and supporting small outlets as a value decision.

What are you particularly concerned about at Scientific American?

The changing shape of the internet. A big part of our audience used to be people researching scientific questions: Why is the sky blue? How many moons does Saturn have? But now they either ask Chat GPT or Google it, and Google gives an AI summary. We have to find new ways to reach readers.

How?

One way is short-form videos. On Tiktok you find a really strong, vibrant community of science enthusiasts and science influencers. This platform is a useful way to reach a new audience. Everybody in the US knows our brand, but not everybody is necessarily a subscriber. Our challenge is to get our content in front of those people. And make them want to come back to us.

Will there be a day without any written journalism?

No. But I think written journalism is going to change. If anything, it will be more valuable to have deeply reported, thoughtful, really well-written journalism. Because AI can produce the news. But it needs a human reporter to really dig in and tell a story artfully. That’s what consumers will continue to seek out: Oh, I really like this person, I like how they write, I like their voice.

What makes a really good story in science journalism?

It needs a narrative and voices. It is not simply instruction or education. We need to show that research is affecting people’s lives. That makes it different from academic publishing.

Is there a global crisis in science journalism?

Around the world there is a loud community questioning scientific facts. They have entire conspiracy theories about science. That makes our job harder in a way that maybe other media don’t have to face. But there is also globally a distrust of the media that everybody in the media faces.

Science journalism faces the combination of distrust in media and distrust in science.

If you ask people in the United States what they associate with Scientific American, one word is steadily coming up: trustworthy. Our audience at large seems to understand that we are very careful to do things right. So we are very fortunate, partly thanks to 180 years of doing good work. We need to uphold that, and we have to work very hard for it.

What topics are currently underrepresented in science journalism?

I have worked in business outlets in the past, at The Wall Street Journal and Forbes. A lot of science journalists aren’t paying enough attention to what happens in the business world. That’s really important, especially as we are seeing cuts to research funding from the American government and also from other governments. As public money starts to disappear, science is going to have to rely increasingly on private funding.

What important developments in science journalism have you observed during the last few decades?

Across all media, the Internet has been producing content that is clicky. It fuels a lot of instincts that are not necessarily in the best interest of journalism. That is particularly challenging for science journalism because so much of what is important can’t be distilled into a catchy headline. Another big issue is: Every science journalist would agree that climate change is one of the most important stories of the 21st century. But our audience doesn’t love reading the same story again and again. It has been an ongoing challenge over the last decades to cover this very important topic anyway. But I think we are getting better at that.

Do we still need printed products for that?

Research has shown that reading on paper is better for processing information. And people are looking to print because it is free of distractions. The printed magazine is not going to beep at me or to pull me somewhere different. Consumers also see printed magazines as something more exclusive, and they appreciate that.