David M. Ewalt on Scientific American’s Non-Negotiables for Science Journalism in the AI Era

David M. Ewalt, Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American since June 2025, he is a veteran technology and science journalist with experience across major newsrooms and digital outlets. His background includes senior editorial roles at Reuters, Forbes, and Gizmodo, and he is also the author of books on virtual reality and on Dungeons & Dragons culture. His remit now spans print, digital, and product lines—shaping what “authoritative” science journalism looks like during rapid AI and platform change.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews David M. Ewalt, Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, on defending scientific rigor in a platform-and-AI era. Ewalt says quality science journalism is accurate, clear, and true, with conclusions anchored in observation and evidence. He argues controversy alone is not coverage-worthy, rejecting “flat Earth” false balance. On uncertainty, he wants readers told what is unknown while not inflating vanishingly small doubts. He notes Scientific American follows Springer Nature’s AI rules: human oversight and disclosure. Ewalt promotes a corrections culture as scientific-method integrity, and aims to keep Scientific American authoritative, trusted, accessible, and pro–evidence-based innovation for scientists and readers.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your non-negotiables for quality science journalism?

David M. Ewalt: Science journalism must be accurate, clear, and true. A journalist has to minimize bias and make conclusions based on observation and evidence, just like a scientist does.

At its core, it’s about translating scientific research into stories that educate and inform, but a science story doesn’t have to be about science itself — it can bring those tools to a story about anything, and help explain the way the world works.

Jacobsen: How do you decide which scientific controversies deserve oxygen?

Ewalt: All journalists consider a set of core news values when they’re evaluating stories, including things like timeliness, prominence and novelty. Conflict can be an important element of newsworthiness, but controversy alone isn’t usually enough. I understand some people might disagree with the fact that the Earth is round, but that conflict doesn’t make their arguments worth covering.

Jacobsen: What is your approach to uncertainty to communicate uncertainty levels without losing readers?

Ewalt: Good science journalism must always be clear when there’s uncertainty about a result. Just because one study says something doesn’t mean it’s fact or law; we need to make sure our readers understand that.

That said, a reasonable conclusion doesn’t require 100% certainty, and if scientists are 99.9% sure about something, I’m not doing my readers any favors if I waste a lot of time talking about the unlikely tenth of a percent.

Jacobsen: How do you handle conflicts between public interest and institutional pushback?

Ewalt: I’m not sure I understand this question. I can say that public interest is at the core of all good journalism; public interest should always come first.

Jacobsen: AI is changing language and publishing. What is the policy regarding AI-assisted writing, fact-checking, etc.?

Ewalt: Scientific American abides by the AI policies put forth by our parent company Springer Nature, which include always maintaining human oversight of AI tools, and disclosing its use. We are very careful about when and where we use AI and we always tell our readers how and why we used it.

We’re excited about the potential that AI tools have for improving journalism, but want to move carefully and in full view of our readers.

Jacobsen: How do you build an editorial culture rewarding corrections and humility?

Ewalt: I like to remind our journalists that the scientific method relies on making mistakes. The key is to examine and learn from them. And having the integrity to admit a mistake helps build trust!

Jacobsen: What do you want Scientific American to represent by the end of your tenure?

Ewalt: I want it to represent the same thing it has for 180 years: authoritative, trusted, accessible journalism. I want it to be a voice for science and the people who practice science. I want it to advocate for innovation and evidence-based thinking.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, David.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.