Editor-in-chief of Scientific American steps down after anti-Trump comments

Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth is leaving the publication less than two weeks after she shared several profanity-laced postings about the results of the presidential election on the social media app Bluesky.

“I’ve decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief,” Helmuth wrote Thursday on BlueSky. “I’m going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching)…” 

It was not clear if Helmuth’s social media posts or backlash to them played a role in her departure. Helmuth declined an interview request and said she was unable to comment. 

Scientific American did not directly respond to questions about Helmuth’s departure, but its president, Kimberly Lau, said in a statement: “Laura Helmuth has decided to move on from her position as editor in chief of Scientific American. We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom. We wish her well for the future.”

Helmuth became a target of some conservative commentators after a series of Bluesky posts on Nov. 5, in the wake of the election. The posts have been deleted from her profile, but screenshots have been shared widely. 

In the posts, Helmuth apologized to younger voters, bemoaning that her Generation X was full of “***king fascists.” 

“Solidarity to everyone whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back,” Helmuth wrote. 

In a subsequent Bluesky post, on Nov. 7, Helmuth apologized, saying she had deleted her election-night posts, which she called “offensive and inappropriate.”

“I respect and value people across the political spectrum,” Helmuth wrote, adding that the deleted missives were “a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results.”

With Helmuth at the helm, Scientific American began to endorse candidates for the first time in 175 years. The publication’s editors endorsed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in September, writing that Donald Trump “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

In an interview ahead of the election with The Editor’s Desk, a blog about writing and editing authored by a University of North Carolina professor, Helmuth said the editors of Scientific American decided in 2020 that it was their “responsibility to share what we know about our areas of expertise — health, science, the environment, education, technology — and what is at stake for them in this election.”

She added that she supported an approach in which journalists tell readers what they know is true and how they determined it to be true, rather than telling readers “both sides” and letting them decide for themselves. 

“There are not two reasonable sides to every story. We know evolution is real and creationism is not; we know vaccines save lives and don’t cause autism; we know climate change is real,” Helmuth told the Edit Desk. “It would be malpractice to quote creationists or RFK Jr. or climate deniers in any coverage of these issues, other than to point out that these issues are being politicized but the science is clear.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who Helmuth was referring to, is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has made misleading and false claims about vaccines, suggesting they are linked to autism despite multiple studies debunking the notion.