X Tutup
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Statues: an editorial response

Nature volume 549, page 334 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

In the 7 September issue of Nature, we published an Editorial that provoked a widespread response (Nature 549, 5–6; 2017). We have since published representative criticisms, including those in this issue, as well as a related article by an expert. After our intensive consideration of those responses, as well as internal and external discussions, I think it important to say the following.

The Editorial was wrong in warning that there could be risks associated with removing statues or altering the names of awards or streets that honour researchers who committed atrocious acts in the name of science. We did not adequately explore the ramifications of this statement or subject it to sufficient scrutiny. Many people, internally and externally, have pointed out that the statement is not true. Removing such statues or other memorials does not erase these individuals or their acts from history.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Author notes

  1. Editor-in-Chief, Nature

    • Philip Campbell
Authors
  1. Philip Campbell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes

Statues: a mother of gynaecology

Statues: learn from mistakes

Statues: for those deserving respect

Statues that perpetuate lies should not stand

Readers respond to Nature's Editorial on historical monuments

Statues: sculpting a tarnished legacy

Statues: researchers to mind their history

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell, P. Statues: an editorial response. Nature 549, 334 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/549334c

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/549334c

This article is cited by

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Paul Callaghan

    Mr. P Campbell, thanks for your clear & thorough explanation of how the original article was germinated and your fair assessment of the reasons for the negative criticism you received.

    I am sad that you & your colleagues fell victim to the current political climate.
    I would have said that the article was simply naive. In that using a Journal of Natural Philosophy to comment on this almost entirely social political phenomena of statue defacing would be more appropriate
    to a journal of human philosophy or political science or religious studies
    perhaps, if we are polite, and allow such studies to be called scientific. The abusive comments you received and additional “related article by an expert” would make an interesting case study in a journal of Psychiatry.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing
X Tutup