A Tragic Tale of “Nature”
Yesterday, Nature saw fit to publish a truly ridiculous, ill informed editorial regarding the removal of monuments.
Original Title:
Removing Statues of Historical figures risks whitewashing history: Science must acknowledge mistakes as it marks its past
They chose in particular to discuss a monument to a scientist who tortured enslaved Black women to understand female reproduction. They thought that monument should remain, perhaps with a small plaque to “contextualize” it.
Many people were unimpressed with this piece, beginning as it did with an incorrect use of the word “whitewash”, and ending with hogwash. We wrote letters to the Editor in Chief at Nature. Mine is below:
Dear Dr. Campbell,
I was incredibly disappointed to see your editorial today, about the removal of historical statues around our country.
It was so incredibly ill informed, it took my breath away. First, the headline incorrectly uses the word “whitewashing”. That doesn’t bode well.
Secondly, the arguments laid forth are incredibly lazy and frankly operate as if there are no scientists of color. Oops, mistakes were made, perhaps we should put an explanatory plaque? We raise statues to honor individuals — and as our times change, it is perfectly reasonable that the values we choose to honor change as well. There is no guarantee that statues are somehow permanent guarantees. And we are only kidding ourselves when we pretend they should be left “to learn from”. They send a distinct message to people about who matters.
That Nature chose to jump into this particular fray frankly surprised me. That you did it on a day that saw our racist government decide they would try their best to end DACA was cruel. It is ironic that Nature somehow both ascribes to the idea that science is not or should not be political — and then has the chutzpah to defend a statue of a man who experimented on black women without consent. What is most certainly assault and abuse even in historical times. To raise up such an individual is clearly to elevate the health and progress of white women over that of black women. It is pointless and harmful to defend history when history doesn’t even try to defend itself. Historians of science know better — why are scientists unwilling to learn?
Although in the past I have contributed to your journals, I certainly will no longer be offering my labor to your publications unless or until your editorial board sits down, reads some history of science literature, and engages with how you have made such a monumental error.
Nature made a small edit to the article, and claimed their intention was not to insist that statues remain standing.
Modified title:
Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes: Injustice in the name of research should not be forgotten — nor should those injured by scientists.
Correction: “Instead of removing painful reminders, perhaps these should be supplemented” to read “In cases where painful reminders are allowed to stand, they could be supplemented”.
This morning, I received an email requesting that a portion of my letter be published, in a collection of such letters, to be published shortly. I briefly considered this choice.
But after eating breakfast, this is what I settled on:
Dear Philip,
Upon considering this, I’d rather you not publish my letter. Not because I mind, but because I think that publishing a group of letters in response is playing into a trope that is growing fairly tiresome. Awkward and/or unpopular opinion is published, people with more expertise express exhaustion and disgust, “serious academics” complain about mobs and bullies.
I think a more appropriate response would be to commission a qualified individual (perhaps an historian of science. I could recommend several) to offer another editorial, contextualizing and rebutting the carelessly written editorial you published yesterday.
From the outside, Nature seems to thrive on two things — inflated controversy, and free labor (especially of junior researchers). This might be an opportunity to try a more thoughtful approach.
I’m glad they have been responsive, but I want Academia, and the industry surrounding it, to do better.
