Nature's editors have often courted controversy by taking provocative stances. In some cases, such as the 1908 editorial supporting the admission of women to scientific societies (Nature 78, 226–228, 1908), this has reflected well on the journal's legacy. In others, such as the 1968 piece suggesting that the Cultural Revolution would benefit Chinese science (Nature 217, 1196–1197; 1968), it has not. I fear that your discussion of the statue of surgeon J. Marion Sims (1813–83) falls into the latter category (Nature 549, 5–6; 2017).
You should have consulted scientists of colour and historians of science before opining on the right way to remember such a fraught and painful history. In my view, your vague and euphemistic discussion of Sims' work 'whitewashes' (to use your term) his legacy more effectively than removing his statue ever could.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes
Women and the Fellowship of the Chemical Society
Science after the Cultural Revolution
Statues: a mother of gynaecology
Statues: for those deserving respect
Statues that perpetuate lies should not stand
Readers respond to Nature's Editorial on historical monuments
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baldwin, M. Statues: sculpting a tarnished legacy. Nature 549, 334 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/549334a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/549334a