SCIENCE science.org 7 JANUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6576 5EDITORIAL
T
he first editorial of the year is generally an in-
vitation to look forward. Often, we announce
new initiatives at the Science family of journals
or changes to our policies. This year, I want to
look forward in a different way—by looking back.
Science has a history that includes shame in ad-
dition to accomplishment. In 2021, we began to
explore and acknowledge some of that regretful past,
and we’ll continue this examination in 2022.
In May of last year, Science recognized the 150th an-
niversary of Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man with an
outstanding review on the science and an editorial by
Agustín Fuentes, who called attention to harmful views
about race and gender that Darwin expressed. Some
critics said we were trying to “cancel Darwin” or that
we should have understood that he was a “man of his
time.” We reject both criticisms.
We were simply providing a
more complete description of
one of the most important fig-
ures in science and noting the
harm that his views produced
for so many women and people
of color.
In September, Sudip Parikh
[the chief executive office of the
American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS),
the publisher of Science], John
Slattery (a theologian and his-
torian at AAAS), and I wrote a
blog post about the role that the
journal and AAAS played in pro-
moting eugenics. In the 1920s,
Science published articles by well-known American eu-
genicists, including Charles Davenport, Henry Osborn,
and Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin). Osborn
went on to become the president of the AAAS. It is dis-
tressful to read their repugnant ideas in our pages; the
harm done by the practice of eugenics is incalculable.
A year ago, David Christianson, a professor of chemis-
try at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote to me about
a horrific event chronicled in Science. In the 1960s, re-
searchers at Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts
General Hospital, and Boston University School of
Medicine carried out experiments designed to demon-
strate the physiological effects of nuclear fallout. The
test subjects were developmentally disabled children
at Wrentham State School (now called the Wrentham
Developmental Center) in Massachusetts—a state-run
medical facility for the treatment of psychiatric anddevelopmental disorders. Disabled children were given
sodium iodide to determine the amount needed to sup-
press the uptake of radioactive iodine-131. The study
was published in Science in 1962, and the children were
demeaningly described as “mentally defective.” Like
Darwin’s views and those of the eugenicists, the study
reflects a willfulness to consider some individuals as
less than human.
The study hit close to home for Christianson. His twin
sister, Karen, was a patient at Wrentham State School
at that time. She died shortly after she was admitted
and after the experiments were done. Christianson says
he will never know whether his sister was in the ex-
periment or died because of it, because the experiments
were apparently conducted without parental consent.
The uncertainty only adds to the harm inflicted by
such studies on marginalized
communities. I contacted the
provost of Harvard University
to see if the university had un-
covered any new information
about this incident, but he was
unable to find anything.
I am asked frequently what
Science plans to do about other
studies it has published that
were discriminatory and even
violated human rights. Is the
best approach to look over all
papers published since 1880
through today’s lenses of sys-
temic racism, sexism, and other
prejudices, and then retract or
put a notice on those that fall
under this category? The practical aspects of such an
effort and determining whether that is the best course
forward will require more listening. But either way,
it’s time for honest discussions about such studies and
shining a spotlight on the shameful views and actions of
the scientific community’s predecessors. Science is not
afraid to point out its role in supporting malicious sci-
ence—it is history that should not be forgotten and can
guide us in working with the community to confront
shortcomings, past and present, in our pages and across
the scientific enterprise.
Despite the pain surrounding this topic, I believe there
is reason to be hopeful. We owe it to the Christiansons
and others to ensure a future that eliminates atrocities
in the practice of science.–H. Holden ThorpLooking ahead, looking back
H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief,
Science journals.
[email protected];
@hholdenthorp10.1126/science.abn
PHOTO: CAMERON DAVIDSON
“...it’s time for honest
discussions about...
the shameful views
and actions of the
scientific community’s
predecessors.”
Banca do Antfer
Telegram: https://t.me/bancadoantferIssuhub: https://issuhub.com/user/book/
Issuhub: https://issuhub.com/user/book/