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.

Beyond that fundamental error in the Editorial, the arguments throughout the piece — including an inappropriate framing of the example of J. Marion Sims — and its overall tone were naive and unintentionally served to reinforce the insidious notion that women, people of colour and minority groups do not have a place in science. This notion is wrong.

We did not recognize how destructive the overall Editorial was and the effects that it could have.

As the editor ultimately accountable for Nature's content, I want to state that neither I nor any of my colleagues can defend the Editorial. It was the result of a process that on this occasion failed to rise to our standards of argument and editorial treatment. For this failure, I apologize.

The failure resulted from a combination of particular circumstances at the time and from systemic aspects of our workflows and sensitivities. For the latter, we recognize the immediate need to make extra effort to consult people of relevant expertise and lived experience. Although there was such external consultation with experts in the origination of this Editorial, we lost sight of that care in following it through. We failed to consult adequately the colleagues from many backgrounds who would have alerted us to the flaws and insensitivities in some of the language and arguments.

We commit to doing better from here on, and to working harder to be more inclusive in our processes. As part of this, we will appoint a group that will seek external advice to assess further what happened in this particular situation and to firmly guide us in adjusting our published content and internal practices.

We cannot wish away what we published, but we can make it clear to its readers that it was wrong. Accordingly, we will point readers to this editorial statement from the original Editorial and from related content.

Looking forward, we will also invite people to discuss broader issues in the sometimes troubled past and present of research, and to examine the impacts on diverse people within and outside the research community. We will do this in ways that will inform not only our content but also our editorial ability to be mindful.