FEllows of the Royal Society met yesterday To discuss, as they say, “scholarship behavior”. In the light of the resignation of two comrades and an open letter Signed by nearly 3,500 scientistsMany, including me, expected the discussion to be focused on the behavior of a particular man: Elon Musk.
The Royal Society, as one of the most estimated scientific institutions in the world, is responsible for maintaining standards among its scholarship holders. Musk, admitted as a scholarship holder in 2018 for his technological innovations, recently adopted a behavior that contravenes the code of conduct of the company. In particular, many scientists have challenged its assault against the conduct of science in the United States and beyond as head of the “Department of Effectiveness of the Government” of the Trump Administration (DOGE) as well as its malicious accusations against public scientists (such as Anthony Fauci) And Other public figures.
Musk is an important figure (some would say most important) in an American administration which constitutes the seat for science and a scientific investigation itself. The executive orders of the new administration have restricted research, Silence climatologists And finance As part of a Systematic targeting of the scientific community.
By taking measures against a member whose behavior is so openly in opposition to the values and code of conduct of the company, the Royal company would have confirmed his commitment to ethical standards and helped to strengthen public confidence in science.
So I was more than disappointed to read the Declaration published by the Royal Society After the meeting, which made no mention at all of musk. The declaration recognized “the need to defend science and scientists around the world in the face of the growing challenges that science is confronted”, but without clear action to approach the position of Musk, these words sound hollow.
The Royal Society Code of Conduct for scholarship holders declares that “stock markets and foreign members will not be or do not act In any way whatsoever which would undermine the mission of the company or decompose society ”. It is clear that Musk’s behavior has thwarted this rule. So why, even now, did the Royal Society not speak specifically about its actions?
Some argued that musk expulsion could harm public confidence in science; that by blurring the boundaries between science and politics, society would damage the integrity of science. I believe that this perspective neglects the essential role that scientific institutions play in compliance with ethical norms and the defense of the integrity of science, in particular in times when sciences and scientists are subject to threats and intimidation of political institutions.
I was told one day at the start of my career: “Everything is political, especially the things that people tell you are not political. These are the most political of all. ” There is a certain truth with regard to science. The intersection of science and politics is both essential and of vital importance. Scientists have a unique expertise that is crucial for the development of informed policies and societal progress. The adoption of political engagement allows scientists to fulfill their ethical responsibilities, to defend the integrity of their work and to contribute significantly to meet the complex challenges that society is confronted today.
The disengagement of political questions that surround and influence science is not the virtue that certain commentators would make you believe. If anything, it is a betrayal of the deep impact that science can and should have on the world. In particular, a failure to act on Musk’s behavior will only be in line with those who seek to exert a political influence on science and scientists – and erode the fundamental principles of science.
So, for me, it is time to take a stand, as small as possible, and to distinguish myself from royal society up to a moment that it has the moral courage to specifically denounce the actions that Musk takes to undermine science in the United States and elsewhere. I will resign my post as an assistant editor -in -chief to the Journal of the Royal Society Open science with immediate effect. I will no longer submit my research to Royal Society reviews or will not act as an examiner for them. I invite my colleagues to do the same.
The Royal Society is right in her statement that she must “defend science and scientists at a time when they are threatened like never before and yet, at the same time, have never been more necessary for humanity as a whole” – but without society taking concrete measures to apply its own rules and defend its own scientific integrity, I am not sure to have confidence in the scientific community in general.
-
Kit Yates is a professor of mathematical biology and public engagement at the University of Bath and author of Mathematics of life and death And How to expect the unexpected
-
Do you have an opinion on the questions raised in this article? If you wish to submit a response of up to 300 words per e-mail to be considered for publication in our mail Section, please Click here.