It’s the story of a resignation. But not just any one. The renunciation we are talking about here is historic in that it was believed to be impossible, unthinkable. In 150 years, no one had ever left the Royal Society, the illustrious British learned society. Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, and even Albert Einstein have walked the corridors of this assembly of scholars, one of the oldest in the world. Dorothy Bishop slammed the door. She crumpled up her title and made it known, hoping to spark an uprising. His goal? Chase away Elon Musk, honorary member, who doesn’t have enough integrity for his taste. The psychologist never explained her departure in the French press. She gives L’Express the details of her fight against the billionaire.
L’Express: We do not leave the Royal Society, at the risk of becoming a mere mortal again. And yet, you did it, at the end of November. Are you satisfied?
Dorothy Bishop: Let’s say that I would have liked to avoid resorting to these methods. But I have to say I was surprised by the support shown to me following my resignation. I didn’t expect anyone to follow me, actually. But I have received many endorsements, including from some of the elders of the Royal Society – although they certainly wouldn’t want me to reveal their names.
Taking on Elon Musk, the most powerful man in the world, must be a little intimidating? Were you prepared?
I feared threats or revenge. Elon Musk can be a horrible character, especially to those who criticize him. He can initiate legal action or destroy reputations. He has the money and the networks for it. But for the moment, I have no news from him.
Why do you want to remove him from the Royal Society?
Let us first remember that the Royal Society is a very old learned society. It was born in 1660, and one of its first members was the famous physicist Isaac Newton. To enter, the process is very selective. Becoming a member is a great honor, I was very happy about it, I must admit. It’s not just scientists who have access to this title. Members of civil society are also chosen, because they are considered important interfaces between the population and science. This was the case for Winston Churchill, for example. This is how Elon Musk arrived under the auspices of the institution, in 2018.
His election was discussed, but at the time, it could be justified: Elon Musk was seen as a great innovator, developer of autonomous cars, with Tesla, reusable rockets, with Space X, and intelligent robots. For a long time, he was, in his own way, the spokesperson for science. But in recent years, his positions on the scientific method have changed. He began to propagate more and more opinions going against science. Several members of the learned society therefore began to wonder.
What exactly do you blame him for?
By taking over Twitter, Elon Musk changed the rules of the platform. He knowingly facilitated the spread of misinformation and hate speech, which forced scientists to flee. On his network, he also directly attempted to interfere with the beliefs of British society. A child murder case shook the United Kingdom this summer. Elon Musk used his infrastructure to propagate the idea that a Muslim did this, which was not true.
He also increased attacks against Anthony Fauci, the former chief medical adviser to the American government, whose record was more than reasonable. He positioned himself against the scientific consensus on several occasions during the health crisis. He did not want confinements, to protect his business. He said vaccines were not wise. And he also shared climate skepticism, even though experts agree that there is a real climate danger, generated by man.
If we also take into account the questions about the studies he carried out with Neuralink, about the ethical rules he allegedly flouted, the set of clues is clear. It is no longer compatible with its missions of scientific representation. It seems very dangerous to me to keep, as a member of one of the most influential learned societies in the world, someone who does not respect its values, especially since Elon Musk has an unprecedented audience.
Was your opinion followed within the Royal Society before you left?
There were several of us who had the same thoughts. A critical letter was written. 74 members signed it, and it was handed over to the presidency of the learned society. This missive alone already represented an unprecedented situation: the atmosphere is usually very subdued within the Royal Societyreviews are rare. The presidency brought in lawyers. Reading the statutes, they concluded that Elon Musk was not a violator, even though some of his activities are objectionable, because his anti-science actions were not done on behalf of the royal society. So they did nothing, which is regrettable, because the moral values of the Royal Society were violated. This sequence made me understand that it was very difficult to expel someone from this inner circle – it hasn’t happened in 150 years. So it seems likely that Elon Musk will retain his membership and I didn’t want to be associated with that.
How did the Royal Society react to your resignation?
The administration was very shocked. Then she accepted. I said that I wanted to be able to criticize Elon Musk, and that if I wanted to be taken seriously, I had to do it from the outside. People have said that the Royal Society would be better off without me. But above all I received encouragement. I wasn’t well known as a member of the Royal Society, which made it easier for me. You know, I have a lot of respect for the institution, but I am of the nature of considering that we must judge on the work accomplished, not the titles collected. So I didn’t mind leaving.
Where is Elon Musk? What has changed since your resignation?
Nothing, or almost. In any case, we will have to wait months to see if measures will be taken. The learned society processes are very long and very conservative. In the end, it would take a vote of all members to exclude Elon Musk. But I don’t think it will go that far, because the institution is designed to avoid this type of scenario, in the interest of preserving its reputation.
So shall we leave it there?
It will still be necessary to monitor the evolution of Elon Musk. If he becomes more and more extreme, perhaps he will make decisions that are impossible for the Royal Society to support. In his position in the Trump administration, he could attack the NIH, or NASA, these institutions responsible for medical and space research. For now, we don’t know what he’s going to do, even though that’s what he promised. Basically, he is not completely wrong: the system must be improved and reformed. But what are his real motivations? Does he want revenge, or help science? American scientists are very worried. If it has a good impact, I would have been wrong, and I would be happy about it. If I am right, the Royal Society will have no choice but to take a stand.
In the United States, the re-election of Donald Trump marks the victory of skepticism towards science. How do you explain this enthusiasm?
We find ourselves in an era of misinformation. The difficulty with the development of social networks is that we no longer know what to trust. Everything seems to be worth it. And that’s normal: these tools are the culmination of years of research in sociology and cognitive science. They are designed to have a hold on our attention. You have to ask yourself: do I like something because it confirms my opinion, or because it is true? Disinformation works because it confirms our beliefs.
I also believe that science itself participated in this crisis of confidence. I myself am very committed to fraud, particularly within FoSci, this new collective which aims to “decontaminate” the science of manipulation and rigging, and which I recently joined. The affairs of recent years, these fallen science stars, these thousands of retracted papers, these entire publishing houses which collapsed, have engendered distrust.
According to you, science could also end up being contaminated by disinformation…
This is a risk that should not be underestimated. There is a form of porosity. The same influential groups that spoil public debate also try to infiltrate scientific production. Ideologized people try to open their journal and make people believe that it is respected, they write studies that are reread by their friends. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish, within science, what is true and what is not.
Even if in the vast majority of cases scientists are still able to make a difference, the boundaries between science and politics are increasingly diluted. We must be careful, as scientists, to be as objective as possible and not appear to be choosing a side, or an idea. This is a subject that has interested me during my career: we all have cognitive biases. We must understand them, and challenge them.
What must science do to resist?
I think more openness is the solution. I’m not just talking about research articles that are freely and easily accessible, as is increasingly the case these days. We must systematically make public the data used by researchers, their analyses, and the elements identified during rereading. We should have public reports summarizing what was done during the review. The more open science is, the more difficult it will be to hide fraud, or to claim that things are being hidden from us. We also need more sanctions for fraudsters, from newspapers and institutions, which sometimes turn a blind eye. I also wrote in 2023 a open letter to the CNRSabout this. Hopefully, institutions will take these topics more seriously in the future.
.