
The Royal Society elected Elon Musk into a Fellowship in 2018. Musk was honoured for his work in technology and engineering, particularly in the fields of space exploration and sustainable energy,
This has become a controversial election. Musk’s reputation in scientific circles has crashed. On 25 November 2024, Prof Dorothy Bishop resigned her Fellowship with the blog posting here. Her argument is that Elon Musk had breached the Royal Society Code of Conduct, of which the most relevant sections are here.
2.6. Fellows and Foreign Members shall carry out their scientific research with regard to the Society’s statement on research integrity and to the highest standards.
2.10. Fellows and Foreign Members shall treat all individuals in the scientific enterprise collegially and with courtesy, including supervisors, colleagues, other Society Fellows and Foreign Members, Society staff, students and other early‐career colleagues, technical and clerical staff, and interested members of the public.
2.11. Fellows and Foreign Members shall not engage in any form of discrimination, harassment, or bullying.
Subsequently, Prof Andrew Millar resigned his Fellowship here on 13 February, stating “I hope the Royal Society reforms its processes fundamentally, so that it is fit for more of the challenges to science.” There is also a letter by Prof Stephen Curry open for signatures from any member of the scientific community until March 3rd here. It deplores the continued silence and inaction of the Royal Society on the matter of Musk.
The contrary viewpoint has been articulated by Fiona Fox in an article for Research Professional News. For balance, Prof Dorothy Bishop has also provided a list of reasons not to expel Musk here.
It seems clear by his public attacks on Anthony Fauci that Elon Musk has breached the Code of Conduct. The problem is that other Fellows of the Royal Society seem also to have broken the Code of Conduct and experienced no repercussions. To be clear, the 21 Group would like to see Codes of Conduct implemented consistently and uniformly.
This is a problem not just for the Royal Society, but also the British Academy, the Academy of Medical Sciences and other learned bodies who have similar Codes of Conduct. Let’s give some examples.
AlJazeera provided compelling evidence that Prof Andy Orchard FBA of Oxford University is “a serial sexual predator“. It included testimony from Prof Catherine Karkov (Leeds University) and Prof Ananya Kabir (King’s College, London) about Orchard’s drunken and sexualised behaviour at the University of Cambridge when they were young. (Predictably, no action was taken by Cambridge). While at the University of Toronto, Andy Orchard targeted his students for affairs. Prof Alex Gillespie, then a young academic, but now president and vice principal of Toronto University described how he corned her. “Then it got sexualized, he said: ‘I’m going to fire one last shot of testosterone across your bow’ It felt like a threat”. Nonetheless, in 2015 he was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. In 2019, he was even invited to deliver the British Academy’s Sir Israel Gollancz Memorial Lecture.
The archaeologist Prof Corinne Hofman FBA was found guilty of “a decades-long culture of fear in which Hofman and Hoogland [her partner] exhibited transgressive behaviour, violated scientific integrity, abused their power and possibly committed criminal offences.” The reports in the Dutch press make horrifying reading — not just because of the abusive treatment of students and postdocs over many years, but also because of violations of academic & scientific integrity and even criminal activity. A total of nineteen people, including postdocs and PhD students who worked with Hofman in the period 1990-2023, complained about her abuse. The full report is available at Leiden University’s website. Leiden has begun proceedings to dismiss Prof Hofman. She was a Fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. They suspended her with this statement. In response, Hofman resigned. However, Hofman was also elected as a Fellow of the British Academy in 2016. So far the British Academy has remained silent about this matter.
The cancer scientist Prof Nazneen Rahman F MedSci resigned from her position as head of Genetics and Epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research in October 2018. This followed the upholding by an independent investigation of complaints of systematic bullying spanning 15 years from 44 of her current and former staff and students, as reported in The Guardian here. The complainants claimed the ICR had failed to take any action for years despite “multitudes of oral and written complaints” against Rahman at the institute. Rahman was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences in 2010. They have not seen fit to revisit this honour since the decades of horrific bullying were substantiated.
The Nobel laureate James Watson FRS is famous for the unravelling of the structure of DNA (for which he shared the Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins). He has a long history of sexist, racist public comments. The Double Helix is a repulsive book, dismantling and ridiculing the achievements of the then deceased Rosalind Franklin. Latterly, he has become infamous for his often stated view that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, for example in the film American Masters: Decoding Watson. The remarks prompted the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where Watson was a director from 1968 to 1994, to sever its ties. The lab removed Watson’s honorary titles, saying his views are “reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of the lab“. He remains an FRS.
The Royal Society, the British Academy and the Academy of Medical Sciences all need to get up off their knees and live up to what they claim are their principles.
This is about more rodents than the Muskrat.
11 Comments
21percent.org · 2 March 2025 at 06:54
The 21 Group asked Hetan Shah, the Chief Executive of the British Academy, to act on the case of Prof Corinne Hofman, on 19/8/2024
We received a reply beginning
“The British Academy takes allegations of misconduct very seriously. We have clear procedures in place, set out in our regulations, which govern the standard of conduct we expect from Fellows, the process of dealing with complaints, and possible sanctions, including revocation of Fellowship.”
As often happens when an organisations says it takes “allegations of misconduct very seriously“, this is a smokescreen for not doing anything.
As we pointed out here, the National Academy of Sciences has ejected individuals — Profs Geoff Marcy, Francisco Ayala and Luis Jaime Castillo Butters
It is just a matter of acting on your principles, something that most UK institutions are very poor at doing.
CCJ · 2 March 2025 at 07:15
Doubt if Royal Society will do anything because it’s a dangerous precedent. Fellows will think ‘who’s next?’ Also, there are gonna be legal issues if you haven’t applied it consistently in past and now apply it to Musk.
Juvenal · 3 March 2025 at 06:34
Musk seems to be using the complete spectrum of stimulants, depressants, excitants, and mood enhancers
The problem for me is the hypocrisy. The Royal Society has a statement about conduct that it does not implement. The British Academy has one as well:
Fellows are elected for distinction in, or for their commitment to, research and scholarship and, upon their election, are expected to obey the Academy’s regulations and to maintain the highest standards of scholarly and professional conduct. For example, this includes refraining from the following:
i) Abuse of office as an elected Officer or chair or member of a Committee
ii) Interference with the due process for the distribution of grants, selection of lecturers, award of prizes etc.
iii) Interference with the due process for election of Fellows
iv) Failure to declare a material conflict of interest
v) Causing damage or loss to Academy property or resource
vi) Making a public statement, without authorisation, purporting to be in the name of the Academy
vii) Inappropriate behaviour (eg bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment)
viii) Financial impropriety.
This seems weaker than the Royal Society’s, but as there is no intention to implement it, I suppose it hardly matters.
They are like statements about bullying on university websites. They are there for PR or spin purpose mainly.
21percent.org · 4 March 2025 at 06:46
The BBC have reported thus
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e44ge0xnwo
Nobel prize-winner Prof Sir Andre Geim from Manchester University said: “Musk is certainly an eccentric, but his achievements beat those of any of his critics in the Royal Society. Very few can say that they achieved similar in their lives.”
Other scientists who spoke to the BBC pointed out that an attempt to remove Mr Musk’s fellowship could be seen as political interference and a curtailment of freedom of expression.
But Prof George Efstathiou, from the University of Cambridge, dismissed that argument. Members, he said, “should at least have respect for the truth“.
“If somebody has a disregard for the truth and says things that are blatantly false, then that speaks to their ethical standards,” he added. “That’s not political.”
KarlinManchester · 4 March 2025 at 08:21
Given all that is wrong in academic life, a campaign to throw Musk out of the Royal Society very much looks like a top people’s problem.
The struggle of the privileged is real
21percent.org · 4 March 2025 at 13:14
The Guardian report here
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/03/elon-musk-royal-society-fellowship-survives-fractious-members-meeting
Brute · 5 March 2025 at 08:03
Does the Royal Society need to exist? Does it actually serve any useful purpose in the modern world? Why do we need an organisation with a restricted membership based on unclear & subjective criteria?
Maybe all the Fellows should be expelled?
Eileen Nugent · 5 March 2025 at 13:24
I think Geoff Hinton comments are closest to the mark on this. Musk is playing with some of the most significant systems of science funding globally in an uncontrolled manner (which is not efficient) generating significant unnecessary stress for all the individuals who depend on those systems to keep their active research programmes alive and who have collectively generated the scientific basis (e.g. battery storage technology breakthroughs) that underpinned the exceptional successes that individuals such as himself have been able to achieve as individuals. What he is doing is robbing opportunities from all the other individuals who now happen to be entering into the system now (undergrads, postgrads, staff), individuals who have the potential to achieve even greater success as an individuals than he did because knowledge can now advance at even greater speeds than were possible in the past, individuals who then have the potential to make their own significant contributions to society in future. Musk says he willing listen to criticism, he admits that he will make mistakes but says he is willing to fix the mistakes made fast. Uncontrolled changing of a system is not reform, it is not efficient and it will not lead to sustainable increases in the strength of the system. It’s just lots of unnecessary individual suffering for no go reason and to no good end.
Eileen Nugent · 5 March 2025 at 13:29
I am not a member of any of these societies and it is therefore not for me to say who should or should not be a member of them. The comments above were general comments made in relation to the situation.
() power · 6 March 2025 at 12:08
Musk has no problem cutting off funding for essential scientific research, hence I fail to see why the Royal Society has a problem cutting off a serial lecher like Musk.
However, perhaps once he is done with the US government, Mr Musk could take a trip to the UK and sort out our own inefficient and bloated higher education sector?
I think we could use someone like him to take a chainsaw to the legions of overpaid senior administrators, HR “thought leaders” and nonsense external consultants who have taken over our management functions.
Eileen Nugent · 6 March 2025 at 21:39
Why pin your hopes on one individual coming and rescuing an entire country when you have a nice clear voice that is perfect for giving direct feedback.