{"id":3835,"date":"2026-02-11T07:26:40","date_gmt":"2026-02-11T06:26:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/?p=3835"},"modified":"2026-02-11T12:00:26","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T11:00:26","slug":"year-of-inaction-royal-society-hollowed-out-musk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2026\/02\/11\/year-of-inaction-royal-society-hollowed-out-musk\/","title":{"rendered":"A year of inaction: why has the Royal Society allowed itself to be hollowed out by Elon Musk?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, one year has passed since I published an <\/i>open letter<\/i><\/a>, signed by almost 3,500 members of the scientific community, asking the Royal Society to deal meaningfully with breaches of its code of conduct by Elon Musk FRS. Twelve months on, I look at why those concerns are still live, why they are important, and outline how our national science academy might, even at this late stage, recover its reputation.<\/i><\/p>\n

\"Colourful<\/a><\/p>\n

Professor Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, would have you believe<\/a> that concerns raised within<\/a> and without<\/a> the Society about the behaviour of their honoured fellow, Elon Musk FRS, are because some people think he\u2019s a \u201cbad person\u201d. Nurse\u2019s predecessor as President, Sir Adrian Smith, repeatedly sought characterise the concerns as differences of political opinion so that any attempt to bring Musk to book would amount to interference with the right of fellows to hold and express controversial views. Several other Fellows have, I understand, dismissed the concerns over Musk\u2019s actions as a storm in a social media teacup.<\/p>\n

If these various claims were true, the Royal Society\u2019s inaction in respect of Mr Musk would indeed be warranted. There is of course some<\/i> political character to Musk\u2019s activities, since over the past several years he has been very politically engaged, campaigning enthusiastically for Donald Trump and even for a time worked within the Trump administration (as head of DOGE); and it is true that some of those who have objected to Musk\u2019s continued fellowship within the Royal Society clearly don\u2019t like his politics.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But the heart of the matter is not to do with political differences. It is to do with the fact that Musk actions amount to clear contraventions of the Fellows\u2019 code of conduct<\/a>. Given the ongoing obfuscation and confusion around the issues raised by this troubling episode, I think it is important to put on record carefully and straightforwardly why the Royal Society\u2019s failure to address Musk\u2019s breaches of their code has so undermined the integrity and authority of our national academy of science.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Why does the Royal Society have a code? It explains that in the preamble:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Royal Society\u2019s fundamental purpose, reflected in its founding Charters of the 1660s, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity. The credibility of the Society\u2019s work in pursuit of these objectives rests in large part upon its reputation. This in turn rests upon the reputation of the Fellows and Foreign Members of which the Society is composed, and their upholding of high standards in their work and conduct both inside and outside of the Society.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And how exactly has Musk\u2019s conduct fallen below the standards enshrined in the code? I want to focus here on what I see as the primary concerns, steering clear of those that arguably have some partisan or political character. They can be simply stated:<\/p>\n

First: following Musk\u2019s acquisition of X he removed the teams who worked to counteract the spread of deceptive material<\/a> and by reconfiguring the algorithm<\/a> to boost his own posts, has become one of the most prominent<\/a> sources<\/a> of misinformation on the platform.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second: as head of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), he played a leading role in grievously, chaotically and at times unlawfully undermining federal research agencies and programmes<\/a> in the USA.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, and most seriously: also as head of DOGE he bragged about defunding USAID<\/a>, an action that is reckoned to have killed tens of thousands people by suddenly depriving them of critical healthcare and to result in up to 14 million deaths by 2030, according to a study published in the Lancet<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It is difficult to see how spreading misinformation can \u201csupport excellence in science\u201d given the long-established ethos<\/a> of the scientific community that truth-claims should be consonant \u201cwith observation and with previously confirmed knowledge\u201d; or how drastic and disorderly cuts to research and aid budgets that have cost some people their jobs and others their lives \u201cencourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Musk\u2019s actions appear to be diametrically opposed to the mission and values of the Royal Society. As the code makes plain, his Fellowship of the Royal Society is \u201ca privilege predicated on adherence to particular standards of conduct.\u201d By accepting the honour of fellowship he has agreed that he \u201cshall not act or fail to act in any way which would undermine the Society’s mission or bring the Society into disrepute\u201d (Section 1.5). The code also clearly explains that this stricture applies to statements or conduct inside and outside the Royal Society: \u201cWhen speaking or publicising statements in a personal capacity, Fellows and Foreign Members must still strive to uphold the reputation of the Society and those who work in it, and be mindful that what is said or stated in a personal capacity could still impact the Society\u201d (Section 4.19); and \u201cWhen acting in other capacities (for example, as an employee of another organisation), Fellows and Foreign Members must be mindful that what is done in other capacities may still reflect on the Society\u201d (section 4.20).<\/p>\n

Fellows are also expected to understand the consequences that flow from breaches of the code; they must \u201cacknowledge the responsibility and right of the Society to ensure this Code of Conduct is adhered to, and accept that if a breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred this may trigger enforcement action (including temporary or permanent suspension as a Fellow [\u2026]\u201d (section 5.21)<\/p>\n

To date, more than a year since concerns about Musk\u2019s breaches of the code of conduct were first raised, the leadership of the Royal Society has failed to take any meaningful action or to explain how his actions do not, in their view, contravene the code. When Nurse wrote to Musk last year<\/a> detailing the concerns raised by his actions, he got no reply. It is hard to imagine how this disregard for the Royal Society and its code could be any clearer, yet the Society took no further action.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Arguably, the leadership of the Royal Society is now also in breach of its own<\/i> code of conduct. As section 1.3 makes plain: \u201cThe Society strives to act in accordance with the highest standards of public life. In their work with the Society, all Fellows and Foreign Members are expected to follow the Nolan principles of public life, namely: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Where is the accountability, the openness, the honesty and the leadership? Nurse has claimed in his interview with the Financial Times<\/a> that the Royal Society \u201cshould not start \u2018making judgments\u2019 about the \u2018character and behaviour\u2019 of fellows\u201d, a statement that is in essence a denial of the Society\u2019s code of conduct. In failing to call Mr Musk to account over his actions and in repeatedly declining to explain why they believe he has not fallen foul of their code, our national academy gives the very strong impression of having abandoned its values.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This has gravely weakened the legitimacy of the Royal Society\u2019s claim to speak on behalf of the wider UK scientific community. The seriousness of this failure should not be underestimated. At a time when we need reputable institutions so speak up for high standards of integrity and evidence in public discourse, the Royal Society has \u2013 for reasons still known only itself \u2013 spiked its own guns.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This affair has dragged on for far too long and barely makes the news anymore. Instead the headlines are dominated by politicians riding to power on waves of misinformation and clinging to it \u2013 as in the case of the recent killings of two US citizens on the streets of Minneapolis \u2013 with flat denials of the evidence of our own eyes. In the face of the daily degradation of public discourse by lies, deceit and conspiracy theories transmitted across social media, many of them touching on scientific matters such as vaccines, climate science and the wealth of human diversity, the Royal Society stands almost mute. Instead of facing the most serious challenge to its values in decades, it has averted its gaze and now clearly wishes this whole Musk business would just go away. But it will not go away. The Society now faces the shame and embarrassment of the fact that a company run by one of its Fellows is being investigated<\/a> for the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It isn\u2019t just on matters of science that we must push back on misinformation spread in bad faith. The bedrock of our democracy is being eroded, as Eliot Higgins and Natalie Martin have described so succinctly in a recent Demos report<\/a> that warns of the \u201cepistemic collapse\u201d due to the loss of trusted information supply chains and the breakdown of relationships between citizens and the state. Their verification, deliberation and accountability framework offers a tools for diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses in our democratic processes. Simply put, they identify three foundational functions of democracy:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n