loading . . . A year of inaction: why has the Royal Society allowed itself to be hollowed out by Elon Musk? _Today, one year has passed since I published an_ _open letter_ _, 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._
Professor Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, would have you believe that concerns raised within and without the Society about the behaviour of their honoured fellow, Elon Musk FRS, are because some people think he’s a “bad person”. Nurse’s 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’s actions as a storm in a social media teacup.
If these various claims were true, the Royal Society’s inaction in respect of Mr Musk would indeed be warranted. There is of course _some_ political character to Musk’s 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’s continued fellowship within the Royal Society clearly don’t like his politics.
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’ code of conduct. 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’s failure to address Musk’s breaches of their code has so undermined the integrity and authority of our national academy of science.
Why does the Royal Society have a code? It explains that in the preamble:
> _“The Royal Society’s 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’s 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.”_
And how exactly has Musk’s 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:
First: following Musk’s acquisition of X he removed the teams who worked to counteract the spread of deceptive material and by reconfiguring the algorithm to boost his own posts, has become one of the most prominent sources of misinformation on the platform.
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 in the USA.
Third, and most seriously: also as head of DOGE he bragged about defunding USAID, 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.
It is difficult to see how spreading misinformation can “support excellence in science” given the long-established ethos of the scientific community that truth-claims should be consonant “with observation and with previously confirmed knowledge”; or how drastic and disorderly cuts to research and aid budgets that have cost some people their jobs and others their lives “encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity”.
Musk’s 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 “a privilege predicated on adherence to particular standards of conduct.” By accepting the honour of fellowship he has agreed that he “shall not act or fail to act in any way which would undermine the Society’s mission or bring the Society into disrepute” (Section 1.5). The code also clearly explains that this stricture applies to statements or conduct inside and outside the Royal Society: “When 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” (Section 4.19); and “When 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” (section 4.20).
Fellows are also expected to understand the consequences that flow from breaches of the code; they must “acknowledge 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 […]” (section 5.21)
To date, more than a year since concerns about Musk’s 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 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.
Arguably, the leadership of the Royal Society is now also in breach of its _own_ code of conduct. As section 1.3 makes plain: “The 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.”
Where is the accountability, the openness, the honesty and the leadership? Nurse has claimed in his interview with the Financial Times that the Royal Society “should not start ‘making judgments’ about the ‘character and behaviour’ of fellows”, a statement that is in essence a denial of the Society’s 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.
This has gravely weakened the legitimacy of the Royal Society’s 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 – for reasons still known only itself – spiked its own guns.
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 – as in the case of the recent killings of two US citizens on the streets of Minneapolis – 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 for the creation and distribution of child sexual abuse material.
It isn’t 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 that warns of the “epistemic collapse” 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:
* * Citizens must be able to know what is true.
* They must be able to see that their voices count in shaping public reasoning.
* And they must be able to hold power to account.
The Royal Society is hardly the main player when it comes to shoring up democracy, but it is an important one. Its failure to properly deal with Musk, particularly with regard to his spread of misinformation, has weakened each of the three pillars identified in the Demos report. Higgins and Martin are doing the hard thinking that we might once have looked for at the Royal Society. Our national academy should have a strong voice in the wider debates about truth, trust and accountability, but first it must put its own house in order.
I offered suggestions over six months ago about how it might go about this. They will bear repeating and updating since so little has happened in the meantime.
First, the Royal Society needs to demonstrate that it is willing to deal effectively and proportionately with breaches of its code of conduct. Although President Sir Paul Nurse has raised his breaches of the code in correspondence with Musk, even going so far as to suggest that Musk might wish to resign his fellowship, when no reply the Royal Society did nothing. Their failure to respond to Musk’s indifference to their values sends the message that these values have little meaning for the Society itself. It is frankly intolerable that the Royal Society has allowed itself to be hollowed out in this way.
Second, the Royal Society needs to update its code of conduct to deal with cases where one of its Fellows pivots from science to more questionable activities, political or otherwise. The assumptions underlying the current draft – that Fellows would be practising scientists – clearly no longer hold. The updated code has to address cases where Fellows engage in behaviours that are divorced from evidence and truth-telling, while _explicitly_ still allowing for freedom of speech, political pluralism and robust, good-faith debate.
Finally, the Society needs to deliver on its vague promises of action and communicate its plans to advocate for the value of science and scientific values amid the rising tides of misinformation. Having been mute for more than a year now, it has to rediscover a voice that truly speaks for the community it claims to represent. https://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2026/02/11/year-of-inaction-royal-society-hollowed-out-musk/
