The Royal Society has decided not to take disciplinary action against Elon Musk over his conduct, saying that to do so could cause damage to the academy and science itself.
Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who also owns the social media platform X, was elected a fellow of the UK’s national academy of sciences in 2018, apparently in recognition of his work in the space and electric vehicle industries.
However, over the past year calls have grown from both fellows and the wider scientific community for the academy to take action amid concerns Musk has violated the academy’s code of conduct, with incidents ranging from calling the British MP Jess Phillips a “rape genocide apologist” to his role in making swingeing cuts to research funding in the US through the “department of government efficiency” (doge).
The code includes the stipulation that fellows shall “not act or fail to act in any way which would undermine the society’s mission or bring the society into disrepute”.
However, the president of the Royal Society, Sir Adrian Smith, has now made it clear Musk will not face an investigation.
In an email that the Guardian has seen and understands to have been sent to all fellows, Smith noted a variety of deeply held – but in many cases opposing views – were aired at a meeting held earlier this month to discuss matters relating to the conduct of fellows.
But, he added, the council was ultimately responsible for acting in the best interests of the society and that, it seems, does not involve investigating Musk’s conduct.
“The view of council is that making judgments on the acceptability of the views and actions of fellows, particularly those that might be regarded as political, could do more harm than good to the society and the cause of science in general. Council believes that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated on such grounds,” Smith wrote.
“The challenges that science is facing today go much wider than any individual and it was felt by many of those present, as well as others who have expressed their concerns separately, that we should focus our energies in making the principled case for science.”
The email follows a torrid period for the academy: last summer, Musk’s conduct prompted a number of fellows to write to the society calling for steps to be taken, with a subsequent lack of action resulting in two eminent scientists resigning their fellowships in protest and more than 3,400 members of the scientific community signing an open letter expressing similar dismay.
Some fellows, including the Nobel laureate and AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton, have even called explicitly for Musk’s expulsion.
However, others have raised concerns about such a step, noting it could be politically difficult and raise questions about the fellowship of others who have expressed controversial views. Some have also argued revoking Musk’s fellowship could undermine trust in science.
Smith’s letter said a decision not to go down the road of formal disciplinary proceedings should not be taken as meaning that the council condoned attacks on science or scientists, and reiterated concerns about cuts to science funding in the US, the spread of misinformation and disregard of important scientific evidence by the new US administration.
Smith added a letter had been sent to Musk by the president-elect, Sir Paul Nurse, although the contents were not revealed, and stressed the academy will “step up advocacy for science and challenge attacks on science and scientists, particularly in the United States”.
“We will also be seeking to engage directly with our fellows in the US, who are the ones most directly affected, and who are best placed to understand exactly what is going on in their fields of expertise and what interventions, if any, on their behalf, would be most effective,” Smith wrote, adding engagement with Fellows in the UK would also be expanded.
Hinton was among the fellows who confirmed he had received a communication from Smith, but said its confidentiality prevented him from commenting upon its contents.
“I can repeat my own opinion, which is that if the [Royal Society] gives fellowships for promoting science they should take them away for demoting science,” he said.
Stephen Curry, an emeritus professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, who is not a fellow of the Royal Society but organised the open letter, said he welcomed efforts to reach out to researchers in the US and the UK, but noted the content of Nurse’s letter remained a mystery and that Smith’s email made no mention of the academy’s code of conduct.
“How can the Royal Society claim to act in a principled way when it’s turning a blind eye to Musk’s unprincipled scientific behaviour, spreading misinformation, or failing to speak out against the anti-scientific actions of the administration of which he is a part – and that is something I think he’s required to do by the fellows’ code of conduct,” Curry said, adding the academy had not said Musk had not broken the code.
Curry added that the academy was continuing to harm itself by not being open and robust about an issue that had caused concern among fellows.
“While they continue to refuse to address Musk’s contraventions of their code of conduct, their authority to speak for the UK scientific community is undermined at the minute,” he said. “I don’t feel that they speak for me.”
