The Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s oldest scientific academy, finds itself at the centre of a controversy involving entrepreneur Elon Musk.

For the first time in nearly 250 years, the Society is facing calls to consider expelling a member, a move that has sparked significant debate within the scientific community.

Concerns were raised by some scientists over Musk’s actions and stance on issues related to scientific research funding and the dissemination of information on the platform X.

In response, two distinguished members, Professor Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford and Professor Andrew Millar of the University of Edinburgh, resigned in protest.

Their decision follows an open letter signed by more than 3,500 individuals expressing “deep concern” over Musk’s continued membership in the Royal Society.

In November 2024, Bishop wrote about her resignation: “The case of Elon Musk, who was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2018 on the basis of his technological achievements, notably in space travel and electrical vehicle development. Unfortunately, since that time, his interests have extended to using social media for political propaganda, while at the same time battling what he sees as “woke mind virus” and attacks on free speech. Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion on issues such as climate change and medicine, over the past year or two, he’s started promoting alternative ideas.”

However, some voices argue that expelling Elon Musk from the Royal Society could set a dangerous precedent and risk being perceived as a politically motivated action.

Certain scientists highlight Musk’s contributions to technological advancement, particularly in space exploration and electric mobility, and emphasise that scientific institutions should exercise caution before making decisions that might restrict the plurality of viewpoints.

The last scientist to be expelled from the Royal Society was the German Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1775, following accusations of theft and fraud. However, the current case is different, as it revolves around issues of ethics and scientific integrity.

According to Professor Bishop, the most relevant sections of the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct concerning the controversy surrounding Elon Musk are:

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.

In a statement the Royal Society said: “At a meeting of the Royal Society, Fellows agreed on the need to stand up for science and for scientists around the world in the face of the growing challenges science faces.

“Concern was expressed, in particular, about the fate of colleagues in the US who are reportedly facing the prospect of losing their jobs amid threats of radical cutbacks in research funding.

“Fellows, over 150 of whom attended tonight’s meeting, were united in the need for the Society to step up its efforts to advocate for science and scientists at a time when these are under threat as never before and yet at the same time have never been more necessary for humanity at large.

“The Society agreed to look at potential further actions that might help make the case for science and scientific research and counter the misinformation and ideologically motivated attacks on both science and scientists.”

 

DOROTHY BISHOP

Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology, University of Oxford

 What was the tipping point that led you to resign from the Royal Society over this issue?

Musk using his huge social media platform to spread disinformation with the aim of stirring up racial unrest in the UK in the Summer of 2024.

How did you expect the Royal Society to respond when you first raised your concerns about Elon Musk?

I thought they would consider his behaviour to have breached their Code of Conduct, and either give him a warning or expel him.

Have you received any response from the Royal Society since your resignation?

I had a discussion with the President and Chief Executive after I wrote to resign, during which they explained that they had taken legal advice and that Musk was not thought to have breached the Code of Conduct. I had since sent them additional evidence of breaches, and they told me they could consider this additional evidence, but they had to go through a long process that involved taking legal advice, having the case looked at by the Conduct Committee, communicating with Musk and possibly then having a vote of the Fellows which would need a 2/3 majority. At this point I asked if anyone had ever been expelled and was told not for 250 years. I lacked confidence in the process, which seemed designed to ensure nobody ever got expelled, so said I wanted to resign. They expressed regret.

What specific actions or statements by Elon Musk do you believe are most damaging to science?

The overarching problem is that you expect someone who is honoured as a top scientist to be truthful, concerned for evidence, careful in coming to conclusions, and aware of the potential impact of their statements on society. In spreading conspiracy theories, including those that put prominent figures at risk (Anthony Fauci in particular), Musk is the opposite of what a top scientist should be. Since mid-Jan matters have escalated as he has, via DOGE, implemented cuts to science funding agencies including NIH, NSF, NOAA and CDC. I would agree that these agencies, and science funding in general, might benefit from reorganisation, but this would need to be done in a considered and proportionate way, with a clear timeline. Instead, people are suddenly finding their funding removed, jobs are disappearing, and grants are not getting reviewed. This is far more serious than anything else Musk has done, in that it is a direct attack on scientific research in the USA, which, even if it stopped now, would take a long time to recover from.

Some argue that removing Musk would be a form of political interference or censorship. How do you respond to that argument?

The Royal Society needs to be impartial and it should not, for instance, worry about whether its fellows support left- or right-wing politics. But what we are seeing here is not a case of objecting to Musk’s politics. It is objecting to his actions, which show a total lack of regard for science and evidence, and are causing active harm. I think we should censor people who spread disinformation.

Elon Musk dismissed concerns about his Royal Society fellowship, stating, “Only craven, insecure fools care about awards and memberships. History is the actual judge, always and forever.” How do you respond to that? Do you think this attitude undermines the value of scientific institutions?

This is one point where I agree with Musk. It’s a view also shared by Richard Feynman. Scientific institutions like the Royal Society do a lot of good work, but they are at risk of becoming too inward-looking. They lose value if they fail to show a clear commitment to standing up for science.

ANDREW MILLAR

Professor of Systems Biology at the University of Edinburgh

 Could you walk us through your decision to resign from the Royal Society? What was the tipping point for you?

Professor Dorothy Bishop’s resignation post outlined some of her motivations for resigning in Nov 2024. I share many of her concerns, including about Mr. Musk’s comments regarding Dr. Anthony Fauci. So please note the timing, these issues came to a head in the summer of 2024.

I did not resign in November because at that point, the Royal Society’s Council had not explained how it had attempted to address the issues raised by Fellows regarding Mr. Musk’s Fellowship. Professor Bishop’s statement explains that she judged that no action would follow. I resigned in February because the Council had considered but not found any proportionate action.

Did you feel that resigning was the most effective way to make a statement? Did you consider other forms of protest?

In resigning, you obviously lose most influence within the organisation. I judged that the internal process was stuck, and it would take more than writing letters to unstick it.

What specific aspects of Elon Musk’s actions do you believe are “incompatible” with the Royal Society’s code of conduct?

It’s important to remember that Mr. Musk is a special case, and regulation should not in general be created to deal with special cases.

Mr Musk is accused of spreading misinformation on his platform, X, how significant to you think this misinformation has been in undermining science?

I have no quantitative evidence, but I expect that they are significant. At the least, governance processes must recognise that the speech of media proprietors like Mr. Musk has a different scale of influence to the speech of private citizens, like individual research scientists – this is relevant to the RS code of conduct, see below.

His role in the US government has been linked to funding cuts for scientific research. Do you believe this alone should be grounds for revoking his fellowship?

The actions of the current US administration are hugely damaging to science and to evidence-based policymaking but the issues with Mr. Musk predate these. But this raises the general issue that a code of conduct developed for individual research scientists cannot be applied to the collective decisions of a government – see below – this is a category error (a type mismatch, if you’re a coder), and the RS needs to resolve it in general not just for Mr. Musk.

Some argue that Musk’s contributions to technology and space exploration outweigh his controversial actions. How would you respond to that?

Mr. Musk’s position has radically changed over the past several years. I supported his election, for exactly the reasons that you note. At that time, he strongly supported climate science. When a Fellow’s actions change so radically, it’s appropriate to reconsider.

You and others have called on the Royal Society to be more vocal in advocating for science and scientists. In what ways do you think they have fallen short?

This is a medium-term issue that goes far beyond the special case presented by Mr. Musk. Societies need to develop legal protections for science and evidence, for scientists and scientific institutions in a decade that might well see growing, even unprecedented challenges to science, viz. current examples in the USA. In that context, the Royal Society is one of many organisations that should start reconsidering processes fundamentally, but this will (and should) take some time.

What specific actions would you like to see the Royal Society take going forward?

Changing processes for a special case is generally not recommended. So is there a broader point to address? I think so. The Royal Society might have some unfinished business, which several others have pointed to before.

The RS has elected quite a small number of new Fellows like Mr. Musk from broader, science-relevant backgrounds and plans to increase that number slightly. I support making these links to business and policy. I would prefer to see many more scientists become active in policymaking, in government and in business, including Fellows of the Royal Society.  [note I was one of the Chief Scientific Advisers to the Scottish Government in 2018-21].

So what’s the problem? Well, nothing else changed. The RS did not anticipate that their broader roles might bring these new Fellows into conflict with a code of conduct that was developed for working research scientists. Actively managing such conflicts is hardly groundbreaking, it’s routine where political and business interests overlap. To me, this looks like unfinished business that is worth addressing. It is relevant to Mr. Musk’s current position, and also serves a broader purpose for the RS. It should be easier than re-imagining the Society’s statutes. The meeting on Monday 03.03.25 might have agreed to make a start on some broader process like this, and not just consider a single remedy for one individual. To be clear, Mr. Musk is a special case. I am advocating a broader reconsideration of the RS procedures, which might affect other Fellows also.

More than 3,300 scientists have signed a letter criticising Musk’s fellowship. Do you think this level of concern is being taken seriously enough?

The RS operates discretely, so it’s hard to know what’s brewing. It might now be preparing general action of the type I advocate above.

Some fellows believe removing Musk would be a form of political interference. Do you see this as a political issue, or is it purely about ethics and scientific integrity?

The latter. Anything concerning Mr. Musk will now be interpreted politically by external commentators, that is just reality. But omission is as political an act as commission. The RS is applying a political judgement if it fails to act on Mr. Musk.

This situation has sparked broader discussions about scientific integrity and misinformation. Do you think this will set a precedent for how institutions like the Royal Society handle similar cases in the future?

I hope not as Mr. Musk is a special case but it could be the prompt for the RS deal with what I see as unfinished business, and that would have broader benefits for the RS, and could apply to other organisations. Note that the US NAS did revise its code of conduct a few years ago, and then expelled Members against whom their institutions upheld harassment claims.

Do you worry that if the Royal Society does not act decisively, it could damage its reputation?

The main concern is science and evidence-based policy, not the RS reputation.

STEPHEN CURRY

Emeritus Professor of Structural Biology, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London

 What motivated you to write this letter expressing concern over Elon Musk’s fellowship at Royal Society? 

I had become concerned at some point last year because I was aware that in the summer of 2024 an internal letter written by, I think one of the existing fellows have been signed by 74 fellows expressing concerns about, I think, statements and behaviour of Elon Musk.

I’m not sure exactly what was in the letter because I’ve not seen the text, but I know that, on the basis of that, the leadership of the Royal Society decided to take no action and made no public comment about it. And then, in November last year, Professor Dorothy Bishop actually resigned her fellowship in protest at the lack of action, and she laid out a very detailed sheet of what she saw were problematic statements and behaviours that in her view, and I share that view.

We’re in contravention of the society’s code of conduct. That code of conduct is a condition of retaining one’s fellowship. The Fellowship of the Royal Society is a great honour. It’s conferred on relatively few scientists, as a recognition of their scientific achievements.

But it’s made very clear in the code of conduct that the fellowship is predicated on adherence to particular standards of conduct, and that all fellows agree to abide by the code. And so that code outlines principles that are widely shared in the scientific community with regard to scientific integrity, respect for evidence and respect for truth.

And Mr. Musk’s behaviours were falling foul of that. And yet, they decided to take no action. So, then even after Dorothy had resigned, there was no action, and then, to my mind, the situation became even more serious because Mr. Musk has joined the Trump administration, which took office in January, and which has set about policies which are sort of introducing extraordinarily deep cuts to the research budget.

They are firing people left, right, and centre, which is losing a great deal of talent. And they have implemented a policy of censorship around, terms like equality and diversity and female.

They have a very anti DEI. The agenda, which is very ideologically motivated, and which doesn’t recognise the fact that diversity, equality, and inclusion policies are designed to try and ensure that the scientific community can draw talent from people, and include people from all backgrounds, and so they’re causing enormous harm, and it struck me that the Royal Society as a body that claims to speak for the UK scientific community and actually does have an influential voice on the international stage I was concerned that they had been doing and saying nothing around Mr. Musk’s involvement in the dismantling of the US research system and with regard to his other behaviours which were contrary to the principles, that the Royal Society demands of itself as its code of conduct. So that’s what prompted me to write the letter and I it has resonated with a lot of people that didn’t quite expect it to get the response that it did.

Were you surprised by the level of support your letter received from the scientific community?

Yes, I was. Initially, I had written it and I had sent it to Professor Adrian Smith, who is the president of the Royal Society. And I had said to him, given the public interest in this issue, I’m going to publish the letter openly on my blog. But as soon as I shared it on social media, a lot of people responded to it. So I decided to invite others to sign the letter as well, to indicate their support. I had no idea that as many as And it was ultimately nearly three and a half thousand people signed the letter in the three weeks that it was open for signatures. I think that’s an illustration of the depth of feeling, of the fact that  people hold their own society in very high regard. They do think that it’s a very important institution. And they also think that ethical scientific behaviour is very important as well.

And one of the responsibilities of fellows of the Royal Society is actually to exemplify the highest ideals of scientific behaviour and scientific endeavour. And it’s here that Mr. Musk seems to me to have fallen short. And I’m disappointed that the Royal Society so far seems to have done very little. Actually, they’ve done nothing that I’m aware of, to address the behaviours of Mr. Musk that are in contravention of the code of conduct.

But what specific actions would you like to see from the Royal Society to take to address misinformation and funding cuts?

Well, there’s little that the Royal Society can do practically to influence policy in the United States. The Royal Society is a British based organisation, but they could at the very least show clarity.

And in response to concerns raised by fellows, they issued a statement on the 25th of February, called Science Under Threat, which recognised, that there is a concern that in the public, in sort of national and other media outlets, it’s too easy for people to get away with this information.

And one of the troubling aspects of Mr. Musk’s behaviour is that he’s the owner of the platform X, formerly Twitter. And he’s been widely reported as one of the most active sharers of misinformation on that platform. And sharing this information is not something that we would expect a highly respected fellow of Royal Society to engage in.

So, I think they can send a strong message. I think they need to address this issue with Mr. Musk directly. Disappointing to me and to the rest of the scientific community, who signed the letter, is that the Royal Society isn’t telling us anything. They keep to this line that issues to do with individual members must be confidential, and I can understand that. In certain cases, if one makes a complaint about bullying behaviour, then one needs to hear both sides of the story, and it has to be confidential.

But what we’re talking about here are behaviours and statements by Mr. Musk that are entirely public. Everybody knows about them, and there’s widespread concern, and yet the Royal Society is saying nothing about that so far.

Some argue that Musk’s technological achievements outweigh his controversial actions. How do you respond to this kind of criticism? Do you believe that revoking his fellowship would send an effective message, or would it risk being seen as political?

I’m afraid that somebody’s achievements don’t absolve them of their responsibilities that they’ve signed up to.

Mr. Must accepted the Fellowship of the Royal Society. He accepted that that involves standards of conduct. And let me just point out that in the Code of Conduct, it says, when speaking or publicising statements in a personal capacity, fellows must be mindful of what is said, that it could still impact the society.

When acting in other capacities, members must be mindful that what is done may still reflect on the society. And so some of Mr. Musk’s statements and actions are reflecting badly on the society and are in contravention of the Code. I don’t deny his achievements in the fields of engineering. They’re certainly very impressive.

But he has accepted an honour that carries with it responsibilities. And my main concern is that he should be held to account for those responsibilities. And yes, some have tried to portray this as a political issue, as trying to silence or punish Musk because of his particular political views or political affiliations.

But that is not the case. My letter was very carefully worded with that regard. My concerns are breaches, current breaches of the Code of Conduct, and the inaction and silence from the Royal Society that has resulted from that. My complaint and my disappointment is as much with the Royal Society as with Mr. Musk.

What do you see as the biggest threat, uh, that Musk poses to scientific integrity?

He’s spreading misinformation. The scientific community prides itself on being an area of human activity where we really have to think about does the evidence mean and imply what we think it means, and one has to have open discourse and argument about that, and so it’s, you know, it’s a part of human endeavour where respect for evidence and respect for truth is absolutely paramount, and I think in today’s world where politics, politics has always been a dirty game, there’s no doubt about that, but ultimately I think if one cannot appeal to truth and respect for evidence, then one can see the rise of demagoguery, and we are seeing this certainly in the Trump administration, they have no respect for the truth whatsoever, they say one thing one day and then they deny ever having said it, the next day, and we see that in some populist parties in Europe as well, so I think there is a political role, small p political, for the scientific community to stand up and say, evidence actually matters and having respect for evidence, even if you don’t like the evidence, even if you think the evidence is contrary to your worldview, you have to examine it and you have to take it seriously.

And I think it’s incumbent on fellows of the Royal Society to be exemplars of that kind of behaviour. And unfortunately, Mr. Musk said nothing about the untruths that are emanating from the Trump administration. There’s a decimation of the scientific activity going on. He said nothing about that. And again, the Code of Conduct asks those shall not act or fail to act in any way which could undermine the science’s mission, and the science’s, and the society’s mission is to promote science. So, in that respect, Mr. Musk appears to be acting contrary to the Code of Conduct.

Do you think that scientists today feel more pressure to self-censor due to political and financial influences? And what steps can the scientific community take to protect research from ideological influence?

I think it’s really important that scientists do have and exercise both their freedom of expression and their academic freedom, the right to ask any sort of research question and not to suffer any kind of government or other political interference for doing so. That is difficult, certainly more difficult in some fields than in others, particularly in fields.  Where there is an awful lot of public discourse on them that you might be surprised, one being vaccine taking, for example. At the minute, there’s a measles outbreak in the United States, where they have just appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of State for Health, a man who’s been sceptical of vaccine, a man who is advising people to take extra vitamin A in order to protect themselves from measles. That is incredibly dangerous. And I think the scientific members of the scientific community do need to speak out very strongly against that kind of information because it’s causing enormous harm to public health.

And I think it’s particularly incumbent on senior members of that community and on the bodies that they form, such as the Royal Society, such as the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, to be standing up for evidence and for truth in this kind of regime. And that can offer some protection to individual scientists who are probably much more vulnerable.