Why I have resigned from the Royal Society

I respect the author&#x27;s principle-based approach but many of her arguments seem a little off. If the RS doesn&#x27;t expel people for their politics, then it doesn&#x27;t make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. And if you expel crotchety scientists for disagreeing with the scientific consensus there won&#x27;t be any left. The RS motto is literally &quot;Take nobody&#x27;s word for it&quot;; I don&#x27;t see how Musk disagreeing with other&#x27;s opinions could possibly be grounds for removing him.<p>That being said, Musk does seem like a vaguely inappropriate addition to the Society. His wikipedia page suggests he doesn&#x27;t have a PhD, doesn&#x27;t do any research and is involved in military matters for an army foreign to the UK. He&#x27;s obviously being included because he has lots of money and it isn&#x27;t clear to me if that is proper or not.

To quote him &quot;Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion&quot; Can someone please explain to me how we managed to get a whole generation of the western scientific thinkers who think the scientific method is consensus of scientific opinion? The author lists Isaac Newton, Hooke, Boyle . All of these prominent minds made scientific breakthroughs that didn&#x27;t stick to the consensus views of the time.<p>People interested should look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn.<p>To quote from Wikipedia: Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as &quot;development-by-accumulation&quot; of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity and cumulative progress, referred to as periods of &quot;normal science&quot;, were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.

All politics aside, is it normal for business people to be elected to the royal society?<p>Even if you think Musk is a genius, it seems hard to label him as a scientist (instead of a CEO of science-related companies).

I think the world at large today could use a few more people appealing to our better natures. For that, this is a wonderful statement.<p>I wish there was a way to moderate our modern discourse to be closer to finding ways forward together, rather than dividing ourselves further. Elon’s entire schtick these days is to move faster than regulatory bodies can align. I hoped for an attempt at amending the RS statutes for clarity and boundaries, rather than resignation from the battle entirely. Perhaps as proof that some boundaries can be reactive to anyone regardless of influence.<p>I can’t think of many causes worth fighting for that can be won through resignation, certainly never within research or scientific contexts.

I 100% support that letter. Musk is a stain on the Royal Society.

So some brown-nosers thought to pull Musk in because they thought it would get them some news and mentions and so on, possibly be financially advantageous in some way despite him not really being a scientist.<p>That seems to have been easy, but removing him now...oh...well....so difficult.<p>Similarly how easy it was to suck up to Russian billionaires in London and so difficult to sanction them when things went sour. We knew they were crooks back then but lots of people benefited from ignoring it.

The whole episode is a nice and timely reminder of the difficulty of the society as a whole in dealing with scientists and understanding which ones are good, which ones can be trusted, etc. Academic societies such as the RS help, but as this shows they are by no means perfect, and can be gamed and manipulated when the stakes are high enough. It is a real challenge though -- how do you trust a scientist without having to learn all the science they are telling you about?

Musk is a successful individual, but he doesn&#x27;t need RS, and RS definitely doesn&#x27;t need him either. Keeping him on the fellow list is simply a commercial gimmick and nothing more. I fully support the writer&#x27;s perspective.

I mean, the Royal Society has always been crazy, and full of provocative and crazy people. I&#x27;m not sure how you can have a group of geniuses without that.<p>Famously Newton was a complete and utter egomaniac nut job, as well as being one of the most gifted men to ever live. For example, the Leibnitz Newton debate - where surprisingly the royal society concluded in favour of Newton, while Newton was the head of the royal society.<p>Maybe 100 years from now, we will have letters complaining that the same illustrious society that Elon Musk (the man who revolutionised space travel) was once a member of, now houses so and such, who said x verifiably untrue statement.

I really don&#x27;t like this growing implication of scientists with political struggles orthogonal to their expertise.<p>This article criticizes Musk for spreading misinformation that goes against scientific views, in particular on climate change.<p>DISCLAIMER: I&#x27;ve worked 2 years on climate insurance, as a data scientist tasked with measuring the risks of extreme weather events and how they change with global warming. I&#x27;ve worked on Hurricanes (general name is Tropical Cyclones), Frost, and River flooding.<p>What are the damning examples of Musks&#x27;s misinformation cited in the article?<p>The worst I can find (except for having a jet, which all billionaires do) is under the title &quot;Downplaying the climate emergency&quot;, where the article quotes a Guardian article. In there, the most damning thing Musk has said is: &quot;Musk has praised Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and GOP presidential hopeful, as “a very promising candidate” despite Ramaswamy calling the climate change agenda a hoax. Musk responded to Ramaswamy on X about the climate crisis saying: “It is possibly overstated in the short term, but we should be concerned about it long term.”&quot;<p>Does that warrant a witch hunt? Is it even false?<p>Many media like the Guardian (cited many times in her article) like to announce short-term climatic Ragnarok, for instance increased risk of hurricanes[0].<p>And they cite short-term &quot;limits&quot; like reaching the threshold of 1.5°C additional average global temperature compared to pre-industrial era.<p>But these media mix up all climate risks in their Ragnarok, which makes their prophecies invalid. For instance on hurricanes: the risk of hurricanes could be REDUCED because of global warming [2] (frequency goes down, intensity goes slightly up).<p>In fact, as we&#x27;re nearing the 1.5°C &quot;limit&quot; [1], most of the doom warnings seem to have been invalid, except for precise heat-related risks like droughts and wildfires.<p>At least until 2024, Musk has been less wrong than the Guardian cited so often by this article. So should we remove this scientist from the Royal Society because she spreads misinformation? Oh well, it&#x27;s already done.<p>My point is PLEASE ONLY TRY TO CANCEL PEOPLE UNDER GOOD REASONS, because the perception by Republicans&#x2F;Right-wingers that Democrats&#x2F;Ecologists are hysteric is what truly undermines the West&#x27;s response to climate change.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2018&#x2F;oct&#x2F;08&#x2F;global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2018&#x2F;oct&#x2F;08&#x2F;global-w...</a> [1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wmo.int&#x2F;news&#x2F;media-centre&#x2F;global-temperature-likely-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level-temporarily-next-5-years" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wmo.int&#x2F;news&#x2F;media-centre&#x2F;global-temperature-likely-...</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41558-022-01388-4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41558-022-01388-4</a>

Noble enough.

&gt; Most of those I&#x27;ve spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: &quot;My pronouns are Prosecute&#x2F;Fauci&quot;, thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk.<p>This statement is clearly relevant to a scientific society. It is not just about unrelated bigotry by a fellow of that society.

I know who Elon Musk is and his contributions. My apologies, but I have never heard of the author and their contribution, and why should I fucking care what they (and 80 of their politically like-minded friends) think out of a thousand other members? Obviously the Royal Society&#x27;s own relevance is hinged on picking who they should keep between two opposing members.

No loss. Whinging about politics and non-mainstream opinions.<p>Is there genuine curiosity (even dare I say wrongthink) left in the RS or is it just another polite social club for people to gather and feel smug about the consensuses they&#x27;ve formed.

My esteem of the Royal Society is lessened by the realisation that it admits not just scientists, but also mere CEOs who aren’t scientists themselves. Would Henry Ford be admitted? In my opinion that inflates the prestige of membership.

A summary on scientists from the World Science Forum 2024: &quot;The emphasis has been placed on innovation, the rankings have reduced scientists to publication machines, and this brings with it increasing distrust towards researchers.&quot;<p>I think Musk is a perfect fit among modern era scientists and the author has no place there with his outdated views.<p>Idea: &quot;scientists must focus on research that benefits humanity rather than financial gain or publication metrics&quot; (Tamara Elzein)

This is another example of how badly mislead people can become <i>despite</i> being smart. This is a man who is virtuous, true - just! Or has been for many years, in his mind on the &#x27;good&#x27; side. And he&#x27;s certainly done a lot of good. But...<p>He is now in the time for his &#x2F;excesses&#x2F; to be called out. Research and science are great; the replication crisis and wasted time&#x2F;effort were not. Excess should be called out.<p>Elon is directionally the agent calling out the excesses of the covid era (that&#x27;s the time period Elon began his shift rightward) and he&#x27;ll make some missteps - like the anti fauci stuff - but by and large a course correction is needed. Elon is mainly fighting for his Rockets to go up faster and he&#x27;ll back whichever horse gets him there quickest. So do I pay attention to the guy launching the future or the guy letting his heart bleed out in a blogpost?<p>I do feel worried about the Britons. Their economy is slumping, cultural prestige waning (it&#x27;ll be gone by GEN alpha), and I&#x27;ve heard reports they lock up people over facebook posts. I know not all of those things are 100% true but if even their Royal Society members can&#x27;t seem to avoid falling to political squabble and see the long horizons of history, I worry for their future.