Elon Musk is a proven danger to good science, but the Royal Society won’t say it. That’s why I resigned | Kit Yates

Fellows of the Royal Society met yesterday to discuss, as they put it, “Fellows’ behaviour”. In light of the resignation of two fellows and an open letter signed by nearly 3,500 scientists, many, including me, expected the discussion to be focused on the behaviour of one particular fellow: Elon Musk.

The Royal Society, as one of the world’s most esteemed scientific institutions, bears the responsibility of maintaining standards among its fellows. Musk, admitted as a fellow in 2018 for his technological innovations, has recently engaged in behaviour that contravenes the society’s code of conduct. In particular, many scientists have taken issue with his assault on the conduct of science in the US and beyond as head of the Trump administration’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) as well as his malicious accusations against public scientists (such as Anthony Fauci) and other public figures.

Musk is an important figure (some would argue the most important) in a US administration that is laying siege to science and to scientific inquiry itself. The new administration’s executive orders have restricted research, silenced climate scientists and cut funding as part of a systematic targeting of the scientific community.

In taking action against a member whose behaviour is so openly in opposition to the society’s values and code of conduct, the Royal Society would have affirmed its commitment to ethical standards and helped to reinforce public trust in science.

So I was more than disappointed to read the statement released by the Royal Society after the meeting, which made no mention at all of Musk. The statement did recognise “the need to stand up for science and for scientists around the world in the face of the growing challenges science faces”, but without clear action to address Musk’s position, these words ring hollow.

The Royal Society’s code of conduct for fellows states that “Fellows and Foreign Members shall not act or fail to act in any way which would undermine the Society’s mission or bring the Society into disrepute”. It is clear that Musk’s behaviour has contravened this rule. So why, even now, has the Royal Society not spoken out specifically against his actions?

Some have argued that expelling Musk could harm public trust in science; that by blurring the boundaries between science and politics, the society would damage science’s integrity. I believe this perspective overlooks the critical role that scientific institutions play in upholding ethical standards and defending the integrity of science, especially at times when science and scientists are subject to threats and intimidation from political institutions.

I was once told towards the beginning of my career: “Everything is political, especially the things that people tell you are not political. Those are the most political of all”. There is some truth in that when it comes to science. The intersection of science and politics is both inescapable and of vital importance. Scientists possess unique expertise that is crucial for informed policymaking and societal progress. Embracing political engagement allows scientists to fulfil their ethical responsibilities, defend the integrity of their work and contribute meaningfully to addressing the complex challenges facing society today.

Disengaging in the political issues that surround and influence science is not the virtue that some commentators would have you believe. If anything, it is a betrayal of the profound impact that science can and should have on the world. In particular, a failure to act on Musk’s behaviour will only embolden those who seek to exert political influence over science and scientists – and erode the foundational principles of science.

So for me it’s time to take a stand, small as it may be, and to distance myself from the Royal Society until such a time as it has the moral courage to specifically denounce the actions that Musk is taking to undermine science in the US and elsewhere. I will be resigning my position as associate editor at the Royal Society’s journal Open Science with immediate effect. I will no longer submit my research to Royal Society journals or act as a peer reviewer for them. I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

The Royal Society is correct in its statement that it needs 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” – but without the society taking concrete action to enforce its own rules and defend its own scientific integrity, I’m not sure I can have confidence in it to advocate for the broader scientific community.