The Royal Society has called an extraordinary meeting for 3rd March to discuss the behaviour — and beliefs — of its Fellows following a growing campaign to expel billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. The meeting follows a second open letter, penned by Professor Stephen Curry, a retired structural biologist at Imperial College London, and signed by more than 1,700 scientists, urging the Society to take a stand against Musk’s alleged transgressions.
The latest salvo in the campaign to remove Musk accuses him of promoting “unfounded conspiracy theories” on X (formerly Twitter), interfering in scientific discourse, and working with the Trump administration to impose “huge cuts in funding and a regime of censorship”, particularly with regard to equity, diversity and inclusion EDI initiatives, as well as climate issues.
Curry’s letter, published on his blog on 11th February, frames Musk’s actions as inconsistent with the Society’s statement of values, that ask Fellows to “act in accordance with the highest standards of public life”, to make a “positive impact”, to “strive for excellence”.
He also cites Musk’s criticisms of net zero-style climate policy, and his labelling of UK government minister Jess Phillips as a “rape genocide apologist” in the wake of the grooming gangs scandal, as evidence that the entrepreneur no longer meets the ethical standards expected of Fellows.
On his blog, Prof Curry questions whether the Society’s inaction undermines its commitment to its own values, particularly diversity and inclusion, and whether it remains fit to speak on behalf of the UK scientific community.
Describing it as “a failure of moral courage”, he adds:
What message does it send about the Society’s commitment to upholding its code, its values and its declarations about the importance of diversity and inclusion? What message of support does it send to our friends and colleagues in the USA, especially women, people from ethnic minorities, and disabled and LGBT researchers who are most exposed to the Trump-led offensive that has recruited Elon Musk FRS as its most enthusiastic general?
The controversy over Musk’s membership dates back to August 2024, when 74 Fellows wrote to the Royal Society questioning whether the owner of X was a “fit and proper person” to hold Fellowship. The Society’s President, after consulting legal experts, determined that Musk was not in breach of the Society’s code of conduct — which is a good thing, not least since expelling him on political grounds could open the Society to legal challenges for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
In December 2024, Oxford professor Dorothy Bishop resigned in protest, citing Musk’s supposed sins, which included: “promoting vaccine hesitation”, “downplaying the climate emergency”, and “spreading deepfakes and misinformation”. Prof Bishop framed her departure as a refusal to abide by a code of conduct that required Fellows to “treat all individuals in the scientific enterprise collegially and with courtesy, including… foreign members”. Having collegially described Musk as a “disreputable man,” she concluded that his conduct was unbecoming of a Fellow, before courteously likening his behaviour to that of a “Bond villain.”
Discontent would appear to have grown following Donald Trump’s re-election and his decision to appoint Musk to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory body created to reduce government waste and cut funding for politically driven initiatives as opposed to those that serve the public interest.
Or has it? Despite the fervour of Curry and Bishop’s missives, the push to expel Musk has not been universally welcomed. Some Fellows have privately expressed concerns about the political motivations behind the campaign and its implications for academic freedom. A few have spoken, anonymously, to the press, stating that they support Musk’s Fellowship but fear being ostracised if they voice their views publicly. Their reticence is telling: even within one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions, ideological conformity is being quietly enforced.
One distinguished FRS, speaking anonymously to the Telegraph, said that member who disagree with Bishop’s stance feel alienated but are staying silent. “I’ve got several friends who have been hurt by this, so, basically, their attitude is: if it’s not on my bailiwick, I don’t want to stick my head on the block,” the Fellow explained.
He adds of Bishop: “I wouldn’t have resigned. I mean, I have my differences with the Royal Society on a number of things, but I haven’t resigned. The problem is pretty clear that, as an engineer, Elon Musk has done some pretty remarkable things. He’s like a modern-day version of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.”
There is also the question of precedent. In the Society’s 364-year history, only two Fellows have been expelled – one in 1709 for failing to pay his dues and another in 1775 for embezzlement. The prospect of adding Musk to that list, not for fraud or financial misconduct, but for his political associations and opinions, raises uncomfortable questions about whether the Royal Society still upholds the principles of intellectual independence and open debate that once defined it.
Curry’s argument that Musk’s association with the Royal Society undermines its reputation is not without a certain irony. If the Society does bow to pressure and expels a Fellow on political grounds, it will send a stark message to its members: intellectual independence is tolerated only so long as it aligns with prevailing political sentiments. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Musk was a mainstream Democrat as recently as 2022, lauded for weaning modern societies off the petrol engine by many of the same circles that are today calling for his expulsion. If he’s now punished for holding less fashionable opinions, that will send a chilling message to other Fellows: go against the grain, and you will be excommunicated.
The Royal Society’s motto, Nullius in verba – “Take nobody’s word for it” – was meant as a declaration of intellectual independence. It’s a principle that has guided it through centuries of scientific advancement. But if the campaign to expel Musk succeeds, the Society will have made clear that its modern interpretation of that motto is quite different: Take our word for it – or be cast out.
