Professor Stephen Curry is leading a brazen campaign challenging Elon Musk’s position as a Fellow of the Royal Society. His open letter, which has garnered over 3,000 signatures, expresses dismay at the society’s “continued silence and apparent inaction” regarding Musk’s Fellowship, detailing alleged violations of the society’s Code of Conduct due to Musk’s public statements and political activities.
Musk was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2018 in recognition of his revolutionary technological achievements in space travel and electric vehicles. In its 364-year history, only two Fellows have been expelled — one in 1709 for failing to pay dues and another in 1775 for fraud. Expelling someone based on political views would not only be unprecedented but would arguably inflict far greater damage to the Royal Society’s reputation and standing than anything Musk has said or done.
The irony is unmistakable: Curry is not a Fellow of the Royal Society but an Emeritus Professor at Imperial College with a documented history of advocating greater ideological compliance within scientific institutions. He served as Imperial’s first Assistant Provost for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and was a key author of the UKRI-commissioned ‘Harnessing the Metric Tide‘ report, which has played a significant role in shifting research assessment metrics away from scientific excellence and towards social justice considerations. This report criticised the concept of excellence itself as “ill-defined” and together with the original ‘Metric Tide‘ report, it recommended “the adoption of indicators that support equality and diversity as a counterweight” to what it viewed as problematic aspects of research excellence assessment. It also endorsed critiques claiming that “the biases inherent in the concept of excellence” sustain so-called “epistemic injustice”.
As Toby Young has noted, given Musk’s undeniable contributions to science and technology, expelling him would be akin to the Lilliputians attempting to bind Gulliver — a futile effort to diminish a giant.
Curry argues that Musk has violated the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct, citing his promotion of conspiracy theories, accusations against public figures such as Anthony Fauci and his inflammatory social media posts. He contends that these actions are incompatible with a code which require Fellows to have “due regard for the statement of values developed from time to time by Society”.
However, the phrase “due regard” merely requires consideration, not a prescribed outcome. More importantly, as Anna Krylov eloquently argued in her 2021 article, ‘The Peril of Politicising Science‘, scientific contributions should be evaluated on intellectual merit, not personal traits or political views:
Merton’s norms of science prescribe a clear separation between science and morality. Particularly relevant is Merton’s principle of universality, which states that claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion or nationality. Simply put, we should evaluate, reward and acknowledge scientific contributions strictly on the basis of their intellectual merit and not on the basis of personal traits of the scientists or a current political agenda.
Krylov reminds us of the historical dangers of moralising science:
Giordano Bruno was cancelled (burned at the stake in 1600) because his cosmological views were considered to be a threat to the dominant ideology. … Marie Curie was ostracised for immoral behaviour — an affair with a married man (Langevin) following the tragic death of her husband Pierre Curie. The Chair of the Nobel Prize committee, Svante Arrhenius, wrote to her advising that she not attend the official ceremony for her Nobel Prize in Chemistry in view of her questionable moral standing. Curie replied that she would be present at the ceremony, because “the prize has been given to her for her discovery of polonium and radium” and that “there is no relation between her scientific work and the facts of her private life”.
Efforts to impose political litmus tests on scientific recognition echo darker moments in history when ideological conformity was demanded — from Lysenko’s Soviet biology to various forms of religious and political censorship throughout the ages.
Curry further claims that Musk’s alignment with a Trump administration — one that has sought to reduce research funding and promote ideological restrictions — warrants his expulsion. He contends that Musk’s silence on these policies signals complicity and that the Royal Society must take a stand to uphold its values:
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? I urge you, for the sake of decency and to offer hope in what are very troubling times, to demonstrate that the Royal Society has the courage to stand up for the scientific community and for the values that it claims to believe in.
This argument perfectly exemplifies the contemporary effort to subordinate scientific achievement to ideological conformity. As seen in universities across the Western world, such campaigns do not strengthen scientific institutions, they undermine them, corroding both their fundamental purpose and public trust.
Curry’s open letter is a textbook example of the politicisation of science. The Royal Society stands at a pivotal crossroads. By resisting this pressure and reaffirming its commitment to scientific excellence over ideological conformity, it has the opportunity to set a powerful precedent for scientific institutions worldwide.
Abhishek Saha is a Professor of Mathematics at Queen Mary University of London. He is a founder Member of the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom. This article was first published at Heterodox STEM.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Royal Society – founded in 1662 by Boyle, Hooke, Newton and other pioneers of experimental physical sciences.
Betrayed in 2025 by Professors, Sirs, Dames and Professor Sirs, all too many specialising in all too many ‘ologies, pseudo- and voodoo-sciences.
Witness Epidemiology, Climatology and Jolly Hockey Sticks, output of the authority of Computational Modelling, that gullible Professors, Sirs, Dames and Professor Sirs all fall for with alarming regularity.
Whosoever is writing the script for this Scientific National Theatre of the Absurd is doing a mighty fine job worthy of the Orwell Prize for Political Writing.
As the Royal Society motto goes, “Nullius in Verba” – Take Nothing on Trust, or alternatively, Take Nobody’s Word for It.
Especially Professors, Sirs, Dames, Professor Sirs and Computational Modelling.
Blimey, you are on a roll today. Every article you’ve been the first to comment.
I know, I was shocked.
What did not pass me by is the fact that Prof Curry is a man demonstrating that he is a mega woketard. By comparison we have Anna, presumably female, displaying decidedly anti-woke behaviour. How does this particular dose of reality align with the misogynists’ views that it’s the women to blame and who are mostly Lefty progressive woketards and should therefore have our basic right to vote withdrawn because, erm…presumably it’s our fault you didn’t end up with the leader you wanted?
In fact, click on the “open letter” link and you’ll see all 3,380 signatories. I didn’t wade through them all but I skimmed the first 1000. Seems to be an awful lot of men listed on there. Anyone would think that these woketastic academics are available in both sexes!
Nevertheless, I’m sure banning women from voting will be the answer and definitely give you people in the U.K the result you’re all after.
( Note to my haters:
= ‘Coward’ ) But we all know that anyway, don’t we?
Thank you – rolling as antipode of decorating and hedgecutting.
A more recent Anna Krylov article telling it how it is, which toward the end lays into the American chemical society style guide and DIE policies of the Royal Society of Chemistry…
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/29AF22D23835C74AECDA7964E55812CF/S1062798723000327a.pdf/critical-social-justice-subverts-scientific-publishing.pdf
…Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Southern California, an expatriate from the old Soviet Union, and True Heroine of Chemistry.
Back outside to the hedge again – glorious afternoon for it.
Thanks
Even if people just read the conclusion of that paper. “No evidence of gender biases or discrimination in STEM” indeed. The reports are bogus. It’s all based on nonsensical, woke, fallacious garbage. The lady speaks common sense. Perhaps she’s the exception rather than the rule, eh?
THis Curry is obviously a polyester suited individual with bad teeth and smelly feet.
His views be safely ignored.
I too had a look at the signatories. There are quite a few who are given as “anonymous of…” ( see for example numbers 199 and 200 plus many others). I expect there are also quite a few who have “why aren’t I a member” attitude.
‘Harnessing the Metric Tide‘ report … has played a significant role in shifting research assessment metrics away from scientific excellence and towards social justice considerations.
“Social justice considerations” here means a combination of the fascist concept of coordination with the Marxist practice of Lysenkoism. In other words, the displacement of science with micro-managed and ideologically motivated political and social controls, i.e. marxo-fascist totalitarianism.
Any report with the metric in it is obviously bollocks.
Ideological conformity – the science killer. And for what?
3000 signatures, and how many are fellows, or are these like those 96% of scientists who apparently support the bogus climate BS, this Curry chap, sounds like a spoilt child…
Professor Stephen Curry.
A complete non-entity. A spiteful fraud.
The fact that 3000 people, supposedly scientists, have signed the petition says quite a lot about the scientific community. I don’t know what proportion of scientists these 3000 signatories represent but what I do know that they represent is the sort of mediocrity that seeps into things over time.
Perhaps the Royal Society had its moment and served its purpose and will now be something else or just wither into mediocrity. it certainly will be closer to that if these 3000 people get their way.
I don’t really know what the point of the Royal Society is, but it seems odd to expect people to conform to some ever-changing “code of conduct” if the award of fellowships is basically an honour. I mean, Musk is not an employee of the RS and it’s not a firm providing services, he doesn’t “represent” the RS.
Not a fan of these signatories, obviously, but the thing is, Musk has zero scientific credentials.
Why the downvote? It’s true.
There are two ways one can earn credentials:
1. certification from an appropriate body,
and/or
2. evidence of actual achievement
Musk has done neither.
He should never have been rewarded fellowship of the Royal Society. But these idiot signatories would rather get rid of him because he said some hurty words.
Clown world.
Well perhaps they shouldn’t have invited him in the first place.
Obvious fact 1 he used to be a hero to the left because of electric cars
Obvious fact 2 now he’s Hitler Because he’s trying to help Trump rescue the USA and hopefully the rest of the free world.
That all says more about the Royal Soc than about Elon.
Agreed.
Apart from his extraordinary achievements pushing forward the boundaries of science, a single handedly (with the assistance of various women) repopulating half the USA.
He hasn’t actually done any of that.
He has funded it, perhaps. At the cost of the taxpayer. And at the cost of others he has robbed in more simple fashion.
I think the repopulation part, at least he did himself.
As for the rest, up to a point. The money was there and I’d say he spent it more usefully productively and inventively than anybody else would have.
Most of these people getting rich at the taxpayers’ teat spend the money on dud tech (ecotricity ffs), cocaine and left wing meddling trying to destroy everybody else’s lives and livelihoods.
Musk spent 40 billion of his own money saving free speech for everybody.
We’ll wait and see about the “saving of Free Speech”. I am pleased with what he has done so far.
In other words, we none of us would expect Trump to be a fellow of the Royal Society.
I think we should also be concerned that there are 3000 other signatories.