On March 3rd the Royal Society had a meeting to discuss whether it should revoke Elon Musk’s Fellowship. He was appointed a Fellow (strictly, ForMemRS, not FRS, as he is a foreigner) in 2018. The meeting was necessary since not only had two Fellows resigned from the Royal Society, but a few thousand Fellows (all of whom, one supposes, must have what Charles Moore would call Left-wing faces) had signed a letter – after the election of Trump – which complained about Musk’s political incorrectness. Who resigned? Professor Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford was first, and Professor Andrew Millar of the University of Edinburgh second. Millar said Musk was guilty of “disinformation”. Alas, the Royal Society code of conduct does not mention either “misinformation” or “disinformation” as offences justifying the disfellowshipping of Musk.
The letter signed by the thousands of scientists alleged the following: Musk had voiced “conspiracy theories”, had criticised Fauci and had made a provocative post about Jess Phillips MP. That was it. The letter was written by Professor Stephen Curry of Imperial College. As well as being an Important Professor, he is an Assistant Provost for Xiversity, Yequity and Zinclusion at Imperial. Obviously, in such a role, Curry found Musk’s politics to be too – spicy, and felt obliged to say so.
Prof Dorothy Bishop, who was the first to resign, in November of last year, wrote the longest criticism of Musk. She complained of his abuse of the “woke mind virus”. She noticed that Musk had posted: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.” This is usually very amusing, but she of Oxford was Not Amused. She also, a bit more seriously, suggested that Neuralink did not abide by good scientific practice – the only time a scientist cared to allege that Musk’s science was not as ‘scientific’ as it should have been. Musk had also been critical of vaccines. And, taboo of all taboos, he had expressed doubts about climate change. Prof Dorothy Bishop, as I live and breathe, quoted Prof Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann, without any sense of irony or self-doubt. Here is Mann on Musk: “It is sad that Elon Musk has become a climate change denier, but that’s what he is. He’s literally denying what the science has to say here.”
Science, eh, Mann? Ach, let me quote Michael Polanyi, who understood science, since he practised it, believed in it and thought about it:
Propositions of science cannot be verified or falsified according to any definite rule.
Yes, indeed, science is a system based on interpretation and endorsed by authority. Polanyi said this in the 1950s.
Anyhow, even if one is disinclined to agree with what Polanyi wrote, one may still wonder about the sanity of Fellows of the Royal Society who are so badly confusing science and politics. They don’t like Musk’s politics, so they say they don’t like his science. Musk isn’t a proper scientist, they think. Whereas Mann and Fauci, to take two luminaries more or less at random, are scientists, by Jove. In fact, both suffer from a form of psychological disorder whereby they identify themselves with ‘Science’. Remember Fauci’s famous saying: “I represent the science”? Remember Mann’s very personal lawsuit against Mark Steyn?
For your edification, here is a bit more from Polanyi:
A neutral analysis of science as a system of beliefs should always use the word ‘science and ‘scientist’ in quotation marks.
I like that a lot.
Of course the Guardian had to weigh in. It was not enough to report the story, the Guardian had to find its own protestant. So they found “Kit Yates”, another scientist, to write an article in the Guardian saying (as the headline had it): ‘Elon Musk is a proven danger to good science, but the Royal Society won’t say it. That’s why I resigned.’ Well, I had to read this click-baiting bit of nonsense, didn’t I? I mean, Juvenal would have done, and Swift, and Waugh, and, er, Ian Hislop… [GENTS—>]
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that last one: a side effect of reading through Kingsley Amis’s collected letters again.
Kit Yates sounds like a made up name for a scientist: the discoverer of a strange enzyme, ‘Kitiates’. No, actually, he turns out to be not so much a scientist as a populariser. Professor of Mathematical Biology and Public Engagement. We used to joke about ‘mathematics for biologists’ back in Cambridge in the old days, and – ‘public engagement’? Surely that is a job description from Sridharland?
Anyhow, Elon Musk. Kitiates tells us that he us a proven danger to science. Why? What has he done? Kitiates tell us:
Musk, admitted as a fellow in 2018… has recently engaged in behaviour that contravenes the society’s code of conduct.
What exactly? Only that “many scientists have taken issue with his assault on the conduct of science… as well as his malicious accusations against public scientists (such as Anthony Fauci)”. Oh, is that all? So much for “proof”.
I actually checked the code of conduct for the Royal Society. It states that Fellows should support the Royal Society, not bring it into disrepute, etc., all the usual. But more specifically:
- Fellows should display “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership”.
- They “shall not commit scientific misconduct, defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism”.
- They “shall not engage in any form of discrimination”.
- More seriously, they should not engage in “malpractice” or “fraud”.
That’s it.
The code of conduct says nothing about being obliged to parrot standard Left-establishment bromides.
All Musk has done is offend the politics of these scientists. If he had gone to work for Kamala Harris no doubt the Left-wing-faced scientists would not have blinked at the occasional politically incorrect post on X. We too should start using Establishment Botox. It does a great job of keeping one’s face expressionless while the people on one’s side starting playing cup-and-balls with politics and science. (Ah, you thought that what was under this cup was politics. But it is, in fact, science! Ah, you thought that science was here. But no! It is politics!)
I cannot leave Kitiates behind without engaging in a bit of destructive criticism. Read this, if you can:
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.
Notice the failure in logic. Let me write it out:
- Everything is political.
- Even things not said to be political are political.
- Therefore science is political.
- But of course [sudden cold sweat] science is not political!
- [Sotto voce] The rest is, er, science-and-politics.
- [Note to Lineker: Hire Susan Michie and Devi Sridhar and me for a new podcast.]
Nay, Prof Kitiates. Either everything is political or it is not. And you are on my territory when you talk politics. If everything is political, genius, then there is no way you can bracket out science from this everything. Your science is political. So is Fauci’s. After all, is there not a scientific consensus? Mann and Fauci always liked to tell us so. And what is a ‘consensus’ but a political thing?
Now, as it happens, both Michael Mann and Anthony Fauci were appointed to the Royal Society last year, 2024. Yes, indeed, ‘Hockeystick’ and ‘The Science’ were welcomed into this august institution, shortly before some Fellows tried to usher the X-Man out.
They spit and cough about Musk. He is, for the moment, still what they call a Foreign Member of the Royal Society, along with Mann and Fauci. But I want to ask why there have been no letters of resignation coming from Fellows of the Royal Society appalled by the statistical jiggerypokery of Mann and the gain-of-function denials of Fauci?
It’s a serious question
James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
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.