Nope. The issue at hand is a society, its fellowship & code of conduct, not science and politics, though, of course, both science & the Royal Society cannot avoid being political. Pretending they can is itself a political stance. Retaining a fellow who's broken the code of conduct is very political! - ThreadSky

rhiggitt.bsky.social • 9 days ago

Nope. The issue at hand is a society, its fellowship & code of conduct, not science and politics, though, of course, both science & the Royal Society cannot avoid being political. Pretending they can is itself a political stance. Retaining a fellow who's broken the code of conduct is very political!

Reposted from Stephen Curry

This is a thoughtful and balanced piece on my open letter and the issues raised by Musk's fellowship of the Royal Society, and hopefully will contribute to their discussions on 3rd Mar. 1/2
www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-v...

Comments

pietrospanu.bsky.social•9 days ago

Precisely this!

irmorus.bsky.social•9 days ago

You’re more temperate than I am!

eaterofsun.bsky.social•9 days ago

To be fair, that's not hard...

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

I typed and deleted some more choice phrases!

eaterofsun.bsky.social•9 days ago

BTW any choice expulsions from RS in c19?

irmorus.bsky.social•9 days ago

They were all dreadfully well behaved back then 😇.
There was an attempt to expel Charles Babbage though.

eaterofsun.bsky.social•9 days ago

By the well connected pro-busker lobby?

irmorus.bsky.social•9 days ago

Before his anti-busking days. The whole decline of science thing, which thinking about it, does have certain resonances.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

I was wondering about this. I can only really think of the late 18thC shenanigans. I was also wondering what other objectional individuals the RS has been happy to count among their fellows, but that list may be quite long!

nisaccom.bsky.social•9 days ago

Here's one.
https://bsky.app/profile/nisaccom.bsky.social/post/3lbv6c5hac22x

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

Good spot. Wikipedia suggests it was stripped/removed/returned along with all his other appointments and patronage roles (per the 2022 statement https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace-regarding-duke-york), so not an RS action

isobelcarr.com•9 days ago

In what way is Musk even qualified for membership in the first place? His inclusion seems hinky from the jump.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

Honorary Fellows are quite a range - Melvin Bragg, Lisa Jardine, Lord Sainsbury... etc

isobelcarr.com•9 days ago

Ah, not an actual Fellow. Thanks!

nisaccom.bsky.social•9 days ago

He's not an honorary fellow. Only one hon. fellow was elected in 2018, when Musk was elected—David Willetts.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2018/05/distinguished-scientists-elected-fellows-royal-society-2018/

nisaccom.bsky.social•9 days ago

I reckon he was most likely elected via the Committee Advising Council on Applied & Innovation Candidates or a predecessor of this cttee.
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/committees/committee-advising-council-on-applied--innovation-candidates-282/

rhiggitt.bsky.social•8 days ago

Oh you're right! Apologies - I thought I'd read he was Honorary, and it seemed the more likely option, so I hadn't checked.

stevecooke.org•9 days ago

Putting aside your entirely correct point about the code of conduct, there are some very basic errors in reasoning in the letter.

stevecooke.org•9 days ago

“should scientists, in their capacity as scientists rather than private citizens, advocate for particular political policies and express support for specific political parties?” - hmm, let me think: are particular policies & parties more or less inimical to science & scientists?

stevecooke.org•9 days ago

Likewise, the idea that taking a stand on a political issue undermines trust in scientists is pretty shakey. What, for example, if the political issue is whether scientists & science ought to be trusted?

stevecooke.org•9 days ago

Both of those points don’t even touch the question of whether people in certain roles should stay silent in the fact of serious injustice so as to preserve trust in science. That claim is entirely missing an argument that trust in science is more important than justice.

stevecooke.org•9 days ago

That’s all also putting aside the point that science and scientists cannot be neutral on values, not least because those values determine what gets researched in the first place.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes, agree. It also appears that the public who might lose trust in scientific bodies that don't stand up for equality, democracy, ethics etc apparently don't matter

danielswise.bsky.social•9 days ago

In the American context, recent presidential campaign endorsements by Scientific American and Nature seem to have been disastrous. See RFK Jr and the NIH and other research cuts that are rolling out.

danielswise.bsky.social•9 days ago

For context, endorsements of this kind had not been the practice for these publications, and in the past yearly NIH funding boosts were bipartisan efforts even in opposition to Trump's demands during his first term

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

No one is talking about party political endorsements, though I'm not sure that it would make much difference (largely reflects existing divisions). We might, though, decide that it's a good idea for science to endorse democracy

danielswise.bsky.social•9 days ago

You have nicely illustrated why I would bring up my example in reply to your post. Fox's argument largely applies to why one might not think it's a good idea for science to "endorse democracy" if that means speaking out against Trump's candidacy in a way that will do almost nothing to stop him.

danielswise.bsky.social•9 days ago

The case for revoking Musk's fellowship is on more solid ground for the reason you state, but I sympathize with why Fox would argue it is a bad move politically (acknowledging that either move is political).

rhiggitt.bsky.social•8 days ago

But is there evidence that speaking out actually increased Trump's chances of winning? It may have reinforced prejudices of those who were already committed to their vote and an 'anti-establishment' view but, if it actually swung any votes, I assume it was marginal and perhaps on both sides

danielswise.bsky.social•8 days ago

Right, the endorsements likely did very little to sway the election results, but they seem more likely to have affected Trump's stance toward the scientific establishment and the trust in science of those on the Right.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

It's *funny how "being political" only ever seems to be read in
one direction

*not really funny at all

petraboynton.bsky.social•9 days ago

Also how 'being political' seems to apply only to certain people and situations, but not others.

unusualtimeline.bsky.social•9 days ago

He’s making a bloody mess in the stratosphere. Mars colonisation is frankly bollocks, his self driving cars are death-traps, and his team is going full fascist.

judeet44.bsky.social•9 days ago

It won't "harm science" because Musk isn't a scientist.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

well, quite

judeet44.bsky.social•9 days ago

So simple and so obvious.

andyinafield.bsky.social•9 days ago

Bullseye emoji.

The article itself was worse than the horseshit football tells itself.

sandverge.bsky.social•9 days ago

It would only reinforce my trust in science to boot individuals who attack its every principle. Participating in wiping statistics about flu cases and other vital information from websites is unconscionable.

timlagor.bsky.social•9 days ago

Royal Society has joined the WHO* on my list of institutions that I should be able to trust and absolutely don't.

* for their absolutely idiotic "wash hands to stop Covid" advice which was only excusable in early 2020 but persisted into 2023 (and might still not be dead).

maitri.vatul.net•9 days ago

Back up. Is Musk a scientist? Why is the RS making him one?

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

An Honorary Fellow, which encompasses quite a range - Melvyn Bragg is one

jackstilgoe.bsky.social•8 days ago

Musk’s a full fellow, no?

rhiggitt.bsky.social•8 days ago

Yes, you're right - I was mistaken. I gather as part of an attempt to open up to more tech/applied people? (Or to court money and influence)

leithmotive.bsky.social•9 days ago

It was a terrible mistake to ever let an on the record genocide denier like Fiona Fox achieve such a position. We can talk about failings in making Musk a Fellow, but she's no better.

aidan.skinner.me.uk•9 days ago

Remember remember
The revolutionary communist party are awful
I see no reason
Why they should ever be ennobled

leithmotive.bsky.social•9 days ago

The Royal Society made her a Fellow. They knew she was a genocide denialist before the decision. In a sense, it's worse than Musk. They can plausibly deny they knew of his true character when making him a Fellow, they cannot deny her unrepentant genocide denial.

aidan.skinner.me.uk•9 days ago

While I would the scientific establishment to have a better moral compass I don't expect it

leithmotive.bsky.social•9 days ago

It's less about a moral compass and more about being competent enough to know not to give certain people Fellowships because there is a 100% chance you end up looking like a chump.

rajacexplains.bsky.social•9 days ago

I didn't realise that inheriting wealth from your father's illegal emerald mine and spending it on random companies until one sticks constituted science but I stand corrected. It'd be nice he could prove he at least hand an undergraduate degree.

rhiggitt.bsky.social•9 days ago

Honorary Fellows of the RS don't have to be scientists, though they do have to be supporters or communicators of science!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply