8 ms·

Why I have resigned from the Royal Society

138 points by viburnum 2y ago

fabian2k 2y ago
> Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk. This statement is clearly relevant to a scientific society. It is not just about unrelated bigotry by a fellow of that society.
- zosima 2y ago
  Elons statements were obviously not aimed at Faucis role in vaccine discussions, but in his much more dubious role in gain-of-function research and especially covering up the origins of Covid. While that is relevant to a scientific society, I think it's worth taking a good hard look on whether its wise to take a side on that, other than maybe denounce gain-of-function research.
  - fabian2k 2y ago
    I can't keep track of all conspiracy theories Musk has amplified or told himself, but there is another example with Fauci directly linked to vaccines in the blog post.
  - cauch 2y ago
    If it was Musk's intent (but I doubt it was the case, because it does not fit with a lot of other things that Musk did or said that show he is aiming at Faucci role in vaccine discussions), he should have acted to avoid poisoning the debate. There were plenty of "normal" way to do it, and in fact, other members of the Royal Society have done so and have expressed concerns when similar things have happened. To me, it sounds like "Sure, Musk pooped in his hand and thrown it to the speaker during the conference, but the speaker made a sign mistake in their equation". If someone is saying that this attitude is awful, it does not mean that this person is pretending that the sign mistake did not occur and should not be corrected.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Tweets without context are not "obviously" aimed at specific things. Prosecute/Fauci was both ambiguous and in bad taste.
    - tim333 2y ago
      He later clarified https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304
- cies 2y ago
  There are many doctors who express problems with the C19 vaccines. In some countries (most notably Japan) there are public hearings and parliament questions. In the west it seems this is not allowed. Fauci was close with the EcoHealth Alliance. He tried to hide gain of function research. There are a lot of criticism to this NGO, "including a joint letter signed by 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies." (Wikipedia). To the public Fauci straight up lied by promoting the vaccine as safe and effective, while he did not have the evidence to support that (and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions", but recommended it for pregnant women anyway). While I'd be the last person to defend Elon (he prevented unionization in Tesla, which he so get jail time for imho), I do think that it's time to prosecute Fauci. He seems to have been complicity in the AZT debacle. Sticking it in a pronoun joke is something we should not cry over, it's just a joke.
  - VMG 2y ago
    > and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions" This is incorrect information https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ Pregnant women are at higher risk of getting COVID which is liked to preterm birth
    - bondarchuk 2y ago
      That's from 2023.
    - tgma 2y ago
      And if you were a scientist who was going to lead a study that could conclude otherwise, Francis & Fauci took extra care to make sure you were less likely to receive NIH funding. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci-shattered-our-trust-in-public-health/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci...
      - VMG 2y ago
        just look at the table of the studies that were included and the countries where the studies were performed
- didntcheck 2y ago
  How is criticizing a particular politician [1] "antivaxx"? This intentional conflation of scientific "truth" [2] with the particular policies that a democratic government decides to implement was one of the most blatantly bad faith phenomena of the pandemic. Even if we had an oracle that could have given us perfect future predictions, it would still not be able to answer the ethical questions of which path to choose. That's for the people to decide And punishing people for disputing the current "truth", and criticizing sacred cows, would go directly against the RS's principles. "Nullius in verba" [1] Yes, he is one [2] A notion which itself goes against the principles of scientific inquiry
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  Given that I'm listening to Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci while typing this I have a hard time taking this seriously. Both the 'offend the alphabet community' (whatever that might be given that there is no love lost between the L and Q, G and Q, B and Q, L and T and G and T factions in this 'community') as well as the defence of Fauci, a person who declared himself representing The Science™ while recklessly trampling its principles. Does that mean that everything Kennedy writes and says is the true gospel? Of course it doesn't nor does it need to. What it does say is that Fauci is not the person I'd choose as a representative for how to do science and that prosecuting the man sounds like a good idea. After all, if he is innocent he has nothing to fear, right? Let this cesspit be opened and let those who are shown to have to have abused their power, misled the public and acted for personal gain and against the trust put in them by the public be dealt with. In short, let The Science™ be exposed for what it is, a sham. Let the trust in lower-case science, scientists and the scientific method be restored by exposing the charlatans who sought to abuse the former's standing for their own purposes.
  - fabian2k 2y ago
    If the conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. is who you get your information from, I can't help you.
    - hagbard_c 2y ago
      I get my data and information from many places, both officially sanctioned as well as those which are in opposition to those sources. I also use a good dose of scepticism when dealing with all sources, both the former as well as the latter. Where do you get your information?
dcow 2y ago
[flagged]
mock-possum 2y ago
Noble enough.
throw_pm23 2y ago
[flagged]
- shafyy 2y ago
  If you have read the article, it's not at all about that. But great job hiding behind your throw away account.
Oarch 2y ago
No loss. Whinging about politics and non-mainstream opinions. Is there genuine curiosity (even dare I say wrongthink) left in the RS or is it just another polite social club for people to gather and feel smug about the consensuses they've formed.
- gambiting 2y ago
  >>non-mainstream opinions It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?
  - dead_gunslinger 2y ago
    [dead]
    - gambiting 2y ago
      Are they? They are objecting Musk posting provably wrong statements on social media, arguing that as a fellow of the RS he shouldn't do that - the statements are on a variety of topics, not just Fauci.
      - tgma 2y ago
        [flagged]
        gambiting 2y ago
        >>You very well know the answer to that. I genuienly honestly don't know.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  It's generally the latter.
  - 2y ago
roenxi 2y ago
I respect the author's principle-based approach but many of her arguments seem a little off. If the RS doesn't expel people for their politics, then it doesn't make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. And if you expel crotchety scientists for disagreeing with the scientific consensus there won't be any left. The RS motto is literally "Take nobody's word for it"; I don't see how Musk disagreeing with other's opinions could possibly be grounds for removing him. That being said, Musk does seem like a vaguely inappropriate addition to the Society. His wikipedia page suggests he doesn't have a PhD, doesn't do any research and is involved in military matters for an army foreign to the UK. He's obviously being included because he has lots of money and it isn't clear to me if that is proper or not.
- waihtis 2y ago
  It's a valid viewpoint, however membership to the royal society is judged via candidates having made 'a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science'. I would argue Elon is fully within scope, outside of the fact that I think Elon is not the slightest fit to the general ethos of that specific organization.
  - quonn 2y ago
    How is he within scope? At best he might have contributed to advancing engineering science, but is that really the case? Has he not rather merely financed engineering science and perhaps not even engineering science but just engineering practice?
    - bondarchuk 2y ago
      From the blogpost: "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication" He's clearly relevant based on contribution to engineering (maybe science too) through organization (maybe leadership, communication too).
    - nonrandomstring 2y ago
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]
waihtis 2y ago
[flagged]
mihaaly 2y ago
A summary on scientists from the World Science Forum 2024: "The emphasis has been placed on innovation, the rankings have reduced scientists to publication machines, and this brings with it increasing distrust towards researchers." I think Musk is a perfect fit among modern era scientists and the author has no place there with his outdated views. Idea: "scientists must focus on research that benefits humanity rather than financial gain or publication metrics" (Tamara Elzein)
- mihaaly 2y ago
  Wow! Hurt 'scientists' are among us apparently, it only took some seconds to downvote (mostly the words of other scientists, the rest is caustic irony). Small people, no place for widespread critical view, facing problems, self criticism.
LightBug1 2y ago
I 100% support that letter. Musk is a stain on the Royal Society.
ks2048 2y ago
All politics aside, is it normal for business people to be elected to the royal society? Even if you think Musk is a genius, it seems hard to label him as a scientist (instead of a CEO of science-related companies).
- waihtis 2y ago
  Membership to the royal society is judged via candidates having made 'a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science'.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    By thinking, or by spending money?
    - ineedaj0b 2y ago
      Bezos has tossed a lot of money towards space and did not get as far. Elon has absolutely earned his reputation.
      - seabass-labrax 2y ago
        In fairness, Blue Origin has had only a tenth to a half of the funding that SpaceX has had (depending on which sources you trust; figures vary widely). Yet they are hardly doing badly by any measure: they have an almost fully reusable sub-orbital spacecraft which has consistently and safely carried passengers, and they have a orbital rocket ready for testing next month. SpaceX are clearly the market leader, but this is partially because they are into the category of companies who can now convey profitable payloads for NASA/DoD, with the public funding which goes along with that. Technologically, SpaceX are miles (per second!) ahead of Blue Origin, but in business terms there is perhaps not a great difference between them. First-mover's advantage doesn't often translate into return-on-investment!
      - GJim 2y ago
        > Elon has absolutely earned his reputation. I think you will find that is exactly what the Royal Society have concluded!
tgma 2y ago
I know who Elon Musk is and his contributions. My apologies, but I have never heard of the author and their contribution, and why should I fucking care what they (and 80 of their politically like-minded friends) think out of a thousand other members? Obviously the Royal Society's own relevance is hinged on picking who they should keep between two opposing members.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Fame isn't relevant. I've not heard of all bar one of Trump's new and previous cabinets combined, and the one I have heard of, I only know about due to the brain worms. Zero of Biden's, zero of Obama's. Possibly two of GWB's? I've only heard of two of the people who work at SpaceX, and that's Musk and Shotwell none of the rest; likewise none of those under Musk at X, TBC, Neuralink, Tesla, Starlink, Solar City. Someone blogged about why they resigned from the society, someone posted the link here, enough upvoted it for you to be engaged enough to reply. Fame is just being noticed — and you noticed — but merely getting into the group says they must have been top quality in the first place.
  - tgma 2y ago
    > Fame isn't relevant. Of course it is relevant. As your post admits the author's recognized in some community that led them to post such things. If it weren't for their relative fame, their letter would be ignored. My take is about the relative fame of them vs Musk. Both are members of Royal Society, so that credential is moot. What else does the author have to make their case? Why should one listen to them, and take their opinion seriously, over Musk, who is the first and only one in the world who has caught rocket boosters in the history of the world? What is the author's accomplishments?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Obviously I meant general fame, given I was replying to you saying you'd never heard of them. As for theirs relative to their peers: why would you expect to be able to recognise the relative value of their contributions? Unless you're also in a position to reject membership of the Royal Society, you're not elite enough to be able to tell if either of them is scientific elite. > Why should one listen to them, and take their opinion seriously, over Musk, who is the first and only one in the world who has caught rocket boosters in the history of the world? Paid a team to. That's more than nothing (none of the other US rocket contractors were seriously interested in trying, his vision did make it happen) but it's not like he did it all himself either. > What is the author's accomplishments? You could google her? She's got her own Wikipedia entry and the Royal Society has a bio: https://royalsociety.org/people/dorothy-bishop-11092/ https://royalsociety.org/people/dorothy-bishop-11092/
LeroyRaz 2y ago
I mean, the Royal Society has always been crazy, and full of provocative and crazy people. I'm not sure how you can have a group of geniuses without that. Famously Newton was a complete and utter egomaniac nut job, as well as being one of the most gifted men to ever live. For example, the Leibnitz Newton debate - where surprisingly the royal society concluded in favour of Newton, while Newton was the head of the royal society. Maybe 100 years from now, we will have letters complaining that the same illustrious society that Elon Musk (the man who revolutionised space travel) was once a member of, now houses so and such, who said x verifiably untrue statement.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. I think you have a good point. Perhaps that’s why my feeling is that the best “solution” may actually be to loosen up the Code of Conduct so that the OP doesn’t feel honor-bound to act with curtesy towards Elon.
t43562 2y ago
So some brown-nosers thought to pull Musk in because they thought it would get them some news and mentions and so on, possibly be financially advantageous in some way despite him not really being a scientist. That seems to have been easy, but removing him now...oh...well....so difficult. Similarly how easy it was to suck up to Russian billionaires in London and so difficult to sanction them when things went sour. We knew they were crooks back then but lots of people benefited from ignoring it.
ineedaj0b 2y ago
This is another example of how badly mislead people can become despite being smart. This is a man who is virtuous, true - just! Or has been for many years, in his mind on the 'good' side. And he's certainly done a lot of good. But... He is now in the time for his /excesses/ to be called out. Research and science are great; the replication crisis and wasted time/effort were not. Excess should be called out. Elon is directionally the agent calling out the excesses of the covid era (that's the time period Elon began his shift rightward) and he'll make some missteps - like the anti fauci stuff - but by and large a course correction is needed. Elon is mainly fighting for his Rockets to go up faster and he'll back whichever horse gets him there quickest. So do I pay attention to the guy launching the future or the guy letting his heart bleed out in a blogpost? I do feel worried about the Britons. Their economy is slumping, cultural prestige waning (it'll be gone by GEN alpha), and I've heard reports they lock up people over facebook posts. I know not all of those things are 100% true but if even their Royal Society members can't seem to avoid falling to political squabble and see the long horizons of history, I worry for their future.
ClaraForm 2y ago
I think the world at large today could use a few more people appealing to our better natures. For that, this is a wonderful statement. I wish there was a way to moderate our modern discourse to be closer to finding ways forward together, rather than dividing ourselves further. Elon’s entire schtick these days is to move faster than regulatory bodies can align. I hoped for an attempt at amending the RS statutes for clarity and boundaries, rather than resignation from the battle entirely. Perhaps as proof that some boundaries can be reactive to anyone regardless of influence. I can’t think of many causes worth fighting for that can be won through resignation, certainly never within research or scientific contexts.
FussyOtter 2y ago
My esteem of the Royal Society is lessened by the realisation that it admits not just scientists, but also mere CEOs who aren’t scientists themselves. Would Henry Ford be admitted? In my opinion that inflates the prestige of membership.
thewanderer1983 2y ago
To quote him "Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion" Can someone please explain to me how we managed to get a whole generation of the western scientific thinkers who think the scientific method is consensus of scientific opinion? The author lists Isaac Newton, Hooke, Boyle . All of these prominent minds made scientific breakthroughs that didn't stick to the consensus views of the time. People interested should look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. To quote from Wikipedia: Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity and cumulative progress, referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  The difference is that Elon Musk has not challenged scientific consensus by publishing revolutionary studies or conducting risky experiments, but rather by republishing inflammatory statements online. His actual achievements (including super-heavy rockets and electric cars) are largely independent from his unconventional views on vaccines, for instance. You can't compare him to figures like Newton and Hooke, who made both their names and their living from science.
  - tordrt 2y ago
    Whats his unconvential views on vaccines? I am not convinced he has any. Could not find anything obvious at leadt
    - tim333 2y ago
      I'm not aware of any. I think the author misinterpreted him with: >Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment... Musk actually explained he wasn't in to the pronoun stuff and: >As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo. ie. lab leak, not vax
zzbn00 2y ago
The whole episode is a nice and timely reminder of the difficulty of the society as a whole in dealing with scientists and understanding which ones are good, which ones can be trusted, etc. Academic societies such as the RS help, but as this shows they are by no means perfect, and can be gamed and manipulated when the stakes are high enough. It is a real challenge though -- how do you trust a scientist without having to learn all the science they are telling you about?
- FussyOtter 2y ago
  Elon Musk is not a scientist. He employs scientists.
  - zzbn00 2y ago
    But do general people know who is a scientist and who isn't? How do they find out? It isn't by membership of a learned society, it isn't if they are working at a university. There is no simple way for a general person to know if somebody is a scientist.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aubanel 2y ago
I really don't like this growing implication of scientists with political struggles orthogonal to their expertise. This article criticizes Musk for spreading misinformation that goes against scientific views, in particular on climate change. DISCLAIMER: I've worked 2 years on climate insurance, as a data scientist tasked with measuring the risks of extreme weather events and how they change with global warming. I've worked on Hurricanes (general name is Tropical Cyclones), Frost, and River flooding. What are the damning examples of Musks's misinformation cited in the article? The worst I can find (except for having a jet, which all billionaires do) is under the title "Downplaying the climate emergency", where the article quotes a Guardian article. In there, the most damning thing Musk has said is: "Musk has praised Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and GOP presidential hopeful, as “a very promising candidate” despite Ramaswamy calling the climate change agenda a hoax. Musk responded to Ramaswamy on X about the climate crisis saying: “It is possibly overstated in the short term, but we should be concerned about it long term.”" Does that warrant a witch hunt? Is it even false? Many media like the Guardian (cited many times in her article) like to announce short-term climatic Ragnarok, for instance increased risk of hurricanes[0]. And they cite short-term "limits" like reaching the threshold of 1.5°C additional average global temperature compared to pre-industrial era. But these media mix up all climate risks in their Ragnarok, which makes their prophecies invalid. For instance on hurricanes: the risk of hurricanes could be REDUCED because of global warming [2] (frequency goes down, intensity goes slightly up). In fact, as we're nearing the 1.5°C "limit" [1], most of the doom warnings seem to have been invalid, except for precise heat-related risks like droughts and wildfires. At least until 2024, Musk has been less wrong than the Guardian cited so often by this article. So should we remove this scientist from the Royal Society because she spreads misinformation? Oh well, it's already done. My point is PLEASE ONLY TRY TO CANCEL PEOPLE UNDER GOOD REASONS, because the perception by Republicans/Right-wingers that Democrats/Ecologists are hysteric is what truly undermines the West's response to climate change. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... [1]: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level-temporarily-next-5-years https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4
pikseladam 2y ago
Musk is a successful individual, but he doesn't need RS, and RS definitely doesn't need him either. Keeping him on the fellow list is simply a commercial gimmick and nothing more. I fully support the writer's perspective.

138 points by viburnum 2y ago

> Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk. This statement is clearly relevant to a scientific society. It is not just about unrelated bigotry by a fellow of that society.

zosima 2y ago
Elons statements were obviously not aimed at Faucis role in vaccine discussions, but in his much more dubious role in gain-of-function research and especially covering up the origins of Covid. While that is relevant to a scientific society, I think it's worth taking a good hard look on whether its wise to take a side on that, other than maybe denounce gain-of-function research.
- fabian2k 2y ago
  I can't keep track of all conspiracy theories Musk has amplified or told himself, but there is another example with Fauci directly linked to vaccines in the blog post.
- cauch 2y ago
  If it was Musk's intent (but I doubt it was the case, because it does not fit with a lot of other things that Musk did or said that show he is aiming at Faucci role in vaccine discussions), he should have acted to avoid poisoning the debate. There were plenty of "normal" way to do it, and in fact, other members of the Royal Society have done so and have expressed concerns when similar things have happened. To me, it sounds like "Sure, Musk pooped in his hand and thrown it to the speaker during the conference, but the speaker made a sign mistake in their equation". If someone is saying that this attitude is awful, it does not mean that this person is pretending that the sign mistake did not occur and should not be corrected.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Tweets without context are not "obviously" aimed at specific things. Prosecute/Fauci was both ambiguous and in bad taste.
  - tim333 2y ago
    He later clarified https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304
cies 2y ago
There are many doctors who express problems with the C19 vaccines. In some countries (most notably Japan) there are public hearings and parliament questions. In the west it seems this is not allowed. Fauci was close with the EcoHealth Alliance. He tried to hide gain of function research. There are a lot of criticism to this NGO, "including a joint letter signed by 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies." (Wikipedia). To the public Fauci straight up lied by promoting the vaccine as safe and effective, while he did not have the evidence to support that (and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions", but recommended it for pregnant women anyway). While I'd be the last person to defend Elon (he prevented unionization in Tesla, which he so get jail time for imho), I do think that it's time to prosecute Fauci. He seems to have been complicity in the AZT debacle. Sticking it in a pronoun joke is something we should not cry over, it's just a joke.
- VMG 2y ago
  > and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions" This is incorrect information https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ Pregnant women are at higher risk of getting COVID which is liked to preterm birth
  - bondarchuk 2y ago
    That's from 2023.
  - tgma 2y ago
    And if you were a scientist who was going to lead a study that could conclude otherwise, Francis & Fauci took extra care to make sure you were less likely to receive NIH funding. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci-shattered-our-trust-in-public-health/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci...
    - VMG 2y ago
      just look at the table of the studies that were included and the countries where the studies were performed
didntcheck 2y ago
How is criticizing a particular politician [1] "antivaxx"? This intentional conflation of scientific "truth" [2] with the particular policies that a democratic government decides to implement was one of the most blatantly bad faith phenomena of the pandemic. Even if we had an oracle that could have given us perfect future predictions, it would still not be able to answer the ethical questions of which path to choose. That's for the people to decide And punishing people for disputing the current "truth", and criticizing sacred cows, would go directly against the RS's principles. "Nullius in verba" [1] Yes, he is one [2] A notion which itself goes against the principles of scientific inquiry
hagbard_c 2y ago
Given that I'm listening to Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci while typing this I have a hard time taking this seriously. Both the 'offend the alphabet community' (whatever that might be given that there is no love lost between the L and Q, G and Q, B and Q, L and T and G and T factions in this 'community') as well as the defence of Fauci, a person who declared himself representing The Science™ while recklessly trampling its principles. Does that mean that everything Kennedy writes and says is the true gospel? Of course it doesn't nor does it need to. What it does say is that Fauci is not the person I'd choose as a representative for how to do science and that prosecuting the man sounds like a good idea. After all, if he is innocent he has nothing to fear, right? Let this cesspit be opened and let those who are shown to have to have abused their power, misled the public and acted for personal gain and against the trust put in them by the public be dealt with. In short, let The Science™ be exposed for what it is, a sham. Let the trust in lower-case science, scientists and the scientific method be restored by exposing the charlatans who sought to abuse the former's standing for their own purposes.
- fabian2k 2y ago
  If the conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. is who you get your information from, I can't help you.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    I get my data and information from many places, both officially sanctioned as well as those which are in opposition to those sources. I also use a good dose of scepticism when dealing with all sources, both the former as well as the latter. Where do you get your information?

dcow 2y ago

[flagged]

mock-possum 2y ago

Noble enough.

throw_pm23 2y ago

[flagged]

shafyy 2y ago
If you have read the article, it's not at all about that. But great job hiding behind your throw away account.

Oarch 2y ago

No loss. Whinging about politics and non-mainstream opinions. Is there genuine curiosity (even dare I say wrongthink) left in the RS or is it just another polite social club for people to gather and feel smug about the consensuses they've formed.

gambiting 2y ago
>>non-mainstream opinions It's a society of scientists - why would it admit or tolerate liars? Spreading obviously and easily provable misinformation online isn't "non-mainstream opinion" - it's just lying. Why would that be tolerated?
- dead_gunslinger 2y ago
  [dead]
  - gambiting 2y ago
    Are they? They are objecting Musk posting provably wrong statements on social media, arguing that as a fellow of the RS he shouldn't do that - the statements are on a variety of topics, not just Fauci.
    - tgma 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - gambiting 2y ago
        >>You very well know the answer to that. I genuienly honestly don't know.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
It's generally the latter.
- 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

I respect the author's principle-based approach but many of her arguments seem a little off. If the RS doesn't expel people for their politics, then it doesn't make sense to expel Musk for, essentially, concerns about his politics. And if you expel crotchety scientists for disagreeing with the scientific consensus there won't be any left. The RS motto is literally "Take nobody's word for it"; I don't see how Musk disagreeing with other's opinions could possibly be grounds for removing him. That being said, Musk does seem like a vaguely inappropriate addition to the Society. His wikipedia page suggests he doesn't have a PhD, doesn't do any research and is involved in military matters for an army foreign to the UK. He's obviously being included because he has lots of money and it isn't clear to me if that is proper or not.

waihtis 2y ago
It's a valid viewpoint, however membership to the royal society is judged via candidates having made 'a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science'. I would argue Elon is fully within scope, outside of the fact that I think Elon is not the slightest fit to the general ethos of that specific organization.
- quonn 2y ago
  How is he within scope? At best he might have contributed to advancing engineering science, but is that really the case? Has he not rather merely financed engineering science and perhaps not even engineering science but just engineering practice?
  - bondarchuk 2y ago
    From the blogpost: "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication" He's clearly relevant based on contribution to engineering (maybe science too) through organization (maybe leadership, communication too).
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago

bigbacaloa 2y ago

[dead]

waihtis 2y ago

[flagged]

mihaaly 2y ago

A summary on scientists from the World Science Forum 2024: "The emphasis has been placed on innovation, the rankings have reduced scientists to publication machines, and this brings with it increasing distrust towards researchers." I think Musk is a perfect fit among modern era scientists and the author has no place there with his outdated views. Idea: "scientists must focus on research that benefits humanity rather than financial gain or publication metrics" (Tamara Elzein)

mihaaly 2y ago
Wow! Hurt 'scientists' are among us apparently, it only took some seconds to downvote (mostly the words of other scientists, the rest is caustic irony). Small people, no place for widespread critical view, facing problems, self criticism.

LightBug1 2y ago

I 100% support that letter. Musk is a stain on the Royal Society.

ks2048 2y ago

All politics aside, is it normal for business people to be elected to the royal society? Even if you think Musk is a genius, it seems hard to label him as a scientist (instead of a CEO of science-related companies).

waihtis 2y ago
Membership to the royal society is judged via candidates having made 'a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science'.
- card_zero 2y ago
  By thinking, or by spending money?
  - ineedaj0b 2y ago
    Bezos has tossed a lot of money towards space and did not get as far. Elon has absolutely earned his reputation.
    - seabass-labrax 2y ago
      In fairness, Blue Origin has had only a tenth to a half of the funding that SpaceX has had (depending on which sources you trust; figures vary widely). Yet they are hardly doing badly by any measure: they have an almost fully reusable sub-orbital spacecraft which has consistently and safely carried passengers, and they have a orbital rocket ready for testing next month. SpaceX are clearly the market leader, but this is partially because they are into the category of companies who can now convey profitable payloads for NASA/DoD, with the public funding which goes along with that. Technologically, SpaceX are miles (per second!) ahead of Blue Origin, but in business terms there is perhaps not a great difference between them. First-mover's advantage doesn't often translate into return-on-investment!
    - GJim 2y ago
      > Elon has absolutely earned his reputation. I think you will find that is exactly what the Royal Society have concluded!

tgma 2y ago

I know who Elon Musk is and his contributions. My apologies, but I have never heard of the author and their contribution, and why should I fucking care what they (and 80 of their politically like-minded friends) think out of a thousand other members? Obviously the Royal Society's own relevance is hinged on picking who they should keep between two opposing members.

ben_w 2y ago
Fame isn't relevant. I've not heard of all bar one of Trump's new and previous cabinets combined, and the one I have heard of, I only know about due to the brain worms. Zero of Biden's, zero of Obama's. Possibly two of GWB's? I've only heard of two of the people who work at SpaceX, and that's Musk and Shotwell none of the rest; likewise none of those under Musk at X, TBC, Neuralink, Tesla, Starlink, Solar City. Someone blogged about why they resigned from the society, someone posted the link here, enough upvoted it for you to be engaged enough to reply. Fame is just being noticed — and you noticed — but merely getting into the group says they must have been top quality in the first place.
- tgma 2y ago
  > Fame isn't relevant. Of course it is relevant. As your post admits the author's recognized in some community that led them to post such things. If it weren't for their relative fame, their letter would be ignored. My take is about the relative fame of them vs Musk. Both are members of Royal Society, so that credential is moot. What else does the author have to make their case? Why should one listen to them, and take their opinion seriously, over Musk, who is the first and only one in the world who has caught rocket boosters in the history of the world? What is the author's accomplishments?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Obviously I meant general fame, given I was replying to you saying you'd never heard of them. As for theirs relative to their peers: why would you expect to be able to recognise the relative value of their contributions? Unless you're also in a position to reject membership of the Royal Society, you're not elite enough to be able to tell if either of them is scientific elite. > Why should one listen to them, and take their opinion seriously, over Musk, who is the first and only one in the world who has caught rocket boosters in the history of the world? Paid a team to. That's more than nothing (none of the other US rocket contractors were seriously interested in trying, his vision did make it happen) but it's not like he did it all himself either. > What is the author's accomplishments? You could google her? She's got her own Wikipedia entry and the Royal Society has a bio: https://royalsociety.org/people/dorothy-bishop-11092/ https://royalsociety.org/people/dorothy-bishop-11092/

LeroyRaz 2y ago

I mean, the Royal Society has always been crazy, and full of provocative and crazy people. I'm not sure how you can have a group of geniuses without that. Famously Newton was a complete and utter egomaniac nut job, as well as being one of the most gifted men to ever live. For example, the Leibnitz Newton debate - where surprisingly the royal society concluded in favour of Newton, while Newton was the head of the royal society. Maybe 100 years from now, we will have letters complaining that the same illustrious society that Elon Musk (the man who revolutionised space travel) was once a member of, now houses so and such, who said x verifiably untrue statement.

bjornsing 2y ago
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. I think you have a good point. Perhaps that’s why my feeling is that the best “solution” may actually be to loosen up the Code of Conduct so that the OP doesn’t feel honor-bound to act with curtesy towards Elon.

t43562 2y ago

So some brown-nosers thought to pull Musk in because they thought it would get them some news and mentions and so on, possibly be financially advantageous in some way despite him not really being a scientist. That seems to have been easy, but removing him now...oh...well....so difficult. Similarly how easy it was to suck up to Russian billionaires in London and so difficult to sanction them when things went sour. We knew they were crooks back then but lots of people benefited from ignoring it.

ineedaj0b 2y ago

This is another example of how badly mislead people can become despite being smart. This is a man who is virtuous, true - just! Or has been for many years, in his mind on the 'good' side. And he's certainly done a lot of good. But... He is now in the time for his /excesses/ to be called out. Research and science are great; the replication crisis and wasted time/effort were not. Excess should be called out. Elon is directionally the agent calling out the excesses of the covid era (that's the time period Elon began his shift rightward) and he'll make some missteps - like the anti fauci stuff - but by and large a course correction is needed. Elon is mainly fighting for his Rockets to go up faster and he'll back whichever horse gets him there quickest. So do I pay attention to the guy launching the future or the guy letting his heart bleed out in a blogpost? I do feel worried about the Britons. Their economy is slumping, cultural prestige waning (it'll be gone by GEN alpha), and I've heard reports they lock up people over facebook posts. I know not all of those things are 100% true but if even their Royal Society members can't seem to avoid falling to political squabble and see the long horizons of history, I worry for their future.

ClaraForm 2y ago

I think the world at large today could use a few more people appealing to our better natures. For that, this is a wonderful statement. I wish there was a way to moderate our modern discourse to be closer to finding ways forward together, rather than dividing ourselves further. Elon’s entire schtick these days is to move faster than regulatory bodies can align. I hoped for an attempt at amending the RS statutes for clarity and boundaries, rather than resignation from the battle entirely. Perhaps as proof that some boundaries can be reactive to anyone regardless of influence. I can’t think of many causes worth fighting for that can be won through resignation, certainly never within research or scientific contexts.

FussyOtter 2y ago

My esteem of the Royal Society is lessened by the realisation that it admits not just scientists, but also mere CEOs who aren’t scientists themselves. Would Henry Ford be admitted? In my opinion that inflates the prestige of membership.

thewanderer1983 2y ago

To quote him "Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion" Can someone please explain to me how we managed to get a whole generation of the western scientific thinkers who think the scientific method is consensus of scientific opinion? The author lists Isaac Newton, Hooke, Boyle . All of these prominent minds made scientific breakthroughs that didn't stick to the consensus views of the time. People interested should look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn. To quote from Wikipedia: Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity and cumulative progress, referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
The difference is that Elon Musk has not challenged scientific consensus by publishing revolutionary studies or conducting risky experiments, but rather by republishing inflammatory statements online. His actual achievements (including super-heavy rockets and electric cars) are largely independent from his unconventional views on vaccines, for instance. You can't compare him to figures like Newton and Hooke, who made both their names and their living from science.
- tordrt 2y ago
  Whats his unconvential views on vaccines? I am not convinced he has any. Could not find anything obvious at leadt
  - tim333 2y ago
    I'm not aware of any. I think the author misinterpreted him with: >Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment... Musk actually explained he wasn't in to the pronoun stuff and: >As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo. ie. lab leak, not vax

zzbn00 2y ago

The whole episode is a nice and timely reminder of the difficulty of the society as a whole in dealing with scientists and understanding which ones are good, which ones can be trusted, etc. Academic societies such as the RS help, but as this shows they are by no means perfect, and can be gamed and manipulated when the stakes are high enough. It is a real challenge though -- how do you trust a scientist without having to learn all the science they are telling you about?

FussyOtter 2y ago
Elon Musk is not a scientist. He employs scientists.
- zzbn00 2y ago
  But do general people know who is a scientist and who isn't? How do they find out? It isn't by membership of a learned society, it isn't if they are working at a university. There is no simple way for a general person to know if somebody is a scientist.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

aubanel 2y ago

I really don't like this growing implication of scientists with political struggles orthogonal to their expertise. This article criticizes Musk for spreading misinformation that goes against scientific views, in particular on climate change. DISCLAIMER: I've worked 2 years on climate insurance, as a data scientist tasked with measuring the risks of extreme weather events and how they change with global warming. I've worked on Hurricanes (general name is Tropical Cyclones), Frost, and River flooding. What are the damning examples of Musks's misinformation cited in the article? The worst I can find (except for having a jet, which all billionaires do) is under the title "Downplaying the climate emergency", where the article quotes a Guardian article. In there, the most damning thing Musk has said is: "Musk has praised Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and GOP presidential hopeful, as “a very promising candidate” despite Ramaswamy calling the climate change agenda a hoax. Musk responded to Ramaswamy on X about the climate crisis saying: “It is possibly overstated in the short term, but we should be concerned about it long term.”" Does that warrant a witch hunt? Is it even false? Many media like the Guardian (cited many times in her article) like to announce short-term climatic Ragnarok, for instance increased risk of hurricanes[0]. And they cite short-term "limits" like reaching the threshold of 1.5°C additional average global temperature compared to pre-industrial era. But these media mix up all climate risks in their Ragnarok, which makes their prophecies invalid. For instance on hurricanes: the risk of hurricanes could be REDUCED because of global warming [2] (frequency goes down, intensity goes slightly up). In fact, as we're nearing the 1.5°C "limit" [1], most of the doom warnings seem to have been invalid, except for precise heat-related risks like droughts and wildfires. At least until 2024, Musk has been less wrong than the Guardian cited so often by this article. So should we remove this scientist from the Royal Society because she spreads misinformation? Oh well, it's already done. My point is PLEASE ONLY TRY TO CANCEL PEOPLE UNDER GOOD REASONS, because the perception by Republicans/Right-wingers that Democrats/Ecologists are hysteric is what truly undermines the West's response to climate change. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... [1]: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-exceed-15degc-above-pre-industrial-level-temporarily-next-5-years https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/global-temperature-likely-... [2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01388-4

pikseladam 2y ago

Musk is a successful individual, but he doesn't need RS, and RS definitely doesn't need him either. Keeping him on the fellow list is simply a commercial gimmick and nothing more. I fully support the writer's perspective.