The Royal Society at a Crossroads: Scientific Merit versus Political Conformity

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 for 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 toward social justice considerations. This report criticized 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 Politicizing 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 moralizing science:

Giordano Bruno was canceled (burned at the stake in 1600) because his cosmological views were considered to be a threat to the dominant ideology… Marie Curie was ostracized for immoral behavior—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.

Krylov’s conclusion offers a stark reminder of what is truly at stake:

Today, STEM holds the key to solving problems far more important than the nuclear arms race: reversing climate change, fighting global hunger and poverty, controlling pandemics, and harnessing the power of new technologies (quantum computing, bioengineering, and renewable energy) for the benefit of humanity. Normalizing ideological intrusion into science and abandoning Mertonian principles will cost us dearly. We cannot afford it.

Just so. Curry’s open letter is a textbook example of the politicization 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.

References:

Toby Young, The Woke Professor Trying to Get Elon Musk Expelled From the Royal Society, The Daily Skeptic (February 18, 2025)

Stephen Curry, An Open Letter to the President of the Royal Society—Time to Stand up for Your Values, Reciprocal Space (February 11, 2025)

Anna I. Krylov, The Peril of Politicizing Science, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12 5371 (2021)