> 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.

But the article does not talk about Musk's political opinion per se. The concerns would have been totally the same if Musk was acting the same way but involving himself with a different political ideology.

The concerns seem to be: 1) Musk is aggressive towards his fellow scientists, 2) Musk is supporting and spreading anti-science things, 3) Musk is pushing for anti-science practices in his own scientifically linked activities (such as not following the steps that guarantee good science in clinical trials).

The article mentions that Musk is getting more political. However, the message is not "being political is the reason why he should be excluded", the message is "while it is possible to be political and continue to adhere to the scientific practice, what we see is that Musk gets more and more anti-science because he gets more and more political".

▲

a-french-anon 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

	▲	n4r9 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Promoting peaceful debate is arguably a core aspect of scientific integrity. My impression is that the author would be just as miffed by someone spreading misinformation about GMOs that leads to left-wing thuggery against crop research institutes.
	▲	cauch 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What is your point? The article says that the letter specifically mentioned examples where Musk failed to act with scientific integrity. It details the situation, which happens to be linked with right-wing stuffs. It obviously does not say "Musk has used his platform on X to make unjustified and divisive statements, which is perfectly fine, but it happens to be on an ideology we don't like", it says "Unlike other members that have the same ideology as Musk and for which we have no problem with them staying members of the RS, Musk did not express his view in a normal way, he has used is platform on X to act in a way that is very much incompatible with scientific integrity". The problem raised is the unjustified and divisive statements that prove that Musk is intellectually dishonest. (and even if we give credit to the very weak argument that Musk is some kind of split personality that is magically intellectually honest if the subject is more "science related", the history of his statements shows quickly that it's not the case). The consultation with a lawyer was to determine if it breached the Code of Conduct, proof that, contrary to what you pretend, the first sentence does not imply that it has nothing to do with scientific integrity. If the first sentence implied that, why would they even bother paying a lawyer to check something that, according to you, is obviously not breaching a Code of Conduct that only talks about scientific integrity. (and, as explained, the layer concluded that there were risks of legal retaliation, but not that the code of conduct was not breached)

▲

ineedaj0b 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand where you're coming from but because of Covid and those years, using the shield of 'science' to disallow criticism is a little underhanded. Covid/Vaccines/Lockdowns are on the table of politics for the foreseeable future.

	▲	black_puppydog 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Not in the context of the royal society they aren't. Or they shouldn't be. That's kinda the point of its existence.