by A professor who disposed of the fact that Elon Musk may have broken the Royal Society’s code of conduct by spreading misinformation before the meeting on Monday that it was not about monitoring political views.
The winners of the Nobel Prize included more than 2,400 people to sign an open letter in which it was claimed that Mr. Musk had broken the Royal Society’s code of conduct by promoting “unfounded conspiracy theories”.
The Fellows will meet on Monday to discuss “the principles of public statements and behaviors of scholarship holders”, the Royal Society said in a statement after the letter was published.
The billionaire owner of X, formerly Twitter, is a fellow of the oldest scientific academy, which counts many of the “most important scientists in the world” in their ranks.
The emeritus, Professor Stephen Curry, Professor of Structural Biology at Imperial College London, wrote the open letter and told the PA news agency that Mr. Musk was “generally reported to be one of the most active disseminators of misinformation on Twitter”.
Before the meeting on Monday, Professor Curry said that scientific integrity as well as compliance and respect for evidence and truth for the code are of central importance.
He added: “This is not about monitoring political views, but about enforcing political conformity.
“I think the main fees that are worrying for many people is that Elon Musk has shown no respect for evidence.
“He is generally reported that he is one of the most active burns of misinformation on Twitter, and that is not the case with the code of conduct.”
The structural biologist said that “scholarship is an honor” that follow the code, and the scholarship holders are responsible for illustrating “the highest ideals and behavioral standards” for all scientists.
“In this regard, it seems to me, and it seems that everyone who signed the letter has deviated from this standard in a very serious way,” he added.
In the open letter, which was published for fourteen days ago, Professor Curry said he was writing to “express my dismay about the continued silence and obvious inactivity of the Royal Society because of the scholarship awarded in 2018”.
He wrote that the concerns about the violation of Mr. Musk were raised against the code more than six months ago.
Professor Curry also mentioned the X -Post of the Tech entrepreneur, in which he attacked the protection of Minister Jess Phillips for historical nursing rates in Great Britain.
The letter was sent to Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society.
Sir Adrian then sent Fellows a letter in which a session would take place in March.
On Tuesday, the Royal Society published an explanation that, according to Professor Curry, published an explanation that said that it dealt with some concerns he had expressed.
Mr. Musk does not call it, but the professor said that it was “a step in the right direction” and he was happy to see it.
The explanation states: “ideological agendas are used to suppress research, threaten academic freedom and reduce financing.
“Scientific evidence and those who are committed to this are attacked by those who want to undermine the rational debate.
“Platforms that enable an open, transparent debate release harmful misinformation and ideological attacks on people and ideas.
“The Royal Society will use its voice and specialist knowledge of our colleagues to resist the various challenges for science.”
It also added that the academy “stands for equality, diversity and inclusion”.
Professor Curry said PA that he does not believe that the Royal Society will make a decision about Mr. Musk on Monday.
But people need a “clear report” about the options of the academy and whether it is satisfied that Mr. Musk did not violate the code, he said.
“I think if you want to maintain the trust of the broader scientific community that I think is an explanation of the measures or inactivity that you have taken,” he added.
Professor Curry is not invited to the closed meeting because he is not a guy.
Some people he spoke to will “make their feelings known”, but there is a “spectrum of opinion” that he greeted.
After meeting the scholarship holders, it will be the lead to decide whether to make an explanation, he said.
