Why Have So Few International Organizations Responded To Trump And Musk’s Attack On Science?

Whether warranted or not, the United States’ hegemonic status in the scientific conversation has suddenly been challenged from the inside, with the leaders of the various agencies doing little to contrast the attack from the administration. Not finding support at home, many scientists had hoped for international institutions to speak out. To their disappointment, little is being said publicly by those bodies.

For this reason, IFLScience contacted several institutions, organizations, and laboratory networks for comments about the current situation, with limited success. 

Diseases and pathogens know no borders

The attacks on US science could have repercussions on global health. Kennedy Jr recently canceled two vaccine policy meetings, including the Food and Drug Administration’s March 13 committee meeting to update next winter’s flu vaccine.

IFLScience spoke to the World Health Organization to ask how these decisions might affect the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS).

“WHO’s Collaborating Centres for influenza, including those in the USA, play a major role in GISRS in characterizing significant virus samples and genetic sequence data from around the world, toward developing seasonal influenza candidate vaccine viruses. Such data are essential for the optimal selection of viruses and the timely and optimal candidate vaccine virus development,” Tarik Jašarević, spokesperson for the WHO, told IFLScience.

“The data generated in the U.S. and elsewhere are also crucial for developing vaccine candidate viruses (CVVs) for pandemic preparedness and for producing safe and effective seasonal influenza vaccines.”

It is not science as usual

It is not just medical researchers who have concerns. In communications shared with IFLScience under the condition of anonymity, researchers in particle physics and astronomy said they felt that their work could be taken away from them with the stroke of pen and without warning, as well as it not being safe to speak publicly about their science.

Part of the challenge lies here. Cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration affecting hurricane prediction and tsunami warning centers, for example, can be pointed out as a move that is not just bad science, but a major danger to people’s safety. Responding to how scientists are feeling is different, and scientific institutions are focusing on the tangible effects they can measure. “At this stage, we are not aware of funding freezes that directly affect CERN’s work,” a spokesperson for CERN told IFLScience.

I think if they want to speak on behalf of the wider scientific community, they have to speak to that community, and at the minute, they’re not doing that.

Professor Stephen Curry

IFLScience has reached out to the leadership of the International Astronomical Union, the World Meteorological Organization, and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and has not received a response at the time of publication. Speaking to the International Science Council (ISC), we were told that the ISC is actively monitoring these developments and working to understand the implications of these shifts to better support the scientific community.

The Royal Society has an Elon Musk problem

A lot of attention has been dedicated to the Royal Society. The organization is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy in the world, and its core members are the fellows, scientists and engineers who have contributed greatly to scientific knowledge. Musk is neither a scientist nor an engineer but was made a fellow in 2018. This honor was bestowed upon him for his contribution to electric vehicles and space exploration, granted to him by his role as CEO of Tesla and SpaceX.

It was in the last few years that his fellowship was brought into question. In 2022, Elon Musk attacked US health official and foreign member of the Royal Society Anthony Fauci, suggesting he should be prosecuted – for what is unclear. 

Musk has also repeatedly shared misinformation on his social media platform X, a recent example being when he claimed that astronauts Sunita “Suni” Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore were yet to be brought back from the International Space Station for “political reasons”; he ended up calling an astronaut who corrected him a slur. Just last year, Musk threatened to sue researchers with the non-profit Center for Countering Digital Hate. 

And then, there are the cuts and attacks on science being overseen by Musk as part of the Trump administration.

An internal letter was written by another fellow last summer to raise some of these issues, which we were told was ignored. Professor Dorothy Bishop resigned from the Royal Society over Musk’s membership in November. In the last several weeks, Emeritus Professor Stephen Curry started an open letter that got 3,494 signatories calling for the Royal Society to stand up for its values, and it was presented ahead of a meeting that took place on March 3.

“It was clearly made that there was case to answer by Elon Musk, given some of his behaviors and statements that were very obviously, I think, in contravention of the code of conduct,” Professor Curry told IFLScience. “The code of conduct is something that everybody who accepts the honor of Fellowship of the Royal Society agrees to adhere to. It’s an expression of the highest ideals of scientific endeavor, which are values that the community shares very widely: the integrity, the respect for evidence, the respect for truth.”

Nullius in verba: Take nobody’s word for it

“At a meeting this evening of the Royal Society, Fellows agreed on the need to stand up for science and for scientists around the world in the face of the growing challenges science faces.”

My letter and my continued dismay arises from the Royal Society not sticking to its own declared values. I hope we haven’t heard the last of this.

Professor Stephen Curry

“Concern was expressed, in particular, about the fate of colleagues in the US who are reportedly facing the prospect of losing their jobs amid threats of radical cutbacks in research funding.”

That was the statement that the Royal Society put out following the March 3 meeting. It was met with much anger online but also derision. The society’s motto is Nullius in verba, or “take nobody’s word for it.” The saying is an exhortation to reproduce scientific results over and over again, but some pointed out how the society was falling short of its own motto in this case.

“It was good that they had the meeting, but, you know, it was a closed meeting, and we don’t know what happened. I’ve tried to talk to a few fellows, but they’ve been sworn to secrecy,” Professor Curry told IFLScience.

At the time of publication, Elon Musk remains a fellow. Professor Curry raised a point based on the Science under threat statement published by the Royal Society on February 25 stating the the society is “defined by the principles of open, transparent, decision making based on scientific evidence.”

“Well, I’m afraid last night’s meeting was not open, was not transparent, and it’s completely unclear what if any decisions were taken,” Professor Curry explained. “My letter and my continued dismay arises from the Royal Society not sticking to its own declared values. I hope we haven’t heard the last of this.”

IFLScience contacted the Royal Society asking what actionable steps were being taken by the society to counter the many threats facing science today, as well as the state of Elon Musk’s fellowship.

“The Society’s work in regards to threats to science is hugely important, and our work on this is continuous and ongoing,” a spokesperson told IFLScience. “Any issues raised in respect of individual Fellows are dealt with in strict confidence.”

Elon Musk and the Royal Society have become a cause célèbre, but it shows how scientific institutions appear to be unprepared for our current reality. Musk has used his money, power, and influence to target those who are considered his enemies, so it is understandable why scientific institutions don’t want to end up a target but now is not the time to be idle.

“They are a society that claims to speak on behalf of the scientific community. And I think if they want to speak on behalf of the wider scientific community, they have to speak to that community, and at the minute, they’re not doing that,” Professor Curry concluded.

Many people are asking: What’s the point of these organizations if they are not going to stand up for scientific values now that it’s needed more than ever before?