@lionelb @pa27 One of the concerns is that withdrawing the fellowship would be contested through the courts. And someone with his net wealth would be in a position to bankrupt the Society even if they didn't actually win. I can see that argument - it's a difficult position to be in. But I still think that using a whataboutist argument using Isaac Newton makes the Society look very weak indeed.

@xs4me2 I have been told that much of the push for his election was based on neuralink rather than the other higher profile stuff. But I suspect that there may have been the hope that he might contribute something to the Society's funds. The latter is just speculation on my part, nothing more.
Either way it was a massive error of judgement to elect him in the first place.

@Robbins There's no conspiracy. Just an ability to see the moral wood for the trees.

@njr When all you have is a spade everything looks like a hole to be dug… 

@Netraven What????? Please don't spread nonsense.

@mrkeen In that case Robert Hooke might have had a happier life.

@pookiesorcery Not at all. Michael Peel and Clive Cookson are excellent journalists. Michael has followed this story for quite a while and I have spoken to him several times in the past. The Grok thing is no doubt what prompted them to go and ask Nurse whether his position had shifted at all.

@frank Thanks!

@bert_hubert Doing good science is not barrier to being "nasty" - Nurse says so himself. But I think having some moral compass and boundaries is important in an adult, let alone someone who holds such position of leadership and responsibility.

This article, in which Paul Nurse compares Elon Musk with Isaac Newton (“a nasty piece of work”), leaves me completely speechless.
I don’t even know where to start.

https://www.ft.com/content/088b804f-15e0-4a8e-b32d-146a826b8d6c?shareType=nongift