After Paul Nurse's outburst yesterday, my thoughts turned to the end of his term as president. The Royal Society elects its leaders for a period of five years so Nurse will step down at the end of 2015.
Who, we wonder, will replace him?
One assumes that I am not the only one who has wondered about the succession; the backroom boys at the Royal are no doubt taking soundings already. The Society likes the man at the helm (thus far it's always a man) to have a Nobel prize in the display cabinet, which does rather restrict the field. I'm not aware of a list of living British laureates, but perhaps readers can suggest likely candidates. One name that occurred to me was John Sulston, the medical scientist who shares some of the millenarian views of many recent holders of the post.
Then again, a president without a Nobel would not be unprecedented, Lord Rees being the obvious example.
It will also be interesting to see if the society goes ahead with a Stalin-style election, with a single-name ballot paper under the strict control of the backroom boys. After the outrage over Prince Andrew's "election" to the fellowship, it's hard to imagine that the society would dare to do the same thing for the new president. But it's not impossible - the society is not accountable to anyone and can shrug off criticism in the same way that a bureaucrat can.
The only imaginable concession is that they might allow a ballot paper with two approved candidates. Open candidature is only a pipedream.
Bishop Hill
James Wilsdon tweets, noting that the Physical and Biological sides of the society take it in turns to provide the president, so the next one will be from the physical side. This means that a Nobel laureate is unlikely.