This article lists notable open letters that were initiated by scientists or other academics or have a substantial share of academic signees.
Open letters that are not open for signing by other academics or the public in general and have not received both a large number of signatures – in specific no less than 10 before 2000 and no less than 40 after 2010 – and substantial media attention are not included, nor are petitions. With the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web, such open letters may have become far more frequent.
Open letters targeting or defending individual academics or small groups of scholars[1][2] as well as letters calling for retractions of specific studies are not included.
Name
Year
Signatures
Scope / topic
Demands
Organized by
Demand achieved
Criticized
Elsevier: NeuroImage transition - all editors have resigned over the high publication fee, and are starting a new non-profit journal, Imaging Neuroscience[3][4][5][6][7]
>1,000 incl. prominent figures in software & tech and risk researchers
Global
"AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4" due to "profound risks to society and humanity".[14]
Changes to the proposed Cyber Resilience Act due to "unnecessary economic and technological risk to the EU" and improving engagement with the under-represented open source software community as "more than 70% of the software in Europe [open source/FOSS] is about to be regulated without an in-depth consultation" and potential chilling effects of OSS development.
Open Letter calling for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering[22][23]
2022
>380 academics
Global
"[I]mmediate political action from governments, the United Nations, and other actors to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option".
"Insofar as it involves unnecessary violence and harm, [they] declare that animal exploitation is unjust and morally indefensible".
NA
Yes
Fulfil the NPT: From nuclear threats to human security
2022
>1,000 incl. many academics
Global
Four steps towards a nuclear-weapon-free world to take by the Tenth Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2022.
NoFirstUse Global
Statement by other Academics in support of Bill No. 28 of 2022[34]
2022
>100 academics
Malta
Passage of abortion law changes Bill No. 28 of 2022 as is.
Scientists to President Biden: Follow the Science, Stop Fossil Fuels[35]
2022
275 academics
USA / Global
Halting recent moves towards increasing fossil fuel production and instead take bold action to rapidly reduce fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure by President Biden.
Scientists and Engineers Letter to President Biden on the Nuclear Posture Review[40][41]
2021
~700 scientists and engineers incl. 21 Nobel laureates
USA / Global
President Biden to "use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the U.S. arsenal by a third, and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict".
An Open Letter from U.S. Scientists Imploring President Biden to End the Fossil Fuel Era[42]
Stop attempts to criminalise nonviolent climate protest[46]
2021
>400 academics
Global
End of the criminalization of non-violent civil disobedience from direct action climate activist groups.
Oscar Berglund, others
Academic Open Letter in Support of the TRIPS Intellectual Property Waiver Proposal[47]
2021
>100 academics (international intellectual property)
Global
A "temporary TRIPS waiver – as proposed by India and South Africa and supported by more than 100 countries – [as a] necessary and proportionate legal measure towards the clearing of existing intellectual property barriers to scaling up of production of COVID-19 health technologies in a direct, consistent and effective fashion".
No
WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies[48][49][50]
WHO, medical community and relevant national and other international bodies to "recognize the potential for airborne spread" of COVID-19 by around the time of the letter.
Condemnation of cancel culture and liberal intolerance and defending free speech, making an argument that hostility to free speech was becoming widespread on what could be described as "the political left" as well.
We declare our support for Extinction Rebellion[58]
2019
>250 academics at Australian universities
Global
Declaration of support for Extinction Rebellion and sufficient change of Australian government's inaction on the climate crisis. It is based on a 2018 open letter.
NA
School climate strike children's brave stand has our support[59]
The letter highlights both the positive and negative effects of artificial intelligence.[65] According to Bloomberg Business, Professor Max Tegmark of MIT circulated the letter in order to find common ground between signatories who consider super intelligent AI a significant existential risk, and signatories such as Professor Oren Etzioni, who believe the AI field was being "impugned" by a one-sided media focus on the alleged risks.[66] The letter contends that:
The letter was intended to warn both the society and the government about the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and its expansion into many fields of social life, particularly into the state education system, which is strictly prohibited under the Russian Constitution.
^Paul, Kari (2023-04-01). "Letter signed by Elon Musk demanding AI research pause sparks controversy". The Guardian. ISSN0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-05-16. Among the research cited was "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots", a well-known paper co-authored by Margaret Mitchell, who previously oversaw ethical AI research at Google. Mitchell, now chief ethical scientist at AI firm Hugging Face, criticised the letter, telling Reuters it was unclear what counted as "more powerful than GPT4". "By treating a lot of questionable ideas as a given, the letter asserts a set of priorities and a narrative on AI that benefits the supporters of FLI," she said. "Ignoring active harms right now is a privilege that some of us don't have."
^"Musk's AI letter is a 'hot mess' of hype, say critics". France 24. 2023-03-30. Retrieved 2023-05-16. But Timnit Gebru, whose academic paper was cited to support that claim, wrote on Twitter on Thursday that her article actually warns against making such inflated claims about AI. "They basically say the opposite of what we say and cite our paper," she wrote. Her co-author Emily Bender said the letter was a "hot mess" and was "just dripping with AI hype".
^Bradshaw, Tim (12 January 2015). "Scientists and investors warn on AI". The Financial Times. Retrieved 24 April 2015. Rather than fear-mongering, the letter is careful to highlight both the positive and negative effects of artificial intelligence.
