Ugly debates about religion and science usually seem to be confined to the US. In recent months, however, such debates have begun to spread -- first to Europe and then around the world. Science, it seems, is drifting into political dangers it has not faced since before the Enlightenment.
Europe began its own American-style debate on the origins of life when Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna cast doubt on the acceptability of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to people who see themselves as faithful Roman Catholics. The cardinal argued that evolution is the work of God and that evolutionary theory should be interpreted in that light and no other.
With Schonborn's intervention, the peace between science and religion that in Old Europe had held almost since the Enlightenment -- and at least since the historically hard-won eviction of the church from politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- seemed suddenly to have been broken. Revealed truth, the cardinal seemed to say, must be accorded primacy over the truths science reveals through reason.
This is not to say that religious sentiment or, in the case of Germany, bitter historical experience stemming from the Nazi era, had not informed other European debates, say, on the ethics of stem-cell research. Indeed, the religious background of Europe's nations clearly manifested itself in various European laws on such research, with the UK and Sweden being the most liberal and Italy, Austria and Poland the most restrictive. But none of these debates directly challenged the role of science in society or posed, as Schonborn did, the idea that religion and science are potentially incompatible.
Following the cardinal's declaration, many pointed to the US as a warning sign of the dangers inherent in politicizing science through religion. They noted that US President George W. Bush had sided openly with those who want to make evolutionary theory optional in schools' science curricula.
The reason that such pseudo-science has prevailed in so many US schools is directly related to America's tremendously decentralized school system, which allows committed local groups of the religious-minded to reshape the curriculum. The power of faith-based movements in the US is undeniable, and their influence in other areas where science and politics meet, including the availability of certain drugs -- the so-called "morning after" pill being one example -- is growing.
It is unlikely that European schools, because of their structure, can be invaded by "creationism." Yet Europe should not think itself immune to this problem.
When dogmatic faith enters politics, compromises on controversial issues, which are indispensable in a democracy, become difficult to achieve. This is because fundamental values -- as opposed to, say, the distribution of material resources -- are seen as being non-negotiable. The danger is that scientific decisions with a scientific-technical component are no longer subject to study or rational argument, but instead are fought over by various interest groups, with some invariably claiming that their taxes should be used to fund only research that is compatible with their values.
Debates about the nature and benefits of science are not confined to the US and Europe. When South Korea's National University announced the first-ever successful cloning of a dog, the news triggered arguments about science and society throughout Asia. Although the language of religion was not used overtly, the debate in Asia reflected the same fears that science is somehow "out of control" and far too powerful.
One key reason for this is the fact that China is pouring vast resources into research and development. Between 1995 and 2002, it doubled the percentage of its rapidly growing GDP that it invests in R&D, with biotechnology and other high-tech fields enjoying the highest priority. Science, it seems, is becoming a partner in the unnerving development of a new global superpower.
Today, science belongs to a rapidly globalizing world. It is perceived as a motor of economic growth, but also as a threat to our security and beliefs. Cultural worldviews and religion, of course, will continue to shape the overall cultural and value context within which science and technology interact. But values are subject to change, often in response to past experience and fears about the future.
It took centuries for science to carve out its sphere of autonomy, always a relative one, from politics and religion alike.
This autonomy has served science well, and independent and accountable science has served society and the economy well. If this beneficial relationship is to be maintained, scientific independence -- from both religious dogmatism and governmental intervention -- must be defended.
Who would have thought that, at the dawn of the 21st century, the old Enlightenment debates would still be so potent?
Helga Nowotny is professor of science studies, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich, and chair of the European Research Advisory Board.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations