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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.