The tension between science and religion has endured over
centuries, from the persecution of Galileo in 1633 to the current
ethical debate involving stem cell research.
But in the years since Galileo pondered the movement of
celestial spheres, the dichotomy of science and faith has moved
increasingly into the political sphere.
Some of the major issues of the upcoming presidential election
span the scientific and environmental spectrum, from research
funding and climate change to space exploration.
“Science is growing increasingly important in the
political realms because of the growth in technology,” said
Linda Demer, a stem cell researcher and vice chairwoman for
cardiovascular and vascular medicine at the David Geffen School of
Medicine.
The potential of stem cell research to cure diseases such as
Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s has been made prominent by
scientists and the media, sparking ethical and legal questions.
Similarly, the possibilities of genetic technology and space
exploration have brought science and engineering into the political
arena.
But Demer feels science and politics should remain distinct.
“There should be non-partisan scientific advisory
committees; it’s extremely important that scientists not be
selected for their political views,” she said.
Aside from advancements in technology, the intertwining of
science, religion and politics is also based on a historical
trend.
A movement of fundamentalism ““ the desire to return to the
founding principles of religion and the literal interpretation of
religious texts ““ has been observed across denominations in
the United States since the 1970s.
Many religious fundamentalists have built a base for themselves
in the Republican party, said Jessica Wang, an associate professor
in the department of history specializing in political economy,
science and technology.
“In George W. Bush, (fundamentalists) really have a
political friend ““ he’s someone who talks very
frequently about his relationship with God and commitment to
Christian belief,” she said.
But when religion becomes too dominantly involved in political
decision-making and the interpretation of scientific data, it
starts a movement backwards, said Jean Rosenfeld, a researcher in
the UCLA Center for the Study of Religion.
“It undermines the intellectual field,” she said.
“It unravels the progress on which we supposedly stand, which
is the light of reason.”
Rosenfeld sees this common ground as a civic religion based upon
the values of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence.
Though a balance should be struck between political and
religious values, it is not the public embracing of religion that
Wang considers hazardous.
“What I find dangerous is when scientific information is
disregarded for the sake of politics,” Wang said, referring
to the policies of the Bush administration for climate change.
In March 2001, Bush opposed the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty
to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases, which has been
ratified by 125 countries.
Instead, the president enacted the Clear Skies initiative to
decrease power plant emissions by 70 percent in the next 15
years.
Environmental conservation is also closely tied with the
religious idea of the responsibility of humans to take care of the
planet.
“I don’t think Bush’s anti-science behavior
has anything to do with his religious beliefs,” said Mary
Nichols, director of the UCLA Institute for the Environment.
“I think it’s pure politics.”
But with all its possibilities, science cannot provide the
complete picture.
“When it comes to stem cell research, and if it’s
morally right or not, that’s a question science can’t
answer ““ it’s fundamentally philosophical and
ethical,” Wang said.
“Science can’t tell us whether this is right or
wrong, science can only tell us the medical
possibilities.”
The discussion of those ethical and philosophical questions
returns to individual value systems ““ including religion.
“When science is raised in a political campaign, the
discussion should be based on scientific facts and not on
personally held religious beliefs,” said Dora Weiner, a
professor in the departments of psychiatry and history.
“The issues need to be discussed, but they need to be
discussed in a calm and rational way, weighing the pros and cons,
and not in an emotional way, evoking the Almighty.”
According to a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, 72 percent of registered voters say it is important
that the president have strong religious beliefs.
“People’s religious beliefs are part of their
overall make up and if people feel strongly about certain values,
they will try to apply those values to the candidates,”
Nichols said.
But a fine line exists between maintaining a system of ethics to
govern scientific research and perceiving science completely within
the context of faith. This line is ultimately a dividing factor,
not only among political parties but within denominations.
“When you set up a dichotomy between religion and science,
that polarizes the nation even more,” Rosenfeld said.
“It becomes another line along which the country
splits.”
The interactions of politics, science and religion have become a
spiderweb of ethical questions, presidential campaigns and
scientific data.
But Demer still tries to separate her political views from her
research agenda and her political life from her scientific
career.
“I’m an activist, but I don’t wear my buttons
to work,” she said.