ScienceWeek

SCIENCE POLICY: IDEOLOGY VS. SCIENCE

The following points are made by Alan J. Leshner (Science 2003 302:1479):

1) The moralizers are trying to muck with US science again. A flurry of activity over the past few weeks has followed the effort of a right-wing religious group to call into question almost 200 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants focusing on behavioral and social aspects of issues such as sexuality, HIV/AIDS transmission, and drug abuse (Science, 31 October 2003, p. 758). This incident could have been written off as noise by a fringe group had it not come almost on the heels of the near-passage in the House of Representatives last July of what came to be known as the Toomey Amendment , after its author Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-PA). By a vote of 212 to 210, the House just missed defunding four NIH research grants on sexual behavior that had already been through rigorous scientific peer review and approval by NIH Institute National Advisory Councils (Science, 18 July 2003, p. 289).

2) This is not the first time that the scientific enterprise has been threatened by political or ideological intervention, nor will it be the last. Many of us recall, for example, Sen. William Proxmire's grandstanding Golden Fleece Awards in the 1970s and 1980s. They were passed out with much media fanfare to research projects with titles Proxmire considered silly, and which were therefore ridiculed as a frivolous waste of taxpayer money. Of course, the Golden Fleece awardees often turned out later to be important and useful projects. One example is the study of the physical characteristics of flight attendants that ultimately led to the development of life-saving safety belt configurations for them.

3) We are not concerned that Congress wishes to exert oversight over the US research agenda and research priorities. That is their job, and we want our representatives to do it well. We also believe that the scientific community should be fully accountable to the public, because much science is publicly funded and the public is the ultimate beneficiary of our work. By nature, science is an open enterprise that invites examination and criticism -- and more often than not, it is actually strengthened by public scrutiny. Oversight bolsters public confidence in the scientific enterprise and provides incentives for scientists to interact with the public, explain the importance of their research, and spread an ethic of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking that helps make our society more innovative and dynamic.

4) On occasions like the present one, however, healthy scrutiny gives way to irresponsible attack. The recent assaults on science were not directed at broad research questions or national research priorities. Instead, they were aimed at imposing ideology and religious doctrine on the awarding of individual research grants, intervening in and thereby subverting the scientific peer review system that has served both science and national needs so well.

5) The moral judges who are doing this don't like the fact that HIV is spread through sexual contact, and they believe that drug addicts have made bad personal choices that have led to addiction. Is their disapproval of these behaviors a justification for stifling research on the diseases that result? Do they suppose that some form of national denial will make these problems go away? Regardless of personal feelings about the etiology of these illnesses, we need to understand their causes and transmission patterns if we are ever to get a handle on some of society's most pervasive public health problems.

Science http://www.sciencemag.org

--------------------------------

US NATL. ACAD. OF SCIENCES: OVERWHELMING REJECTION OF RELIGION

The following points are made by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham (Nature 1998 394:313):

1) Although the current popular US media are fond of informing the public that science and religion are moving closer on a common ground, the evidence is apparently the opposite, according to the results of a recent survey of scientists who are members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

2) The authors report "near universal rejection" of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Overall, 93 percent of NAS scientists do not profess a belief in God (72.2 percent disbelief, 20.8 agnostic), and 92.1 percent do not profess a belief in immortality (76.7 percent disbelief, 23.3 percent agnostic). Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79 percent and 76.3 percent respectively.

3) As indicated, most of the rest define themselves as agnostics, with only few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians: 14.3 percent belief in God, 15 percent belief in immortality. Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5 percent in God, 7.1 percent in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5 percent in God, 7.5 percent in immortality).

4) The authors suggest that despite recent declarations by NAS president Bruce Albert that many outstanding members of the academy are very religious people, the present survey indicates otherwise.

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

ScienceWeek http://www.scienceweek.com