illuminating science

This is a bit of a “hot potato” article, and departs a little from my usual posts, but it’s something that I think is important for scientists (present or future!) to consider. Whatever your religious beliefs are, there can’t be any argument that Christianity (in particular) plays, for better or worse, a key role in the politics of science. You only need to look at the debate on embryonic stem cells, the study of sexuality in humans and of course, the time honoured creationism vs evolution debate (For the record, I firmly believe creationism has no place in school science curriculums.)

Sean at Preposterous Universe writes about Chris Mooney’s article in the Washington Monthly, where science is being abused to promote religious view points. In particular, some are trying to show that abortion causes breast cancer - something which has repeatedly been proven to have no scientific basis - in order to support moral arguments. Others claim that condoms don’t protect against STDs (they do) to justify advocating abstinence rather than contraception.

Now, obviously there’s nothing wrong with justifying arguments using science, unless you set out to prove something while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. This is bad science (though it happens) regardless of your motivation, and often results in cranks. In fact, perhaps the most important attribute for a scientist is the ability to accept new ideas, and to reject old ones - no matter how beautiful they were. In this sense, religion has the potential to clash with science. It’s very important to say here that there’s nothing wrong with being religious and scientific - I know some excellent scientists who combine science and faith (be it Buddhist, Christian, spiritual or other) and generate very interesting discussions. But I think it requires effort to sensibly combine the two in a way that keeps both “sides” happy. It’s also important that religious views don’t obstruct the progress of science. Not to say that we should have science without ethics, but those ethics need to be determined by the whole community, and the risks and benefits debated.

What I find most disturbing is that the author, Chris Mooney, has been branded a “bigot” in a pseudo-scientific response by these organisations. Again, they are attempting to pass their research and rebuttal off as “scientific”, citing dozens of references and including just enough real science to muddy the waters. While I haven’t followed the references, the tone of the article (one of outrage, righteous idignation and sensationalism) is definitely not scientific and a trademark of a crank. Buzzwords include “smear campaign”, “public relations sham” and “personal attacks”. And yet an uninformed reader (or politician!) could be easily convinced without seeing the whole story, and make bad decisions. In comparison, Chris Mooney’s article is logical, coherent and seems to present a balanced view - with the final, scientific conclusion that there is no evidence for the abortion-breast cancer link. Ultimately, you have to make up your own mind - just make sure that you read widely, criticise justly but not vindictively, and keep an open mind. Again, all good qualities for a scientist.