Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

ENVIRONMENT

Taking science back from the scientists

  • 20 July 2010
The aim of a University education, in the view of John Henry, Cardinal Newman in the mid-19th century, is not primarily to fit students for this or that particular profession, but to develop their minds, to be able to exercise judgment, engage fruitfully in debate and conversation, to interpret what is happening in society and to bring insights to bear on these events.

My working life has been in biological sciences and I've always been grateful for my good fortune in seeing the complexity, beauty and coordination of the processes in the living cells of the body. In my case it invigorated a belief that there must be a higher influence that is ultimately responsible for this — and such a belief remains entirely consistent with evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin.

Another view often expressed is that science understands this complexity more and more, and this process of revelation really means that science can explain everything. Currently that is a confrontational topic between religion and science, but there is really no basis for such confrontation. It is made popular by a number of most strident publicists, who despite the fact that they believe there is no God, spend an inordinate time and effort in discussing him.

Scientific research poses ethical questions that need to be considered when embarking upon experiments. For example, the question of experimentation on human embryos for the purpose of making embryonic stem cells. For the most part, such ethical questions require little more than sound logic and common sense in resolving them, but in an increasingly secular society it has become the fashion to blame religion for any constraints put upon the advances that could be made in science.

I believed it was not right to manufacture human embryos for research, but I decided to use scientific arguments against this. In fact that made the task easier. It was truly astonishing to see how regularly very bad science was presented publicly by scientists who wanted to do such work.

The result was that a great deal of bad science won much positive publicity. What is needed to combat that is more people in the community who are capable of thinking things through and reaching their own conclusions.

By no means should one simply accept as truth the science presented through the lay press. Work to develop your own coordinated views.