Science and Politics
+ Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
8 Feb 2004
In the United States President Bush’s opponents in the Congress have criticised the way his administration has handled appointments to key scientific advisory bodies.
It was claimed that nominations to these committees were being based on the nominee’s religious or political persuasion, rather than on their scientific expertise. The critics argued that science in the United States, which was once “immune” to political manipulation, was now being politicised on an unprecedented scale.
Whatever the Bush administration may or may not be doing with science, it was the claim that science is immune to political manipulation that caught my attention. This is an incredible statement. If it were true, science would be the only field of human endeavour ever to be so blessed.
It is also a disingenuous claim. When anti-religious people describe their views as “scientific”, they imply that they have been come to impartially, with scrupulous regard for the evidence, and on sound principle; as opposed to views based on grounds which are merely political or religious, and so less valid.
But as anyone with experience of the media understands, those who can cloak their politics in the garb of science have a considerable advantage, especially over people like myself who are lumbered with religious opinions. This is true even when the opinions of religious people are supported by science.
The debate on stem cell research provides just one example. Proponents of destructive human embryo research and cloning, often with considerable financial interests in the research they were advocating, regularly attempted to dismiss the concerns voiced by the churches and by politicians and specialists with any sort of faith commitment as “religious” - and therefore “unscientific” – views, or “fundamentalist”.
Some even went so far as to suggest that “religious” opinions as such had no place at all in debates on public policy, and should certainly be excluded from any discussion of scientific questions.
This argument is not valid. Christians have the same rights as other citizens in a democracy, including the right to propose the bedrock principles for the common good, human rights, and a just political and social order. This also applies when it comes to questions of science and technology.
You don’t have to be a Christian to believe that human life has a unique dignity that should be protected and respected from its earliest origins. This conviction is based as much on what science itself shows us about life at its earliest stages as it is on Bible.
It is strange to have to defend the principle of the dignity of human life against the charge that it is “unscientific”. It shows that the politicisation of science is one of the oldest games in town.
