Leading scientists still reject God

Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998

8

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 394 | 23 JULY 1998 313

Sir — The question of religious beliefamong US scientists has been debated sinceearly in the century. Our latest survey findsthat, among the top natural scientists,disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with theeminent US psychologist James H. Leubaand his landmark survey of 1914. He foundthat 58% of 1,000 randomly selected USscientists expressed disbelief or doubt in theexistence of God, and that this figure rose tonear 70% among the 400 “greater” scientistswithin his sample1. Leuba repeated hissurvey in somewhat different form 20 yearslater, and found that these percentages hadincreased to 67 and 85, respectively2.

In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914survey and reported our results in Nature3.We found little change from 1914 forAmerican scientists generally, with 60.7%expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, weclosely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater”scientists, and find the rate of belief lowerthan ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level ofdisbelief and doubt among “greater”scientists to their “superior knowledge,understanding, and experience”2. Similarly,Oxford University scientist Peter Atkinscommented on our 1996 survey, “Youclearly can be a scientist and have religiousbeliefs. But I don’t think you can be a realscientist in the deepest sense of the wordbecause they are such alien categories ofknowledge.”4 Such comments led us torepeat the second phase of Leuba’s study foran up-to-date comparison of the religiousbeliefs of “greater” and “lesser” scientists.

Our chosen group of “greater” scientistswere members of the National Academy ofSciences (NAS). Our survey found nearuniversal rejection of the transcendent byNAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God andimmortality among NAS biologicalscientists was 65.2% and 69.0%,respectively, and among NAS physical

scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most ofthe rest were agnostics on both issues, withfew believers. We found the highestpercentage of belief among NASmathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% inimmortality). Biological scientists had thelowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% inimmortality), with physicists andastronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God,7.5% in immortality). Overall comparisonfigures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveysappear in Table 1.

Repeating Leuba’s methods presentedchallenges. For his general surveys, herandomly polled scientists listed in thestandard reference work, American Men ofScience (AMS). We used the current edition.In Leuba’s day, AMS editors designated the“great scientists” among their entries, andLeuba used these to identify his “greater”scientists1,2. The AMS no longer makesthese designations, so we chose as our“greater” scientists members of the NAS, astatus that once assured designation as“great scientists” in the early AMS. Ourmethod surely generated a more elitesample than Leuba’s method, which (if thequoted comments by Leuba and Atkins arecorrect) may explain the extremely low levelof belief among our respondents.

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed hisbrief questionnaire to a random sample of400 AMS “great scientists”. It asked aboutthe respondent’s belief in “a God in

intellectual and affective communicationwith humankind” and in “personalimmortality”. Respondents had the optionsof affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticismon each question1. Our survey containedprecisely the same questions and also askedfor anonymous responses.

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400“biological and physical scientists”, with thelatter group including mathematicians aswell as physicists and astronomers1. Becauseof the relatively small size of NASmembership, we sent our survey to all 517NAS members in those core disciplines.Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70%in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933whereas our returns stood at about 60% forthe 1996 survey and slightly over 50% fromNAS members1,2.

As we compiled our findings, the NASissued a booklet encouraging the teachingof evolution in public schools, an ongoingsource of friction between the scientificcommunity and some conservativeChristians in the United States. The bookletassures readers, “Whether God exists or notis a question about which science isneutral”5. NAS president Bruce Alberts said:“There are many very outstandingmembers of this academy who are veryreligious people, people who believe inevolution, many of them biologists.” Oursurvey suggests otherwise.Edward J. Larson Department of History, University of Georgia,Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USAe-mail: edlarson@uga.eduLarry Witham3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,Maryland 20866, USA

1. Leuba, J. H. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological,

Anthropological and Statistical Study (Sherman, French & Co.,

Boston, 1916).

2. Leuba, J. H. Harper’s Magazine 169, 291–300 (1934).

3. Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435–436 (1997).

4. Highfield, R. The Daily Telegraph 3 April, p. 4 (1997).

5. National Academy of Sciences Teaching About Evolution and the

Nature of Science (Natl Acad. Press, Washington DC, 1998).

Leading scientists still reject God

Dilemma over geneticsand population in ChinaSir — As you write in a recent editorial, theforthcoming 18th International Congresson Genetics in Beijing will provide a rareopportunity to continue discourse on theethics and science of eugenics1. But anumber of fundamental problems facinggeneticists in China deserve mention.Without a thorough understanding andawareness of these problems and theircultural and psychological roots — as

eloquently expounded recently by Chen-LuTsou2 — the discourse may not producesignificant tangible results.

We acknowledge that the ChineseMaternal and Infant Health Law, which hasbeen the focus of much recent debate,represents a well-intentioned step towardsreducing the burden of debilitating diseasesperceived to be hereditary. By sheer scale,the enormous social and economic cost tothe most populous nation has no equal inthe world, and would surely prompt anysensible society to react. Indeed, given theurgency of the population problem

confronting the nation, it may appearlogical to concentrate on the segments of itssociety considered the least productive andleast able to contribute to the future, if amajor effort is launched to reduce itspopulation size3.

But the good intention of the law isseriously undermined by its shaky scientificfoundations. For example, where is theevidence that 20 million people arehandicapped by hereditary diseases? In anation where more than half the adult malepopulation smoke, and environmentalpollution is rampant in some areas, could a

Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among

“greater” scientists

Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998

Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0

Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2

Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human 1914 1933 1998immortality

Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9

Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7

Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3

Figures are percentages.

Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998

8

correspondence

314 NATURE | VOL 394 | 23 JULY 1998

significant proportion of those presumedhereditary handicaps be prevented by areduction in smoking, a cleanerenvironment, and improved pre-, peri- andpostnatal care? Should one take the currentsearch for genetic mechanisms underlyingmany complex diseases or disorders, such asschizophrenia, as the fait accompli that thesediseases are preventable throughsterilization? How strong is the evidencethat enforcement of the law alone willprevent many or all of the handicaps?Without solid documentation, any claimsabout the law and its intended effects aremerely opinions, without scientificvalidation.

The fact, as pointed out by the sponsorof the law, that births of “inferior quality”are relatively more common among “the old revolutionary base, ethnicminorities, the frontier, and economicallypoor areas”4 suggests that many so-called “inferior births” may in fact be of environmental origin, and sopreventable through improved livingstandards and better pre-, peri- and post-natal care (for example, taking folic acid,reducing perinatal trauma, and eliminatingiodine deficiency).

The law was drafted with input from geneticists in China, but it isquestionable whether the scientific part of the law was based on the bestknowledge available. Judging from Chinese human genetics textbooks andscant publications in international journals, it is evident that basic research in genetic epidemiology is still in its infancyin China. This situation is undeniably theresult of political turmoil and the chronicshortage of government funds for this typeof research.

The lack of a rigorous grant reviewsystem allows scope for excessiveimportance to be given to popular acclaim and to the political goals ofscientific research in allocating funding. In a country where political loyalty is often considered more important thanscientific talent and integrity, this can be an effective strategy for attractinggovernment funds.

Indeed, the recent substantial increasein funding for genetic research in China5

was largely the result of a letter to theChinese president from a prominentgeneticist urging protection of China’shuman genetic resources, because of thefear of losing the resources to foreignorganizations.

As for issues relating to internationalcollaboration, the importance given topopular acclaim and political goals caneasily lead to narrow-minded nationalism,which can be generated by provokingpainful memories of imperialist aggressionand humiliation in the past. This type of

nationalism, coupled with the lack of‘checks and balances’ in the system,provides a recipe for abuse. Ironically,efforts to protect China’s human geneticresources are seriously compromised byinadequate research in basic geneticepidemiology.

The best protection against over-politicization and ignorance may be an overhaul of China’s research evaluationand grant review systems. For example,experts from other countries should beinvited to participate in evaluating largescientific grant applications and research institutions. For a poor countrysuch as China, this is also the best way to ensure that scarce and meagre resourcesare well spent. The science part of theeugenics law — which unfortunately has no quick fix — requires years of basicgenetic research which will ultimatelybenefit not only the Chinese people, but allhumankind.

The opinions expressed here are theauthors’ own and should not be taken torepresent those of their institutions.Sun-Wei GuoInstitute of Human Genetics andDivision of Epidemiology,University of Minnesota,1300 South Second Street, Suite 300,Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454-1015, USAe-mail: swguo@med.umn.eduChang-Jiang ZhengEpidemiology, Statistics, Data System Branch,National Institute on Deafness and OtherCommunication Disorders,Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USAC. C. LiDepartment of Human Genetics,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania 15261-0001, USA

1. Nature 392, 109 (1998).

2. Tsou, C.-L. Science 280, 528–529 (1998).

3. Neel, J. V. Perspect. Biol. Med. 40, 328 (1997).

4. Dickson, D. Nature 367, 3 (1994).

5. Swinbanks, D. Nature 394, 109 (1998).

Science in the firing linein ArgentinaSir — I am appalled by your editorial of 16 April, asserting that Argentina’s nationalresearch council (CONICET) spends nearly all its money on 3,000 staff scientists but has now set up a new agency, in collaboration with industry, toproduce sound science (Nature 392, 635;1998).

I would like to mention a few facts andevents that influenced the careers of those3,000 researchers. In 1961, a secretary ofstate who did not tolerate Jews fired thedirector of the Malbran Institute ofImmunology, Ignacio Pirosky, provoking

the resignation and exile of most of theresearch personnel. In 1966, the militarydestroyed the School of Exact and NaturalSciences of the University of Buenos Aires(“Exactas”), beating and incarceratingresearchers, and had the laboratoriesexorcised by a priest. Luis Botet wasappointed president of the university by themilitary: he fired all scientists whoexpressed solidarity with their Exactascolleagues. Hence, 1,315 scientists left thecountry.

In 1976, Raul Matera, undersecretary ofscience and technology, bought 40crucifixes for CONICET’s offices, despitethe small amount of money available forresearch. The Argentinian governmentpassed a law of amnesty to pardon all themilitary involved in torturing andmurdering tens of thousands of people, aswell as a law of punto final (no morequestions asked), but refused tocompensate researchers who had been fired and deprived of their labs. In 1990,finance minister Domingo Cavallo said that he would prefer scientists “to washdishes”. Accordingly, those 3,000researchers referred to in your editorial arepaid meagre salaries, and have almost nomoney to run their labs. Argentina has a farlarger and more productive community ofresearchers in exile abroad than it has athome.

To appreciate the quality of Argentinianresearchers, one has only to note that theypublish in the best international journals,they frequently work in first-rateuniversities in Britain, France and theUnited States, and are awarded all types ofdistinctions, including the Nobel prize.Argentina has some poorly financedresearch, but no science, because while thefirst depends on the ability of a fewthousand, science is a way of interpretingreality that Argentina has never developed.Thus, not a single workers’ union or societyof entrepreneurs complained when theuniversities were destroyed. Consequently,today masses of unemployed people begSan Cayetano (the patron saint of workers)for work.

Argentina is not willing to accept that, inorder to develop science, an ethicaltransformation is required, not just of itsscientific infrastructure but of its society ingeneral. Its ideal seems to be to combinetechnology with theology. For localgovernments, science is something thatcomes only after countries become rich. Sothey appoint managers to decide scientificmatters.Marcelino CereijidoCentro de Investigation y de Estudios Avanzados,Fisiologia, Biofisica y Neurociencias,Apartado Postal 14-740,07000 Mexicoe-mail: cereijido@laneta.apc.org