249

Phys. perspect. 6 (2004) 249–2511422–6944/04/030249–03DOI 10.1007/s00016-004-0213-3

Editorial

Ideology and Science; Science and Ideology

Common usage of a word and its dictionary definition are sometimes at odds. The dic-tionary makes little distinction between the words ideology and belief; however, as it iscommonly used, ideology is a strong belief, so strong that it blinds the mind to alterna-tives and often drives action despite conflicting evidence. The word belief is value neu-tral and carries no baggage whereas the word ideology puts a listener on guard as itoften carries pejorative overtones.

Science is a human activity that, over the last four centuries, has developed a work-ing strategy that endows its findings with the aura of authority. There is no quarrelbetween Japan and France as to whether the charge on the electron is positive or neg-ative; there is no argument between Muslims and Christians over the atomic weight ofsulfur. Hard experimental data has neither nationality nor creed; scientific data belongto the world. Similarly, theoretical structures such as the atomic theory of matter or theelectromagnetic nature of light are accepted as authoritative descriptions and cannotbe claimed by any special-interest group.

The cohesiveness of special-interest groups is typically provided by a shared com-mitment to an ideology. Science and ideology are incompatible. When individuals arepropelled by ideology to discredit certain science by labeling it “Jewish,” for example,their attempt backfires and the individuals themselves are discredited.When the Marx-ist ideology of dialectical materialism drove a nation to reject Mendelian genetics (theconcept of a gene contradicted Marxist ideology), it eventually backfired (even thoughthe ideologue Trofim Lysenko defended his views for over twenty-five years with greatvigor).

Science must be judged on its terms, that is, by an objective and dispassionate exam-ination of the cogent evidence. When science is judged from the perspective of an ide-ology, objectivity is inevitably compromised and judgments are tilted in favor of ideo-logical commitment. As history demonstrates, ideology imposed on science is a failingenterprise. That is why we were both saddened and gladdened when, on February 18,2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a U.S. nonprofit organization, pub-lished a report, “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking.” The report, signed by more than60 of America’s most prominent scientists, was a protest against the George W. BushAdministration and its misuse of science. On issues ranging from lead paint to climatechange, Bush and his Cabinet were charged with abuses such as the suppression anddistortion of scientific findings.

The specific issues raised in the UCS report are a current example of ideology skew-ing science. No one denies that the actions of the Bush Administration are stronglyinfluenced by conservative ideologues and, as a result, ideology is able to trump sci-ence. We recognize that an issue such as climate change cannot be compared to theatomic weight of sulfur: the dynamics of climate change will never be known with the

250

exactitude of sulfur’s atomic weight. However, it is precisely in an instance such asglobal warming where ideology can be most manifest. When the science is notabsolutely definitive, there is room for different interpretations and where someonecomes down on an issue is influenced by other factors.

One can examine data that undeniably show the increasing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, and one can hear the voices of a majority of expertswho cite evidence that human activities are changing the Earth’s climate; however, ifthe corrective responses to the problem of global warming (for example, regulatingpower-plant emissions) run contrary to ideology, then those many voices are ignored infavor of a lonely voice that cites a warming period that occurred a few thousand yearsago and claims that the current warming trend is a natural cycle of Nature. An ideo-logue hears only those things that support his or her belief system and permits onlythose actions consistent with his or her ideology.

World leaders can be guided by ideology; so can scientists. Whether it is with worldleaders or with scientists, the intrusion of ideology is cause for concern.

Science has been so successful over the past 100 years that some scientists now makeclaims that cannot be justified from within science, but rather are matters of belief or,dare we say it, ideology. These claims were first made by physicists. As theoreticalunderstanding of the material world appeared to be taking final form, new theorieswere introduced into physics and proudly exhibited. These theories, called Grand Uni-fied Theories (GUTS) and Theories of Everything (TOES) were touted as embracing,well, everything. Listen to one physical scientist:

There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of exis-tence…. Science is slowly equipping itself to deal with aesthetic and religious expe-riences, and will be able to account for the perception of oneself as a distinct butresponding entity.1

With DNA in hand and the genome of various species being determined, biologistspicked up the “science-can-explain-everything” theme. Listen to a prominent biologist:

It may not be too much to say that sociology and the other social sciences, as well asthe humanities, are the last branches of biology waiting to be included in the Mod-ern Synthesis.2

Arguing neither for nor against these claims, we suggest that they spring not from sci-ence itself, but from a reductionist ideology. Do those who claim that consciousness willcome under the strictures of mechanism believe this?

Science is routinely regarded as the power not only to explain phenomena, but topredict the future of phenomena. Newtonian gravitation, Einstein’s general relativity,and quantum mechanics not only explain, they predict with incredible accuracy. Pre-diction is the essence of science. Do the “explain-everything” scientists believe that thereduction of consciousness to the material world of neurological circuits will bring withit predictability? Imagine, for example, a museum patron who stands before a JohnConstable painting and experiences a strong self-conscious sense of meaning. Onceconsciousness is mechanized, will the meaning experienced by the museum patron bepredictable? If not, then what does “will be able to account for the perception of one-

Editorial Phys. perspect.

self” really mean? When scientists make futuristic claims about reducing the humanexperience to electric circuits, they should clearly identify when they cross the line sep-arating science from faith, science from ideology.

For their professional work, scientists depend upon the support of the public, whichmeans, in turn, that the populace accept and share the values of science. When reduc-tionist ideology prompts scientists to make authoritative public statements that cannotbe justified by current science and are, in fact, highly speculative, the credibility of sci-ence is compromised and public support is threatened.

The scientists who signed the UCS report signaled their commitment to science overideology.We applaud these scientists.We believe that all scientists must adopt the samecommitment for themselves.

John S. RigdenRoger H. Stuewer

1 P.W.Atkins,“The Limitless Power of Science,” in John Cornwell, ed., Nature’s Imagination: The Fron-tiers of Scientific Vision (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 125, 129.

2 E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belnap Press of Harvard Univer-sity Press, 1975), p. 4.

251EditorialVol. 6 (2004)