Nature, Leading scientists still reject God July 23, 1998
关于长征的资料-职高分数线
correspondence
Leading scientists still
reject God
Sir— The question of religious
belief
among US scientists has been debated
since
early in the century. Our latest survey
finds
that, among the top natural
scientists,
disbelief is greater than ever —
almost total.
Research on this topic began with
the
eminent US psychologist James H.
Leuba
and his landmark survey of 1914. He
found
that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected
US
scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in
the
existence of God, and that this figure rose
to
near 70% among the 400 “greater”
scientists
within his sample
1
. Leuba
repeated his
survey in somewhat different form
20 years
later, and found that these
percentages had
increased to 67 and 85,
respectively
2
.
In 1996, we repeated
Leuba’s 1914
survey and reported our results in
Nature
3
.
We found little change from
1914 for
American scientists generally, with
60.7%
expressing disbelief or doubt. This year,
we
closely imitated the second phase of
Leuba’s
1914 survey to gauge belief among
“greater”
scientists, and find the rate of
belief lower
than ever — a mere 7% of
respondents.
Leuba attributed the higher level
of
disbelief and doubt among
“greater”
scientists to their “superior
knowledge,
understanding, and
experience”
2
. Similarly,
Oxford
University scientist Peter Atkins
commented on
our 1996 survey, “You
clearly can be a
scientist and have religious
beliefs. But I
don’t think you can be a real
scientist in the
deepest sense of the word
because they are such
alien categories of
knowledge.”
4
Such
comments led us to
repeat the second phase of
Leuba’s study for
an up-to-date comparison of
the religious
beliefs of “greater” and “lesser”
scientists.
Our chosen group of “greater”
scientists
were members of the National Academy
of
Sciences (NAS). Our survey found
near
universal rejection of the transcendent
by
NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God
and
immortality among NAS
biological
scientists was 65.2% and
69.0%,
respectively, and among NAS
physical
Table 1Comparison of survey answers
among
“greater” scientists
Belief in
personal God
Personal belief
Personal
disbelief
Doubt or agnosticism
1914
27.7<
br>52.7
20.9
1933
15
68
17
1998<
br>7.0
72.2
20.8
Belief in human
immortality
Personal belief
Personal
disbelief
Doubt or agnosticism
Figures are
percentages.
1914
35.2
25.4
43.7
19
33
18
53
29
1998
7.9
76.7
23.
3
scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most
of
the rest were agnostics on both issues,
with
few believers. We found the
highest
percentage of belief among
NAS
mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0%
in
immortality). Biological scientists had
the
lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1%
in
immortality), with physicists
and
astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in
God,
7.5% in immortality). Overall
comparison
figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998
surveys
appear in Table 1.
Repeating Leuba’s
methods presented
challenges. For his general
surveys, he
randomly polled scientists listed
in the
standard reference work, American Men
of
Science(AMS). We used the current
edition.
In Leuba’s day, AMSeditors designated
the
“great scientists” among their entries,
and
Leuba used these to identify his
“greater”
scientists
1,2
. The AMSno
longer makes
these designations, so we chose as
our
“greater” scientists members of the NAS,
a
status that once assured designation
as
“great scientists” in the early AMS.
Our
method surely generated a more
elite
sample than Leuba’s method, which (if
the
quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins
are
correct) may explain the extremely low
level
of belief among our respondents.
For
the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his
brief
questionnaire to a random sample of
400
AMS“great scientists”. It asked about
the
respondent’s belief in “a God in
eloquently
expounded recently by Chen-Lu
Tsou
2
—
the discourse may not produce
significant
tangible results.
We acknowledge that the
Chinese
Maternal and Infant Health Law, which
has
been the focus of much recent
debate,
represents a well-intentioned step
towards
reducing the burden of debilitating
diseases
perceived to be hereditary. By sheer
scale,
the enormous social and economic cost
to
the most populous nation has no equal
in
the world, and would surely prompt
any
sensible society to react. Indeed, given
the
urgency of the population problem
Nature
© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1998
intellectual
and affective communication
with humankind” and
in “personal
immortality”. Respondents had the
options
of affirming belief, disbelief or
agnosticism
on each question
1
. Our
survey contained
precisely the same questions
and also asked
for anonymous
responses.
Leuba sent the 1914 survey to
400
“biological and physical scientists”, with
the
latter group including mathematicians
as
well as physicists and astronomers
1
.
Because
of the relatively small size of
NAS
membership, we sent our survey to all
517
NAS members in those core
disciplines.
Leuba obtained a return rate of
about 70%
in 1914 and more than 75% in
1933
whereas our returns stood at about 60%
for
the 1996 survey and slightly over 50%
from
NAS members
1,2
.
As we compiled
our findings, the NAS
issued a booklet
encouraging the teaching
of evolution in public
schools, an ongoing
source of friction between
the scientific
community and some
conservative
Christians in the United States.
The booklet
assures readers, “Whether God
exists or not
is a question about which science
is
neutral”
5
. NAS president Bruce
Alberts said:
“There are many very
outstanding
members of this academy who are
very
religious people, people who believe
in
evolution, many of them biologists.”
Our
survey suggests otherwise.
Edward J.
Larson
Department of History, University of
Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012,
USA
e-mail: edlarson@
8
Larry
Witham
3816 Lansdale Court,
Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA
, J. H.
The Belief in God and Immortality: A
Psychological,
Anthropological and Statistical
Study(Sherman, French & Co.,
Boston,
1916).
, J. H. Harper’s Magazine169,291–300
(1934).
, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature386,435–436
(1997).
eld, R. The Daily Telegraph3 April, p.
4 (1997).
al Academy of Sciences Teaching About
Evolution and the
Nature of Science(Natl Acad.
Press, Washington DC, 1998).
Dilemma over
genetics
and population in China
Sir— As you
write in a recent editorial, the
forthcoming
18th International Congress
on Genetics in
Beijing will provide a rare
opportunity to
continue discourse on the
ethics and science of
eugenics
1
. But a
number of fundamental
problems facing
geneticists in China deserve
mention.
Without a thorough understanding
and
awareness of these problems and
their
cultural and psychological roots —
as
NATURE
|
VOL 394
|
23 JULY
1998
confronting the nation, it may
appear
logical to concentrate on the segments
of its
society considered the least productive
and
least able to contribute to the future, if
a
major effort is launched to reduce
its
population size
3
.
But the good
intention of the law is
seriously undermined by
its shaky scientific
foundations. For example,
where is the
evidence that 20 million people
are
handicapped by hereditary diseases? In
a
nation where more than half the adult
male
population smoke, and
environmental
pollution is rampant in some
areas, could
a
313
correspondence
significant
proportion of those presumed
hereditary
handicaps be prevented by a
reduction in
smoking, a cleaner
environment, and improved
pre-, peri- and
postnatal care? Should one take
the current
search for genetic mechanisms
underlying
many complex diseases or disorders,
such as
schizophrenia, as the fait accomplithat
these
diseases are preventable
through
sterilization? How strong is the
evidence
that enforcement of the law alone
will
prevent many or all of the
handicaps?
Without solid documentation, any
claims
about the law and its intended effects
are
merely opinions, without
scientific
validation.
The fact, as pointed
out by the sponsor
of the law, that births of
“inferior quality”
are relatively more common
among
“the old revolutionary base,
ethnic
minorities, the frontier, and
economically
poor areas”
4
suggests that
many
so-called “inferior births” may in
fact be of environmental origin, and
so
preventable through improved
living
standards and better pre-, peri- and
post-
natal care (for example, taking folic
acid,
reducing perinatal trauma, and
eliminating
iodine deficiency).
The law was
drafted with input
from geneticists in China,
but it is
questionable whether the scientific
part of the law was based on the
best
knowledge available. Judging from
Chinese human genetics textbooks and
scant
publications in international
journals, it is
evident that basic research
in genetic
epidemiology is still in its infancy
in China.
This situation is undeniably the
result of
political turmoil and the chronic
shortage of
government funds for this type
of research.
The lack of a rigorous grant review
system
allows scope for excessive
importance to be
given to popular
acclaim and to the political
goals of
scientific research in allocating
funding.
In a country where political loyalty
is
often considered more important
than
scientific talent and integrity, this can
be an effective strategy for
attracting
government funds.
Indeed, the
recent substantial increase
in funding for
genetic research in China
5
was largely the
result of a letter to the
Chinese president
from a prominent
geneticist urging protection
of China’s
human genetic resources, because of
the
fear of losing the resources to
foreign
organizations.
As for issues
relating to international
collaboration, the
importance given to
popular acclaim and
political goals can
easily lead to narrow-
minded nationalism,
which can be generated by
provoking
painful memories of imperialist
aggression
and humiliation in the past. This
type of
314
nationalism, coupled with the
lack of
‘checks and balances’ in the
system,
provides a recipe for abuse.
Ironically,
efforts to protect China’s human
genetic
resources are seriously compromised
by
inadequate research in basic
genetic
epidemiology.
The best protection
against over-
politicization and ignorance may
be
an overhaul of China’s research
evaluation
and grant review systems. For
example,
experts from other countries should
be
invited to participate in evaluating
large
scientific grant applications and
research institutions. For a poor
country
such as China, this is also the best
way
to ensure that scarce and meagre
resources
are well spent. The science part of
the
eugenics law — which unfortunately has
no quick fix — requires years of
basic
genetic research which will
ultimately
benefit not only the Chinese people,
but all
humankind.
The opinions expressed
here are the
authors’ own and should not be
taken to
represent those of their
institutions.
Sun-Wei Guo
Institute of Human
Genetics and
Division of
Epidemiology,
University of Minnesota,
1300
South Second Street, Suite 300,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55454-1015, USA
e-mail:
swguo@
Chang-Jiang Zheng
Epidemiology,
Statistics, Data System Branch,
National
Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication
Disorders,
Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
C.
C. Li
Department of Human
Genetics,
University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15261-0001, USA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nature392,109
(1998).
Tsou, C.-L. Science280,528–529
(1998).
Neel, J. V. Perspect. Biol. Med. 40,328
(1997).
Dickson, D. Nature367,3
(1994).
Swinbanks, D. Nature394,109
(1998).
Science in the firing line
in
Argentina
Sir— I am appalled by your editorial
of
16 April, asserting that Argentina’s
national
research council (CONICET) spends
nearly all its money on 3,000 staff
scientists but has now set up a new
agency, in collaboration with industry,
to
produce sound science
(Nature392,635;
1998).
I would like to
mention a few facts and
events that influenced
the careers of those
3,000 researchers. In
1961, a secretary of
state who did not tolerate
Jews fired the
director of the Malbran
Institute of
Immunology, Ignacio Pirosky,
provoking
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd
1998
the resignation and exile of most of
the
research personnel. In 1966, the
military
destroyed the School of Exact and
Natural
Sciences of the University of Buenos
Aires
(“Exactas”), beating and
incarcerating
researchers, and had the
laboratories
exorcised by a priest. Luis Botet
was
appointed president of the university by
the
military: he fired all scientists
who
expressed solidarity with their
Exactas
colleagues. Hence, 1,315 scientists
left the
country.
In 1976, Raul Matera,
undersecretary of
science and technology,
bought 40
crucifixes for CONICET’s offices,
despite
the small amount of money available
for
research. The Argentinian
government
passed a law of amnesty to pardon
all the
military involved in torturing
and
murdering tens of thousands of people,
as
well as a law of punto final(no
more
questions asked), but refused
to
compensate researchers who had been
fired and deprived of their labs. In
1990,
finance minister Domingo Cavallo said
that he would prefer scientists “to
wash
dishes”. Accordingly, those
3,000
researchers referred to in your editorial
are
paid meagre salaries, and have almost
no
money to run their labs. Argentina has a
far
larger and more productive community
of
researchers in exile abroad than it has
at
home.
To appreciate the quality of
Argentinian
researchers, one has only to note
that they
publish in the best international
journals,
they frequently work in first-
rate
universities in Britain, France and
the
United States, and are awarded all types
of
distinctions, including the Nobel
prize.
Argentina has some poorly
financed
research, but no science, because
while the
first depends on the ability of a
few
thousand, science is a way of
interpreting
reality that Argentina has never
developed.
Thus, not a single workers’ union or
society
of entrepreneurs complained when
the
universities were destroyed.
Consequently,
today masses of unemployed people
beg
San Cayetano (the patron saint of
workers)
for work.
Argentina is not willing
to accept that, in
order to develop science, an
ethical
transformation is required, not just of
its
scientific infrastructure but of its
society in
general. Its ideal seems to be to
combine
technology with theology. For
local
governments, science is something
that
comes only after countries become rich.
So
they appoint managers to decide
scientific
matters.
Marcelino
Cereijido
Centro de Investigation y de Estudios
Avanzados,
Fisiologia, Biofisica y
Neurociencias,
Apartado Postal 14-740,
07000
Mexico
e-mail:
cereijido@
8
NATURE
|
VOL
394
|
23 JULY 1998