by
In 1600, Galileo used the telescope to observe the planets and how the earth revolved around a large mass of hot gas known as the sun. It was direct contrast to the teachings of the church as most believed earth was the center of the universe, and few people took his claims seriously. Those who opposed Galileo refused to even look into his telescope, claiming anything they saw would not have any real meaning. This was one of the first revelations at the time about the topics of science and democracy because Galileo’s evidence, had they looked through the telescope, may conflict and overturn their religious beliefs. Today, the discussion about science and democracy has been narrowed into a few set topics. For example, the anti-vaccination movement is controversial because the research on autism and vaccines has been disproven by the scientific community many times. Yet, people act on their personal and religious beliefs to refuse vaccination on their children in hopes of mitigating the risk of ‘disease’, even though unvaccinated children are harming old and immunocompromised individuals who will die if exposed to a virus. Another example of science and democracy is the labeling of foods and GMOs. A public wariness of herbicide sprayed onto crops has been an issue for the past decade. The FDA does not require companies to label foods that do or do not contain GMOs. Both of these topics involve an individual’s personal or religious beliefs conflicting with the personal choice of acting on scientific evidence. However, I do not think antivaccination and GMO advertising are very extreme issues with regards to science and democracy. I want to think about the example about Galileo and how a PURELY religious idea can still be applied to a discussion about science and democracy in today’s world.
This is often a common question that is asked for entry medical school interviews, “A patient is losing blood at an alarming rate due to a car accident. The only way to save her is with a blood transfusion but she states that her religious beliefs do not permit her to receive blood as a form of treatment, before she passes out. What would you do?” Certainly, when I was asked this question, I generically answered that I would save the patient regardless of her beliefs because as a doctor, my work environment forces me to do everything in my power to help someone live a healthier or longer life– regardless of what the patient may think is best for them. There is really no correct answer to this question but when thinking about the discussion about science and democracy, it gave me a different perspective about this issue. Would my official answer to the question differ, no. However, I would consider not using such a direct approach. As a scientist, my beliefs of evidence can still be considered subjective. I would never understand the perspective of someone so religiously committed that they would rather trade their own life as a result of their religious beliefs being verified. The denial or opposition of scientific evidence is not always rooted in ignorance, rather it may be coming from one’s genuine concern about how the evidence may prevail one’s beliefs, and we need to respect that. I think in addition to anti-vaccinators or climate change deniers, we need to stop looking at people who refuse evidence as less than those who accept evidence. In my opinion, accepting the evidence is easy but refusing it is harder. I think there could actually be a very powerful statement coming from religious people who have looked at the evidence and accept its truth in society but choose to personally reject it because of their background. I would not know those arguments, coming from an agnostic background, but I’m sure some of those individuals who have looked into both sides exist. Overall, when looking into real world applications of science and democracy, we as a scholarly community should be wary of saying that those accepting the scientific evidence are the victors of history and everyone else who refuses it are ignorant. We should instead be trying to PROMOTE scientific consensus and accept that having an objective view from the evidence could be a bias view in it of itself.