Posts
Scientific Advisors to the Prophet
Discover Magazine has an article, How to Teach Science to the Pope, that highlights a little known organization in the Vatican called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Though it is virtually unknown among laypeople, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent and remarkably influential body within the Holy See. Over the years its membership roster has read like a who’s who of 20th-century scientists (including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, to name a few), and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them Nobel laureates and not all of them Catholic—including the playfully irreligious physicist Stephen Hawking.
The academy serves an advisory role to Catholic leadership, and some scientific work is done under its auspices.
In 1992 John Paul II told the members that “the purpose of your academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it.”
I wonder if our Church could use a similar organization--maybe an appendage to Correlation. Given how advancing science touches on Church policies and doctrines, it would be nice to know that the Brethren get good information to inform their decisions. You could make a case that BYU can serve that purpose; I wonder how often anybody in the basic sciences are contacted by Church headquarters for information or advice. (Steve P., got any stories?)
My guess is that when Church leaders feel a need, an ad hoc committee is formed involving GAs with the appropriate background and other prominent trusted professionals. Back in the 1970s James O. Mason--later the head of the CDC, and even later a Seventy--served as the Church Commissioner of Health and advised the First Presidency on certain health issues. I have no idea whether such a position still exists or not.
The Church Scientific Advisory Committee--I won't hold my breath, but I can dream.
8 comments:
"I wonder if our Church could use a similar organization"
I thought that's what this blog was for.
"My guess is that when Church leaders feel a need, an ad hoc committee is formed involving GAs with the appropriate background..." Do you have any idea how many GAs were scientists? The impression many members have---including me---is that they were all businessmen (well, not "all" but you know what I mean). And of those who were scientists, how diverse are their backgrounds? For example, do we have a bunch of physicists but no biologists? Also, how long ago were they scientists? I am purposefully using the past tense because, as you know, science moves very quickly; a GA who was a biochemist 20 years ago is hardly an expert today. That said, he wouldn't have any trouble getting up to speed on a specific current event.
I thought that's what this blog was for.
I think maybe you are the only person who thinks so, BrianJ.
As for GAs, I don't have any numbers, but I think it's worse than I thought. I just looked through my 2005 Church Almanac. Lots of law and business with a couple of health professionals here and there. Now I will grant that there is some overlap of business with the social sciences, but when it comes to the basic sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), I don't see much. There are some with undergraduate majors in the sciences.
Here's a story that I didn't fit into the post: In my former ward there was a scientist who said that Elder Oaks (if memory serves) had attended a neuroscience lecture at the U of U. So I have no reason to doubt that some of them maintain an interest in science.
There are a reasonable number with some scientific training. Elder Scott was a physicist although his graduate work was technically done in engineering. We have one doctor. (Not really a scientist and his area of specialty wasn't really research oriented) Elder Eyring has some science in his background of course. (With a rather famous scientist father as well)
We do have two university Presidents, Elder Oaks and Elder Holland and both reportedly have an interest in science.
Of course should we expect a huge number of scientists? It's not like scientists exactly make up a huge percent of the population.
yeah, I'm not going to let undergraduate degrees "count." Graduate and professional degrees in basic sciences, or equivalent work experience, is what I'm interested in.
Clark, you raise an interesting question about the percent of population that are scientists. How about a comparison of professions/education of GAs weighted by percent of general population with same experience? (I don't think we have the numbers for general church membership, which would be the right way to do it.) Something tells me we'd see a lot of lawyers in the group.
Of course, none of this would really be meaningful to the larger question (are there GAs qualified to make up a scientific advisory committee?). Any sharp individual, regardless of former training, could reapply himself to understand current science.
Personally I think an undergraduate degree ought count if you're interesting in method of thinking. If you're just curious about professional career it's irrelevant I agree.
Clark, I am interested in thinking, and the only reason I care about professional career is because of how that affects thinking. It probably depends largely on the undergraduate degree. Speaking from my own experience, my B.S. (zoology) did not prepare me to think critically about "zoological issues" (whatever that means). It wasn't until graduate school that I learned how to study a topic and become informed enough to offer an opinion.
I imagine that it is different in other sciences. The beginning first-year physics (optics) and chemistry grad students I know seem much more informed in their fields than the first-year biomedical students (and once again, I included myself in that group). Of course, maybe that's just because my own background helps me identify biology grads who are full of b.s.! {grin}
I think Brian that's because in biology a lot of undergraduate degree is about memorizing taxonomies, structures and other names. In physics, mathematics, engineering, and chemistry that's just not the case. Grad degrees are for course work like upper division undergraduate degrees only a few orders of magnitude more intense. Then it's research.
I suspect biology is different just by the nature of things.
Interesting though I don't think there has been a biologist as an Apostle, has there? We've had chemists, geologists, physicists, engineers and so forth. But no biologists.
As far as undergrad goes, I felt like my classes at BYU were good and prepared me well for grad school. But looking back, I still didn't know much. Learning the techniques of a field and applying them for yourself provides a whole different perspective. And I found that the longer I was in grad school, the harder it was for me to explain to people what I was doing.
I don't think it is primarily an issue of reasoning ability or learning aptitude. It's more an issue of gathering and sorting through the information and judging how much weight to give each piece of information. Enter any kind of controversy--creationism, 9/11 conspiracies, vaccines and autism, HIV = AIDS--as an outsider and you are likely to be swept off your feet because of difficulty putting information in the proper perspective. At some point you just have to punt and defer to authorities that you trust.
Post a Comment