The tension between science and religion has endured over centuries, from the persecution of Galileo in 1633 to the current ethical debate involving stem cell research.
But in the years since Galileo pondered the movement of celestial spheres, the dichotomy of science and faith has moved increasingly into the political sphere.
Some of the major issues of the upcoming presidential election span the scientific and environmental spectrum, from research funding and climate change to space exploration.
“Science is growing increasingly important in the political realms because of the growth in technology,” said Linda Demer, a stem cell researcher and vice chairwoman for cardiovascular and vascular medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine.
The potential of stem cell research to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s has been made prominent by scientists and the media, sparking ethical and legal questions.
Similarly, the possibilities of genetic technology and space exploration have brought science and engineering into the political arena.
But Demer feels science and politics should remain distinct.
“There should be non-partisan scientific advisory committees; it’s extremely important that scientists not be selected for their political views,” she said.
Aside from advancements in technology, the intertwining of science, religion and politics is also based on a historical trend.
A movement of fundamentalism – the desire to return to the founding principles of religion and the literal interpretation of religious texts – has been observed across denominations in the United States since the 1970s.
Many religious fundamentalists have built a base for themselves in the Republican party, said Jessica Wang, an associate professor in the department of history specializing in political economy, science and technology.
“In George W. Bush, (fundamentalists) really have a political friend – he’s someone who talks very frequently about his relationship with God and commitment to Christian belief,” she said.
But when religion becomes too dominantly involved in political decision-making and the interpretation of scientific data, it starts a movement backwards, said Jean Rosenfeld, a researcher in the UCLA Center for the Study of Religion.
“It undermines the intellectual field,” she said. “It unravels the progress on which we supposedly stand, which is the light of reason.”
Rosenfeld sees this common ground as a civic religion based upon the values of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Though a balance should be struck between political and religious values, it is not the public embracing of religion that Wang considers hazardous.
“What I find dangerous is when scientific information is disregarded for the sake of politics,” Wang said, referring to the policies of the Bush administration for climate change.
In March 2001, Bush opposed the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases, which has been ratified by 125 countries.
Instead, the president enacted the Clear Skies initiative to decrease power plant emissions by 70 percent in the next 15 years.
Environmental conservation is also closely tied with the religious idea of the responsibility of humans to take care of the planet.
“I don’t think Bush’s anti-science behavior has anything to do with his religious beliefs,” said Mary Nichols, director of the UCLA Institute for the Environment. “I think it’s pure politics.”
But with all its possibilities, science cannot provide the complete picture.
“When it comes to stem cell research, and if it’s morally right or not, that’s a question science can’t answer – it’s fundamentally philosophical and ethical,” Wang said.
“Science can’t tell us whether this is right or wrong, science can only tell us the medical possibilities.”
The discussion of those ethical and philosophical questions returns to individual value systems – including religion.
“When science is raised in a political campaign, the discussion should be based on scientific facts and not on personally held religious beliefs,” said Dora Weiner, a professor in the departments of psychiatry and history.
“The issues need to be discussed, but they need to be discussed in a calm and rational way, weighing the pros and cons, and not in an emotional way, evoking the Almighty.”
According to a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 72 percent of registered voters say it is important that the president have strong religious beliefs.
“People’s religious beliefs are part of their overall make up and if people feel strongly about certain values, they will try to apply those values to the candidates,” Nichols said.
But a fine line exists between maintaining a system of ethics to govern scientific research and perceiving science completely within the context of faith. This line is ultimately a dividing factor, not only among political parties but within denominations.
“When you set up a dichotomy between religion and science, that polarizes the nation even more,” Rosenfeld said. “It becomes another line along which the country splits.”
The interactions of politics, science and religion have become a spiderweb of ethical questions, presidential campaigns and scientific data.
But Demer still tries to separate her political views from her research agenda and her political life from her scientific career.
“I’m an activist, but I don’t wear my buttons to work,” she said.