Putting science back in the bottle?

‘Science and the Citizen’ was the theme of this year’s EFC conference. ‘Foundations can and must play a role in ensuring that citizens understand the ramifications of scientific advancement,’ says the conference programme. ‘Public involvement is the key to democratic society,’ said EFC Chair Luc Tayart de Borms in the opening plenary. But many speakers questioned the assumptions that seem to lie behind this agenda. ‘Is science really the genie that has got out of the bottle?’ asked Yehuda Elkana, president of the Central European University.

Who owns science? Who controls it? How do we see to it that it is put under proper democratic control? These questions suggest that science is dangerous, a Frankenstein field with scary social and moral implications. This isn’t really the issue, Elkana suggested.

The real problem with science

Rather, the issue is that science is failing to deliver. There is a growing gulf between scientific thinking and the problems mankind is facing. Other conference speakers made similar points: the role of foundations is to ‘reorientate debate around people’s real, pressing concerns’, said one. People don’t see the connections between science and the ordinary things we do, said another.

According to Elkana, the problem lies with the ‘very successful methodological package’ we have developed over the last 300 years, which works something like this: ‘Look around and establish the facts, find a theory, correlate the theory with the facts.  If you have a satisfactory correlation, then the package can become predictive, which is good science. Then you are in business.’ But with problems like global warming and the spread of diseases like AIDS and drug-resistant TB, you cannot afford to wait for complete solutions. ‘This is where science doesn't deliver. We are not equipped to work in partially uncertain situations where we have to find out what to do now, even if we don't have the scientific answer.’ ‘Scientists and the public need to relieve politicians of the awful burden of feeling decisions must be made on the basis of certainty.’

European Commission member Philippe Busquin talked of the European Research Area, whose ambitious aim is to turn Europe into the world’s most dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010, with an EU-wide research and development programme. A recent Eurobarometer survey indicated that 50 per cent of Europeans are interested in science but two-thirds feel they are poorly informed. Although the Internet is making information more available – the area of medicine is a good example here – people need a ‘baloney detector’, a way of sifting through and judging the quality of data.

Foundations post September 11

Not surprisingly, several sessions focused on the implications of September 11. Introducing a session on ‘Philanthropy’s Response to Globalization: Towards a New Paradigm?’, Rien van Gendt (Van Leer Group Foundation) spoke of the need for all organizations focused on international development to reassess their priorities. Speakers looked at the traditions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and what they might mean for today’s society. Leoncé Bekemans admitted that Christianity had placed more emphasis on justice and morality since September 11, but stressed that tackling poverty is not an option for Christians.

According to Murat Gizakga (Bogazigi University), while the basic agenda for the 20th century was the democratization of Europe, the task for the 21st century is the democratization of Europe’s neighbours, particularly the Islamic countries. ‘The problem is to project democracy into the Islamic world where it does not exist.’ This is not, he stressed, because Islam is anti-democratic. In Turkey, for example, the modernization process in the 1920s and 1930s did not emphasize democracy – the focus on democracy began in the Second World War. What is needed now is ‘settlements’ between secularists and Muslim democrats. Secularists must accept that Muslims can come to power through democratic means without destroying democracy. Both sides must respect people’s freedoms, especially women’s. Islamic women must be free to cover themselves or not cover themselves. Supporting this is a key role of civil society organizations.

Responding to one participant’s disappointment that the session had failed to produce ‘a new paradigm’, Bekemans stressed that new paradigms must grow out of existing traditions while Shimshon Zelniker (Van Leer Jerusalem Institute) made the point that ‘philanthropy is by nature reformative not revolutionary. Minor reforms in philanthropy require revolution.’

In a session entitled ‘After September 11th: What Can Foundations Do?’ Ustun Erguder (Turkish Third Sector Foundation) suggested that poverty is not so much the cause of discontent as the feeling of being left behind. Islam, he said, has become ‘a vehicle of articulation of those who perceive they are left behind’. Peter Laugharn of the Bernard van Leer Foundation, in the same session, spoke of children as ‘zones of peace’ and of the need for anti-bias education, working with the majority culture, to make children critical of perceived bias and comfortable with others who are different. Attitudes are formed early in life and are hard to change later. This started in the US but is now being introduced in Europe. ‘The Twin Towers should be iconic in terms of fostering tolerance and diversity.’

The next EFC conference, in Lisbon in 2003, will be devoted to the challenges of globalization. Speaking of his personal ‘crusade’ to get European foundations more involved internationally, Luc Tayart, now at the end of his term as EFC Chair, stressed the need for foundations to look at the role of Europe in the world.

Event European Foundation Centre 13th Annual General Assembly and Conference
Date 3-5 June
Venue Brussels
Theme Science and the Citizen