Ugly debates about religion and science usually seem to be confined to the United States.  In recent months, however, such debates have begun to spread – first to Europe and then around the world. Science, it seems, is drifting into political dangers it has not faced since before the Enlightenment.

Europe began its own American-style debate on the origins of life when Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna cast doubt on the acceptability of Darwinism and evolutionary theory to people who see themselves as faithful Roman Catholics. The Cardinal argued that evolution is the work of God and that evolutionary theory should be interpreted in that light and no other.

With Cardinal Schönborn’s intervention, the peace between science and religion that in Old Europe had held almost since the Enlightenment – and at least since the historically hard-won eviction of the Church from politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – seemed suddenly to have been broken. Revealed truth, the Cardinal seemed to say, must be accorded primacy over the truths science reveals through reason.

This is not to say that religious sentiment or, in the case of Germany, bitter historical experience stemming from the Nazi era, had not informed other European debates, say, on the ethics of stem-cell research. Indeed, the religious background of Europe’s nations clearly manifested itself in various European laws on such research, with the United Kingdom and Sweden being the most liberal and Italy, Austria, and Poland the most restrictive. But none of these debates directly challenged the role of science in society or posed, as Cardinal Schönborn did, the idea that religion and science are potentially incompatible.

Following the Cardinal’s declaration, many pointed to the US as a warning sign of the dangers inherent in politicizing science through religion. They noted that President Bush had sided openly with those who want to make evolutionary theory optional in schools’ science curricula.

The reason that such pseudo-science has prevailed in so many American schools is directly related to America’s tremendously decentralized school system, which allows committed local groups of the religious-minded to reshape the curriculum. The power of faith-based movements in the US is undeniable, and their influence in other areas where science and politics meet, including the availability of certain drugs – the so-called “morning after” pill being one example – is growing.

It is unlikely that European schools, because of their structure, can be invaded by “creationism.” Yet Europe should not think itself immune to this problem.

When dogmatic faith enters politics, compromises on controversial issues, which are indispensable in a democracy, become difficult to achieve. This is because fundamental values – as opposed to, say, the distribution of material resources – are seen as being non-negotiable. The danger is that scientific decisions with a scientific-technical component are no longer subject to study or rational argument, but instead are fought over by various interest groups, with some invariably claiming that their taxes should be used to fund only research that is compatible with their values.

Debates about the nature and benefits of science are not confined to the US and Europe. When South Korea’s National University announced the first-ever successful cloning of a dog, the news triggered arguments about science and society throughout Asia. Although the language of religion was not used overtly, the debate in Asia reflected the same fears that science is somehow “out of control” and far too powerful.

One key reason for this is the fact that China is pouring vast resources into research and development. Between 1995 and 2002, it doubled the percentage of its rapidly growing GDP that it invests in R&D, with biotechnology and other high-tech fields enjoying the highest priority. Science, it seems, is becoming a partner in the unnerving development of a new global superpower.

Today, science belongs to a rapidly globalizing world. It is perceived as a motor of economic growth, but also as a threat to our security and beliefs. Cultural worldviews and religion, of course, will continue to shape the overall cultural and value context within which science and technology interact. But values are subject to change, often in response to past experience and fears about the future.

It took centuries for science to carve out its sphere of autonomy, always a relative one, from politics and religion alike. This autonomy has served science well, and independent and accountable science has served society and the economy well. If this beneficial relationship is to be maintained, scientific independence – from both religious dogmatism and governmental intervention – must be defended. Who would have thought that, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the old Enlightenment debates would still be so potent?