WHAT a shame that the doesn鈥檛 have a great physics department. If it did, one of its professors might stand a chance of winning . The prize is handed to the recipient by the Duke of Edinburgh, . Imagine how satisfying it would be for the professor to go home and announce that the British duke is the balding son of an exiled Greek prince, not the son of God. He could cross off one of the world鈥檚 religions as demonstrably false: a real discovery about a spiritual reality.
At 拢820,000, the Templeton prize is the world鈥檚 largest annual monetary award to an individual. It is given for the use of science to 鈥渟upplement the wonderful ancient scriptures and traditions of all the world鈥檚 religions鈥�. Or as Richard Dawkins put it in , 鈥渦sually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion鈥�.
It used to be fun to laugh about who had been awarded the prize, and to try to work out why. According to the foundation, part of the rationale is to 鈥渉elp people see the infinity of the Universal Spirit still creating the galaxies鈥�. Surely it鈥檚 a joke, and a good one too: is this universal spirit also creating dark matter?
Advertisement
In recent years, though, the humour has been blown away by . Dawkins complains that by accepting the prize, scientists risk being seen as endorsing religion, while evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne argues that it corrupts science. Physicist Sean Carroll insisted that he would not apply for grants from the , set up in 2005 to address some esoteric questions of cosmology and physics, while Templeton remains the sole funder. With the 2008 prize being announced this week, plenty more column inches will undoubtedly be given to the claim that Templeton funding taints science.
So should scientists take the money? Time for full disclosure. In 2005 I was one of 10 journalists to benefit from a Journalism Fellowship in Science and Religion. I took an unpaid sabbatical from my day job, and received a stipend from the John Templeton Foundation to go to the University of Cambridge and listen to, and debate with, a stellar cast of lecturers. (One of them was Dawkins, who accepted money for this, with all expenses covered by the foundation.)
That said, I can declare that the curmudgeons are missing the point. The foundation is simply the expensive hobby of a rich old man. If John Templeton wants to spend a few billion dollars sponsoring people who study something he is curious about, that鈥檚 great. This year鈥檚 jackpot winner is , a Polish cosmologist and priest. He has practised both science and religion in difficult circumstances 鈥� under regimes that repressed religious and intellectual activity 鈥� and I don鈥檛 begrudge him one penny of the cash.
There is no evidence that Templeton money is subverting science; in fact the opposite may be true. FQXi, for example, is a network of research projects headed by the respected physicists Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre. The questions it addresses are traditionally not well funded by government sources, so the money allows good scientists to do good science without draining the coffers for researchers in other fields.
Surely, in an era when science鈥檚 traditional funding sources are drying up, to refuse this support is to look a gift horse in the mouth. You might as well question the decision of Harvard University to accept millions of dollars from . That money went into research in cancer, viruses and evolutionary theory, basically because Epstein is fascinated by those subjects. Would you tell him that science doesn鈥檛 need his money? Even when Epstein subsequently faced in 2006, Harvard did not join the politicians scrabbling to return his cash. The university鈥檚 president said the 鈥渢angible benefits鈥� of accepting controversial gifts 鈥渟hould overcome the more abstract, symbolic considerations that might lead us to turn down such benefactions鈥�.
There is no evidence of any attempt to sway academics. and , for example, haven鈥檛 noticeably skewed their research portfolio towards religion since winning the prize. It鈥檚 hard to get Barrow to talk about religion at all. And the prize money is being spent wisely. The 2005 winner, , gave most of his prize to his alma mater, Furman University in South Carolina. Philosopher , who won in 2007, said he would use his award to fund further research. I don鈥檛 know what Barrow did with his money in 2006, but knowing his inclinations I imagine most of it has gone to fund educational projects. If he used it to buy cocaine and prostitutes, he didn鈥檛 invite me to the party.
Worrying about the Templeton prize is silly. If John Templeton has a religious agenda for projects like FQXi, he is the world鈥檚 worst investor. Not a penny of his investment will prove anything about the validity of religion. It will, however, help us understand a little more about the universe. With Templeton funding, science is the only winner. Just don鈥檛 tell him.
聯If John Templeton has a religious agenda for projects he funds he is the world鈥檚 worst investor聰