Washington

Leading members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) are questioning the nature of its involvement in a programme on science and religion backed by the controversial John Templeton Foundation.

The foundation promotes “a path of cooperation” between the sciences and religion, funding up to 100 interdisciplinary courses each year and publishing a newsletter called Progress in Theology. Its other beneficiaries include an annual $1.24 million prize for progress in religion, and a study of the benefits of private enterprise called the Freedom Project.

The AAAS's physics section forced a public review of the association's $2 million Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion at the annual meeting of its governing council last Sunday (20 February). Some questioned the programme's independence from the Templeton Foundation, and challenged its consistency with the association's aims.

But they accepted assurances from AAAS president Stephen Jay Gould and Al Teich, head of its science policy division, that steps are being taken to bolster the programme's independence.

The programme has supported a number of activities aimed at developing a dialogue between science and religion. It was set up four years ago with initial support from the John Templeton Foundation. So far, it has attracted $1.1 million from the foundation and $950,000 from other sources.

The physicists are claiming a conflict of interest between the AAAS, whose mission is to promote science, and the Templeton Foundation, which — said Hans Frauenfelder, a physicist at the Los Alamos national laboratory in New Mexico and past chairman of the AAAS physics section — believes there will ultimately be a “rapprochement” between science and religion.

“We are concerned that the Templeton Foundation has exercised undue influence on the programme”, adds John Peoples, former director of Fermilab in Illinois and current chairman of the AAAS physics section. “At a bare minimum, we feel that there is a conflict between the values and goals of the Templeton Foundation and those of the AAAS”. Frauenfelder presented data suggesting that speakers at meetings convened by the programme were often associated with the Templeton Foundation.

According to Rolf Sinclair, past secretary of the physics division, six people have served on the advisory boards to both the AAAS programme and the foundation. Sinclair says that several nominations by the physics division to the advisory board have been summarily rejected. “I don't think it is an advisory committee: it is a committee of people involved in the programme”, he says.

But Al Teich, head of science policy at the AAAS, defended the programme vigorously. “This is a very religious country,” he told the council. “Religious leaders are listened to. Their views are very important and we need to talk to them if science is going to be influential and take a role in shaping our lives.”

Teich said that the programme was currently applying for $500,000 of additional outside support. If obtained, this would allow it to reach its objective of restricting Templeton Foundation support to 40 per cent of the total.

Joel Primack, a physicist at the University of California at Santa Cruz and the new chairman of the programme's advisory committee, says that the number of its members who also advise the Templeton Foundation had been cut to one.

He cited the programme's interest in environmental matters, which Templeton refuses to support, as evidence of its independence. “The areas we think are important are in no way influenced by the Templeton Foundation,” he says.

But Gould came close to admitting that the original decision to accept so much support from the foundation was a mistake. Responding to a question about Templeton's aims, he said: “My sense is that, although they attach no strings [to their money], their interest is to find that great, inevitable position that will bring science and religion together.

That is totally wrong in my view. But what's done is done.” Gould added that the programme was “now on the right path”.