This enthusiasm for science research was apparent at His Holiness’s July 9 talk for world peace on the West Lawn of the Capitol in Washington D.C. Referencing scientific studies about the effects of selfishness on heart disease, and of negative emotions on the immune system more broadly, the Dalai Lama used scientific evidence to support his artful advocacy for universal compassion and world peace.

Far from shunning science as a threat that disproves religious belief, the Dalai Lama has advocated for years that science and religion can be mutually enriching. Writing in 2003, the Dalai Lama said

“Though Tibetans have valuable knowledge about the internal world, we have been materially backward partly because of a lack of scientific knowledge. Buddhist teachings stress the importance of understanding reality. Therefore, we should pay attention to what modern scientists have actually found through experiment and through measurement the things they have proved to be reality.”

Departing from his usual spiritual writings, the Dalai Lama even published a book about science and spirituality in 2006. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality discusses how science and religion can each promote the betterment of the other. On the one hand, since science can be used for either good or ill, it can benefit from religion’s ability help navigate the ethical space between. On the other, religion can avoid rigid fundamentalism by paying attention to advancing science. Together, he argues, they make a powerful combination that can help us better understand central questions of our humanity.

In the past, he’s used his spiritual authority to urge his followers to participate directly in scientific studies. Scientists had had little success studying the effects of meditation on the brain until the Dalai Lama dispatched monks experienced enough to meditate amidst the noise of an fMRI machine to participate in neuroscience studies abroad. The real-time images these studies provided have helped scientists better understand the actual ways that meditation influences brain activity. Another set of studies on the long-term effects of meditation has also showed a positive connection between the practice of meditation and brain tissue thickness.

In addition to using his spiritual authority to further science, the Dalai Lama has also exercised his political leadership to advocate for science education in society more broadly. He addressed the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting to champion a new cause: How moral leaders should work openly with scientists in order to keep up with the rapid progress of technical knowledge. As science speeds along gathering data behind common spiritually linked questions, the Dalai Lama asserts that religion should begin participating in the developing dialog.

“Today the question of science’s interface with wider humanity is no longer a matter of academic interest alone; this question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence. I feel, therefore, that a dialog between neuroscience and society could have profound benefits in that it may help deepen our basic understanding of what it means to be human.”

– Excerpt from article based on Society for Neuroscience talk.

The Dalai Lama’s enthusiastic embrace of interdisciplinary research has brought him in contact with tutors including quantum mechanics experts Carl von Weizsacker and David Bohm along with neuroscientists Robert Livingston and Francisco Varela. Imagine what benefits the United States would see in science policy if more of our political and religious leaders fostered such close educational mentorships with scientists.

Not only can meditation and spirituality aid our scientific understanding of human psychology, but science can augment the learning of the spiritual, according to the Dalai Lama. Since 2006 the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative has sent Tibetan monks to Emory University to take core science classes so that they can return to their monasteries in India and teach the basics to fellow monks and nuns. The partnership has also resulted in ongoing dialogue and collaboration between Tibetan monks and Emory science faculty, and has resulted in the translation of six science textbooks into Tibetan for the first time. Simple as it seems, the translation of science and mathematical teachings into Tibetan has brought down learning barriers between religion and science that have existed for centuries.

Images of a tranquil Buddha sitting placidly among nature couldn’t be more starkly juxtaposed with white lab coats practicing rigid sterile technique. But according to the Dalai Lama, these two fields—which evolved from, separate historical, intellectual and cultural roots—have grown to share basic philosophical methodologies. Both modern science and Buddhism share a deep suspicion of absolute notions and support ideas that organisms and the universe emerged as part of an evolutionary process.

Science continually renews itself by encouraging the questioning and correction of long-standing beliefs. Buddhism, he points out, does the same through a glorification of the investigation of reality that triumphs over even the most deeply venerated spiritual authority.

The Dalai Lama’s open-minded attitude toward science should serve as an example not just for other political leaders, but for people of faith everywhere. Religious studies are increasingly enriched by contemporary findings in science while technological progress continues to lead us toward unavoidable ethical questions. Science and religion therefore shouldn’t be seen as opposing forces, but rather the two-colored lenses of the 3-D glasses of reality. We need them both to see the full picture.

Elaine Sedenberg is a Science Policy Contract researcher at the Center for American Progress.

You can also read  this article at the Center for American Progress website.

But such reckless disregard for the Earth, its people, and natural resources is being challenged by a broad base of faith leaders who point to the many passages in the Bible that call for humans to be caretakers and good stewards of the planet. We can now add to their voices those of a working group of scientists appointed by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a nonsectarian organization presided over by Werner Arber, a Nobel laureate and a Protestant. The academy has just issued a report that declares, without qualification and with utmost urgency, that global climate change is occurring, that humans bear responsibility for it, and that it is our gravest moral imperative to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible.

The report focuses on the causes and implications of retreating mountain glaciers and other ice forms because their melting is a key indicator of global warming. The report says these developments provide “some of the clearest evidence we have for a change in the climate system.” The report’s authors consist of “glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers.” The authors document the quickened pace of melting glaciers, ice, and snow across the globe, and the potential drastic consequences for human populations.

They recommend three main actions: “reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay … reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants … [and] prepare to adapt to the climatic changes, both chronic and abrupt, that society will be unable to mitigate.”

While the report is significant in its acknowledgment of climate change and insistence on the need for the global community to take responsibility, it is hardly surprising that Catholic leadership commissioned and supported these findings. Pope Benedict XVI has been an ardent supporter for many years of recognizing the truth of climate change and the collective responsibility to reduce carbon emissions and preserve clean air and clean water. In fact, he has been dubbed the “Green Pope” in diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks.

And in a true example of “lived faith,” the pope and his leadership spearheaded renewable energy projects right in Vatican City. In 2008 the Vatican began installing 2,400 solar panels atop the pope’s audience hall, which prevents 230 tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted annually. The Vatican even flirted with the idea of going completely carbon neutral by reforesting degraded land in Hungary to offset their emissions, though critics assailed the plan for its focus on offsets over efficiency improvements.

In the new pope’s first social encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate,” he proclaimed there is a “covenant” between humans and the environment, and “responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources.” He highlighted in particular the responsibility of wealthy developed nations to take the lead on these efforts.

The pope’s encyclical in tandem with the working group’s report are not meant to scare people. Rather, they are meant to confirm, once and for all, that people need to take climate change seriously, that it is no longer a matter of legitimate debate. The church’s strong moral voice shows the urgency of the issue and should persuade conservatives who oppose action to protect God’s creation that if they listen to one of the leading lights of the Christian faith on other issues, they should pay attention on this one as well.

Marta Cook is a Research Assistant to the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative and the Progressive Studies Program. This article is cross-posted at American Progress. See Joe Romm’s coverage of the groundbreaking Vatican report at Climate Progress.

You’re going to be hearing a lot about these milestones over the next twelve months, as the science community gears up for an annum of anniversaries that will—hopefully—help engage our broader culture in the scientific process. Or at least, that’s the stated goal of the COPUS network—it stands for “Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science”—which has organized the “Year of Science 2009” initiative to connect science-related events across the country and raise awareness about the nature of science and its importance to policy and our future.

And it’s not just big anniversaries: We can expect science-related issues to come up repeatedly in Washington and in the media as the new administration starts governing. How will president-elect Obama resolve the stem cell and climate issues—solely through administrative and executive action, or by championing new legislation? Expect an answer this year. Meanwhile, the administration has a science budget to propose in short order, and will be investing heavily in clean energy to fire the economy and create jobs. Such initiatives start this month with the push towards an economic stimulus bill.

When you combine a new science-friendly administration in Washington with all these historic milestones, there’s no doubt it adds up to a unique opportunity to get the broader American public better connected with the world of science that lies right under their noses, but which many citizens seldom perceive. Still, it’s worth asking a few questions about what we hope to achieve by capitalizing on these convergences.

Take, for example, the string of anniversaries: All celebrate momentous scientific achievements, but each also has, as a subtext, conflicts between science and religion. Galileo, we all know, was persecuted by the church; and Darwin’s theory is the reason Oxford University’s Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading anti-religionist, claims he can now be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Does science or the American public benefit if these anniversaries become a new cause for debating the alleged rift between faith and reason—or are we just inviting another round of culture war skirmishes?

While there are reasons to fear an uptick in divisiveness this year—as some of the science world’s more confrontational types try to use the Darwin anniversaries as a reason to assault the public’s religiosity—there’s zero chance the administration itself will get involved in such politically futile and damaging advocacy. Obama’s science team isn’t a bunch of culture warriors; they’re deadly serious about tackling what is arguably the biggest issue we face, our intertwined climate and energy problem. And you don’t waste time needling people of faith if you want to solve such an intricate and massive challenge. In fact, over the past two decades, faith communities have joined the green movement in force, working to protect the environment and avert the worst threats of climate change. This is a new opportunity for those groups to collaborate with other freshly energized efforts.

Still, we’re left with a potentially large gap between the role of science in policy and politics this year, and the level on which the coming science anniversaries could be discussed. One dialogue moves us forward toward solutions; the other holds us back. It’s totally Bush era to argue endlessly over how science clashes with religion; and it’s absolutely critical to use science to get us out of the energy and climate mess we’re in.

There’s no avoiding the fact that as we discuss the great achievements of Darwin and Galileo—and how far we have and haven’t come since their times—we’ll awaken some dragons that still slumber among us. I would hardly propose toning down our science celebrations for this reason, but I would suggest adding to them, leavening them by adding a new dimension.

You see, there’s another science anniversary coming this year that I believe deserves considerably more recognition. On May 7, 1959, a British scientist and novelist named C.P. Snow delivered a now-famous lecture entitled “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.” Snow wasn’t nearly as important a researcher as Darwin or Galileo—in fact, his early scientific career involved a publishing-related scandal that may have helped push him on to literature—but his delineation of the broad disconnect between the scientific and humanistic ways of thinking has resonated powerfully across the last half century, and describes a problem that’s very much still with us.

The COPUS “Year of Science” advocates want to communicate about science—they want to bring science to the rest of America, seizing upon this year’s auspicious timing to do it. It’s a noble goal, but Darwin and Galileo alone don’t necessarily get you there. You need a lot of Obama—and more than a little bit of Snow—as well.

Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified Galileo as the original inventor of the telescope.

But let’s stretch that banner a bit. After all, these issues encompass more than faith. Many are intrinsically linked to science. Ever heard of global warming naysayers? Abstinence-only programs to fight AIDS? Intelligent design? And then there’s embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, both of which are often opposed on “religious” grounds despite their promise to reduce human suffering and fight disease.

More and more, it is impossible to talk in any meaningful way about urgent moral issues without acknowledging their scientific components—just as it is difficult to talk about science issues without including their moral aspects.

Indeed, after eight disastrous years of the Bush administration’s neglecting science and distorting it into sectarian ideology, it is time for our national leaders to acknowledge the crucial importance of science in our lives. In order to compete in global markets and prosper as a nation, we need scientifically literate citizens. Organizers of Science Debate 2008 have argued that the candidates have a moral obligation to talk about their approaches to science policy—and Science Progress supports this initiative. All three candidates from the major parties were invited, yet none accepted. But the scale of the issue is enormous: the debate organizers point out that science and engineering has driven half our economic growth since the Second World War. However, and if trends hold true, by 2010 about 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia.

How we tackle the challenges of scientifically driven economic growth and climate change depends on our technological readiness to shift to a low-carbon economy—and our moral awareness of the need to do so.

The list goes on and on. That is because science issues are moral issues.

At Messiah College Sunday night, I hope that Sens. Obama and Clinton will speak comprehensively about “faith” issues that go beyond narrow delineations to show persuasively that science and religion are not in opposition to each other, but instead are essential components to our understanding, and solving, the complex, scientific-moral problems of our day.

Sally Steenland is Senior Policy Advisor for Faith and Progressive Policy at the Center for American Progress.