“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” — James Madison
In a recent thought-provoking piece in the Brownstone Institute, mathematician Tomas Fürst makes a compelling observation about the state of modern science. He suggests that “Christianity was saved by the strict separation of Church and State. 
To save Science, an equally daring step will be needed.” This parallel deserves deeper exploration, as it cuts to the heart of how we might preserve the integrity of scientific inquiry in an age of increasing politicization.
The virtuous circle that Fürst describes – where scientific understanding leads to technological innovation, which enables better scientific tools, which in turn deepen our understanding – requires certain conditions to flourish. Just as religious freedom required institutional separation from state power, scientific truth-seeking may require similar protections.
The Historical Precedent
The separation of church and state emerged from bitter experience. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 helped establish the principle that religious authority and state power should remain distinct, following centuries of devastating religious wars. This separation allowed both institutions to better serve their core purposes – spiritual guidance for the church, governance for the state. Lest we forget, the frequently quoted and often misunderstood First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishes something in the way of individual rights and government limitations in that regard as well.
Today, we’re witnessing what happens when the new religion, which some would argue science has become, becomes too entangled with both state power and corporate interests. As John Ioannidis noted in his landmark 2005 paper, the majority of published research findings may be false, influenced by various biases, financial interests, and career pressures.
The Postmodern Dilemma
The challenges we face today are not simply mired in fractured belief systems. Our challenges are structural. Government funding of science has created a dependency relationship that can and does distort research priorities and conclusions. A 2021 study in Nature found that researchers feel pressure to produce positive results to secure future funding. Duh. As if a funded study was needed to validate a rather common sense conclusion given a modicum of same. Both governmental and corporate funding can create conflicts of interest that undermine the dogma of the new religion, i.e.: the core belief in scientific objectivity.
Consider these examples of institutional entanglement:
1. The pharmaceutical industry’s influence on medical research and regulatory bodies
2. Military funding’s impact on technological research priorities
3. Political pressure’s effect on climate science and energy policy
4. Corporate funding’s influence on nutrition science and dietary guidelines
A Path Forward
What might separation of science and state look like in practice? Some possibilities:
– Creation of independent funding mechanisms through scientific trusts or foundations
– Reformed peer review systems that minimize conflicts of interest
– Greater emphasis on replication studies and methodological rigor
– Transparent disclosure of all funding sources and potential conflicts
– Protected channels for scientific dissent and hypothesis testing
As Richard Feynman famously said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” When scientific institutions become too closely aligned with power structures – whether governmental or corporate – this essential skepticism can be lost.
The Role of Technology
Interestingly, modern technology might help enable greater scientific independence. Platforms like arXiv and blockchain-based systems could provide alternative publication and funding mechanisms. Crowdfunding for science through platforms like Experiment.com offers new models for research support.
Conclusion
The separation of church and state wasn’t achieved easily or quickly. Similarly, disentangling science from state and corporate power structures will require sustained effort and careful institutional design. But as Fürst suggests, this separation may be essential for preserving scientific integrity in the 21st century.
The goal isn’t to eliminate government or private sector involvement in science entirely, but to create structures that better preserve scientific objectivity and truth-seeking. Just as religious freedom paradoxically strengthened both spiritual and civic life, greater scientific independence might ultimately benefit both science and society.
What do you think? How can we best preserve scientific integrity while ensuring science continues to serve humanity? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Leave a Reply