SCIENCE, RELIGION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Klaus Jaffe

Klaus Jaffe. Chemist, Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Venezuela. M.Sc. in Biochemistry, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Venezuela. Ph.D. in Animal Behaviour, University of Southampton, UK. Professor, USB, Venezuela. Address: Centro de Estudios Estratégicos. Universidad Simón Bolívar, Apartado 89000, Caracas 1080. e-mail: kjaffe@usb.ve

Resumen

Se exploraron las correlaciones entre los índices cientométricos, las variables macroeconómicas y los resultados de encuestas sobre la actitud moral-religiosa en diversos países. Los resultados muestran que se requiere de un umbral mínimo de desarrollo económico (alrededor de 1000US$ de PIB per capita) para que la ciencia y la economía de un país interactúen. Por encima de ese umbral se evidencia una interacción positiva entre el desarrollo económico, el desarrollo científico y actitudes moral-religiosas tolerantes. Desconocemos todavía los mecanismos de estas interacciones.

Summary

The correlations between scientometric indices, macroeconomic variables and results from attitude polls in different countries were explored. The results show that a minimum threshold of economic development (around GDP per capita of 1000US$) is required for science and the economy of a country to interact. Above that threshold, a positive interaction can be observed between economic development, scientific development and tolerant moral-religious attitudes. The way these interactions occur remains to be uncovered.

Resumo

Exploraram-se as correlações entre os índices cientométricos, as variáveis macroeconômicas e os resultados de pesquisas sobre a atitude moral-religiosa em diversos países. Os resultados mostram que se requer de um umbral mínimo de desenvolvimento econômico (por volta de 1000US$ de PIB per cápita) para que a ciência e a economia de um país interatuem. Por encima de esse umbral se evidencia una interação positiva entre o desenvolvimento econômico, o desenvolvimento científico e atitudes moral-religiosas tolerantes. Desconhecemos ainda os mecanismos de estas interações.

KEYWORDS / Economic Development / Religious Attitudes / Scientific Progress / Scientometrics /

Received: 02/09/2005. Modified: 04/13/2005. Accepted: 04/25/2005.

The emergence of science is probably the most important phenomenon for humanity in the last millennium, and occurred after a prolonged period characterized by the emergence, development and expansion of the religions that dominate the world today (deSolla-Price, 1961; Jaffe, 2000). Science and technology are now the backbone of modern economic development. However, many questions about the relationship between science and economic development are still unanswered. Four of these questions are followed herein:

1- How strong is the relationship between science and economic development?

2- What are the cultural attitudes that most favor economic and/or scientific development?

3- Is the relationship between scientific and economic development the same in rich and poor countries?

4- Does economic development drive scientific development or vice versa?

Partial answers to these questions can be obtained by using scientometric indices (Braun and Schubert, 1988; Glänzel and Schoepflin, 1994; Macias-Chapula, 1994; Braun et al., 1995; Leydesdorff, 1995; May, 1997; Macias-Chapula, 1998; Spinak, 1998; Bharvi et al., 2003; King, 2004). For example, regarding question 1, the existence of a strong correlation between scientific productivity and economic development is shown in Table I. Interestingly, scientific productivity per capita, whether measured by using a public database (PubMed) or a private one (ISI) lead to similar results. Scientific productivity correlated less well with the Human Development Index (HDI) produced for several countries by the UNDP. Indices such as the SSCI, A&HCI, and Movies produced per capita gave lower correlations with the classical economic indices than with those measuring scientific productivity. Movies produced per capita, which can be considered to be an independent measure of creativity, showed higher correlations than indices for social science and arts and humanities. Among the economic indicators used, investment in research and development for 2003 correlates least well with the indices for scientific and artistic productivity. This probably suggests that many expenses classified as investment in science and technology are not related to scientific productivity. Thus, among the indices explored and others listed in the UNDP annual report, the index related to science and education that correlates strongest with the wealth of a nation as measured through GDP is scientific productivity. Next on the list is the average educational level attained by the population. That is, the number of years at which more than 90% of the population is enrolled correlates strongly with GDP (r= 0.76), as does the percentage of enrollment in any kind of educational program between ages 15-19 (r= 0.79) and 20-29 (r= 0.81).

Looking for answers to question 2, the most complete international survey available was used, the Pew Global Attitudes Project (2002). The results of this survey for a range of questions on attitudes and moral beliefs in 44 countries were correlated with indicators of economic development and scientific productivity, and the most statistically significant results are given in Table II. These correlations show that high levels of ethical and religious tolerance among the citizens of the population, as indirectly measured through the last and the first two questions in the table, are correlated with high economic development and high scientific development. The strongest correlation found was between scientific productivity and the answers given to two of the questions in the Pew questionnaire: "It is not necessary to believe in God to be moral" and "Homosexuality should be accepted by society" (Table II). The percentage of answers to the first of these questions is plotted in Figure 1. These data show that scientific development in a country and liberal attitudes towards homosexuality and religion among its citizens are strongly correlated. That is, a tolerant or even liberal attitude towards matters religious and moral seems to coexist with scientific development. These correlations would suggest that science is a secularizing agent and may encourage tolerance, or that secular tolerant societies favor scientific productivity. A fact supporting the first alternative is that this tendency seems to be conspicuous not only at the level of populations but also at the level of individuals engaged in scientific activities. The answers to a questionnaire among 200 Venezuelan scientists showed that scientists defining themselves as religious were less likely to have been classified by their peers, in a procedure completely independent from the questionnaire, as highly successful scientists (Figure 2). Scientific success among Venezuelan scientists also correlated positively with modesty. That is, highly productive scientists were more likely to rank their contributions to society lower than less productive scientists (r= -21, p=0.006). Both these results are robust in the sense that controlling for age and other variables does not eliminate their statistical significance. Thus, although not conclusive, the data strongly suggest a relationship between secularity, tolerance, modesty and scientific success. Data from other countries and cultures should help in clarifying our understanding of these relationships.

Correlations by their own are unable to determine causal relationships between different phenomena. Yet, significant correlations show that the relationship revealed can not be explained away by chance. Correlations occur mainly for the following reasons: A causal one- or bi-directional relationship between the correlated variables exists; or no causality between the correlated variables exists but a third factor or group of factors affects each of the correlated variables. Whatever the case, significant correlations hint to interesting phenomena that require further study.

The facts published so far suggest that more and better science aids development in technology, which in turn stimulates economic growth, as was shown to be true in rich countries by the OECD and others (Dowrick, 2003, but see Spiegel-Roesing and Price, 1977). But is this true always and for all counties? Figure 3 shows the relationship between scientific productivity and economic development for a sample of 105 countries. The Figure reveals that for all countries, the scientific productivity as measured by SCI correlates strongly with economic development as measured with GDP. This correlation is statistically highly significant (r(96)= 0.92; p<0.0001); but this correlation disappears among poor countries with a GDP of less than 1000 US$/c (r(40)= 0.21; p=0.19). That is, the relationship between economic wealth and scientific productivity is not evident among poor nations but is very conspicuous among the richer ones. A threshold of a certain minimum wealth has to be reached for a nation to start to have a positive interplay between economic growth and science, providing an answer to question 3.

Countries in Figure 3 falling below the line of linear fit have a lower scientific productivity than expected from their economic development, while those above the line show a scientific productivity that is above average for their category. Among the latter, we find countries like Israel or Switzerland, with a clear long term national policy favoring science, and among the first group we pick up countries with economic developments affected by favorable world prices in commodities, such as Saudi Arabia and Norway. The data for Japan can be interpreted as suggesting that this country bases part of its economic development on research performed outside its frontiers and that its endogenous research efforts are still not fully developed.

Regarding question 4, scientific and economic development correlate differently for poor (GDP/c <1000US$) and richer countries (GDP >1000US$). Strong evidence hints the fact that science drives economic development in rich countries (Dowrick, 2003) and is not just a luxury sub-product of wealth as sometimes proposed (Spiegel-Roesing and Price, 1977). At the statistical level, however, no correlations between increases in GDP from 1993 to 2003 and the corresponding increase in number of publications in PubMed could be detected (r(105)= 0.02, p=0.83). Countries with over 100 publications in PubMed for 2003 that increased more than five times in the last decade their publications were, in descending order, Iran, China, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Colombia, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Brazil; and with more than a three fold increase, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Uruguay, Cuba, and Pakistan (Jaffe, 2005). In contrast, the world average increase was 1.38. Figure 4 presents examples of four of this first group of countries, showing that increases in economic development occurred before the conspicuous increases in scientific publications and suggesting that, for developing countries, economic development may be a pre-requisite for scientific development, and only after a certain level of economic and scientific development has been achieved, science does start to drive economic growth. No unambiguous answer to question 4 is available, although government policy and external support for science are known to be fundamental for scientific development in developing countries (Holmgren and Schnitzer, 2004; Rahman and Nasim, 2004; Thorsteinsdóttir et al., 2004). Further research in that area is required.

It can be concluded that

1- The free access PubMed database can reliably substitute the privately run ISI’s for scientometric studies.

2- Acceptance of moral alternatives to religion is correlated with scientific productivity of a country. This is compatible with the suggestion that religious fundamentalism interferes with scientific development.

3- A minimum threshold of economic development (around GDP per capita of 1000US$) is required for science and the economy to interact. After that threshold, a positive interaction between economic development, scientific development and tolerant moral-religious attitude, seems to take place. The mechanisms of that interaction remain to be uncovered.

The conclusions listed here are of course tentative. Data from different cultures at different times, at the micro and the macro-population level, should help understand the influences of science, scientific skills and attitudes on society and vice versa.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks Astrid López for help in finding the indices, and Benjamin Scharifker, Jorge Mostany, Subbiah Arunachalam and Subbiah Gunasekaran for comments, suggestion and important insights.

REFERENCES

1.Bharvi D, Garg KC, Bali A (2003) Scientometrics of the international journal Scientometrics. Scientometrics 56: 81-93.        [ Links ]

2.Braun T, Schubert A (1988) Scientometric versus socio-economic indicators. Scatter plots for 51 countries, 1978-1980. Scientometrics 13: 3-9.        [ Links ]

3.Braun T, Glänzel W, Grupp H (1995) The Scientometric Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Areas, 1989-1993. Part I. All Fields Combined, Mathematics, Engineering, Chemistry and Physics. Scientometrics 33: 263-293.        [ Links ]

4.deSolla-Price DJ (1961) Science since Babylon. Yale University Press. New Haven, CO, USA. 149 pp.        [ Links ]

5.Dowrick S (2003) A Review of the Evidence on Science, R&D and Productivity. Working paper. Department of Education, Science and Training. Australian National University.         [ Links ]

6.Glänzel W, Schoepflin U (1994) Little Scientometrics - Big Scientometrics and Beyond. Scientometrics 30: 375-384.        [ Links ]

7.Holmgren M, Schnitzer SA (2004) Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biology 2: 1-9.        [ Links ]

8.IMDB (2004) International Movie Data Base 2004.www.imdb.com/        [ Links ]

9.Jaffe K (2000) Step back to see how science and humanity fit in the big picture. Nature 407: 128.        [ Links ]

10.Jaffe K (2005) International ranking for countries according to scientific productivity. www.cee.usb. ve/PubMed_1993-2003.htm        [ Links ]

11.King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430: 311-316.        [ Links ]

12.Leydesdorff L (1995) The Challenge of Scientometrics: The development, measurement and self-organization of scientific communications. DSWO Press, Leiden University. Leiden, The Netherlands. 344 pp.        [ Links ]

13.Macias-Chapula CA (1994) Non-SCI subject visibility of the Latin American scientific production in the health field. Scientometrics 30: 97-104.        [ Links ]

14.Macias-Chapula CA (1998) O papel da informetria e da cienciometria e sua perspectiva nacional e internacional. Ciência da Informação, Brasilia 27: 134-140.        [ Links ]

15.May RM (1997) The scientific wealthy of nations. Science 275: 793-796.        [ Links ]

16.Pew Global Attitude Project (2002) http://people-press.org/pgap/        [ Links ]

17.PubMed (2004) www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/entrez/query.fcgi        [ Links ]

18.Rahman A, Nasim A (2004) Time for enlightened moderation. Nature 432: 273-274.        [ Links ]

19.SPI (2004) Sistema de Promoción del Investigador. Caracas, Venezuela. www.ppi.org.ve/        [ Links ]

20.Spiegel-Rosing IM, deSolla Price D (Eds.) (1977) Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Sage, London, UK. 607 pp.        [ Links ]

21.Spinak E (1998) Indicadores cienciometricos. Ciência da Informação, Brasilia 27: 141-148.        [ Links ]

22.Thomson ISI (2004) www.isinet.com        [ Links ]

23.Thorsteinsdóttir H, Quach U, Daar AS and Singer PA (2004) Conclusions: promoting biotechnology innovation in developing countries. Nature Biotechnology 22: DC48-DC52.        [ Links ]