Is this what happens when science rejects faith?

There is a neuroscientist called Eliezer Masliah. He researched dementia and other similar diseases for reputable bodies in the United States, and produced many studies published in prestigious journals.

However the journal Science came to have concerns about some of his research, and set up an investigation. Work that Masliah had published between 1997 and 2023 was scrutinised - in particular, images used to provide evidence for research findings were analysed.

The results were disturbing. In 132 published research papers, images were found to be suspect and inappropriately reused. A subsequent enquiry by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), a federal agency, made “findings of research misconduct against Masliah” in September 2024 due to what it termed “falsification and/or fabrication” in relation to “experimental results in two publications”. It is understood that, thus far, Masliah has not publicly commented on these findings.

Masliah, the journal reports, had “tremendous influence over the study and treatment of neurological conditions in the United States and beyond”. He was one of the most cited scientists in his field.

That such a prominent and influential researcher could come under such suspicion is, as the report puts it, shocking. The consequences are hard to quantify: how many other studies were made using these suspect results as a basis? What does this mean for patients who might otherwise have had better treatments by now?

Science trumps other knowledge?

The scientific method is held up as the best and most reliable way of gaining knowledge about the world by innumerable Western intellectuals.

“Scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have”, writes one philosopher of science (Moti Mizrahi, ‘Why not scientism?’). Science is defended as being such a good form of knowledge because of its trustworthy reliance on evidence and experiment; its empiricism, the fact that theories have to stand up to experimental testing. Knowledge claims, whether they are about electrons or planets or anything in between, need to be backed up by evidence. It is the real world that validates science, basically; for all its nuances, in the end science is trusted to give real knowledge because the experiments prove it.

Other forms of knowledge just are not as good. Or perhaps are not knowledge at all. For instance, knowledge about God. And the fact that God does not want us to tell lies.

It turns out, however, that ethical knowledge is crucially important in establishing scientific claims. The entire scientific endeavour will not work without rigorous truthfulness. No amount of scientific experiment, no amount of funding laboratories and building equipment and designing rigorous testing will bring knowledge if the experimenter lies. The publishing of experimental results, the process of peer review, the slow accumulation of scientific knowledge – all of it is brought into doubt if scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

Importance of ethical knowledge

But ethical knowledge is not, in itself, scientific. It is a different kind of knowledge. The human instinct to have ethical beliefs is more likely to be explained away by science; naturalists have been doing so for centuries. Sociobiology will claim that ethical belief is simply a matter of, say, establishing social cohesion, or an evolved response to the survival value of living in community – but ethics is not actually something that counts as knowledge. It might be a matter of deeply held opinion, but not something that is true. It is only something that is culturally relative, not real knowledge like, say, physics. Or neuroscience.

Christians know, however, that the righteous God who created us is the reason for the human ethical instinct, and that there are real, objective, ethical truths based on His character. Knowing what is right is real knowledge. Moreover, it is essential knowledge if other forms of knowledge are to be relied upon at all.

Science has a very privileged place within our society and, in general, rightfully so. But it cannot survive without scientists who have a firm ethical foundation. The example of scientific fraud listed above is a particularly notable one, but low-level manipulation of results is listed in surveys as a very common temptation for researchers. How often is it going undetected?

For the last few centuries, the science wars have insisted on a strict segregation of science and religion. Religious views have no place in science, naturalists continue to proclaim loudly. But the rejection of an objective ethical framework has insidious results. Science absolutely depends on truthfulness; but if ethics is just a matter of relative values, opinion, or personal preference, then the very fabric of science is attacked from within.