viewpoint

viewpoint
Science and culture
Western science could learn a thing or two from the way science is done in other cultures
Maurizio Iaccarino

hat we understand today as

being modern science is in fact
not that modern, but was born
nearly half a millennium ago at the time of
the Renaissance in Europe. But even if we
think of great Renaissance thinkers, such as
Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci or Sir
Isaac Newton, as the first true scientists,
we should not forget that all civilizations
throughout history have produced and
accumulated knowledge to understand and
explain the world, a process that was often
accompanied or stimulated by technological development. Indeed, the explosion of
knowledge during the Renaissance was
sparked by a reawakened interest in the
writings of Greek, Roman and Arab
philosophers and scholarsthe word
Renaissance implying a renewed interest
in classical culture and knowledge. But
regardless of the various cultures and civilizations that have influenced science, what
is common to all scientists is that they study
natural phenomena, with an appropriate
set of rules, to make generalizations and
predictions about nature.

philosophical problems generated by the

study of complexity. Modern, or Western,
science may not be best suited to fulfil this
task, as its view of the world is too constrained by its characteristic empirical and
analytical approach that, in the past, made it
so successful. We should therefore remember the contributions of other civilizations to
the understanding of naturein particular
the perception of the world in areas such as
Asia and Africa, or among the indigenous
people of Australia and South America.
Such traditional or indigenous knowledge is
now increasingly being used not only with
the aim of finding new drugs, but also to
derive new concepts that may help us to
reconcile empiricism and science.

science is part of culture, and ...

how science is done largely
depends on the culture in which
it is practised
However, most modern studies of the
world around us are empirical, and there is
clearly much more to understand than what
is being studied by scientists. The understanding of complex systems remains a
major challenge for the future, and no scientist today can claim that we have at hand the
appropriate methods with which to achieve
this. Thus, we cannot discuss the future of
science without taking into account the
2 2 0 EMBO reports VOL 4 | NO 3 | 2003

During the Renaissance, European scientists and philosophers started challenging

long-held beliefs and developed a new natural philosophy. Science and the arts truly
flourished in Europe, and this was caused
and furthered by various positive developments that took place at that time. Most
importantly, the new philosophy started a
process that eventually led to the independence of scientific thought and theories
from myths, religion and theology. Second,
the interaction among different European
cultures stimulated creativity through new
ways of thinking and new paradigms for the
observation of nature. Last, but not least,
the foundation of scientific academies,
notably the Accademia dei Lincei, the Royal
Society and the Acadmie des Sciences, and
the establishment of universities throughout
Western Europe, contributed to scientific
progress through the dissemination of new
knowledge.

This globe, based on a world map from the early

ninth century, was commissioned by Calif alMamn in Baghdad. Image courtesy of Fuat
Sezgin, Institute for the History of ArabIslamic
Sciences, University of Frankfurt, Germany.

ut the foundations of modern science

were laid long before this time, and
were particularly influenced by
Islamic civilization. The Muslims were the
leading scholars between the seventh and
fifteenth centuries, and were the heirs of the
scientific traditions of Greece, India and
Persia. After appropriation and assimilation, they built on these discoveries, and
developed a truly Islamic science that led
worldwide knowledge in all scientific
fields, including medicine. These activities
were cosmopolitan, in that the participants
were Arabs, Persians, Central Asians,
Christians and Jews, and later included
Indians and Turks. The transfer of the knowledge of Islamic science to the West through
various channels paved the way for the
Renaissance, and for the scientific revolution in Europe. The public in the West is

2003 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

science & society

v iew point

Replica of an astrolab built in 984 AD by the great

Persian astronomer and mathematician
al-Khujand. The original is displayed in the
National Museum of Qatar. Image courtesy of
Fuat Sezgin, Institute for the History of
ArabIslamic Sciences, University of Frankfurt,
Germany.

generally unaware of this important contribution to modern science and to the culture
of the Middle Ages. Islamic civilization is
part of our own heritage, and the great
Islamic scientists whose works were translated into Latin, such as Jabir ibn Hayan
(Geber), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razi
(Rhazes), Ibn al-Haytham (Adhazin) and alKhuwarizmi, are as important as any great
European scientist. The pictures in this article illustrate some of the remarkable products of Islamic science.
The Renaissance scientists who built on
this knowledgeas well as all their predecessors and colleagues in other civilizationswanted to understand and describe
the causes and effects of the events they
observed in nature. Indeed, Aristotle and
Plato were probably the first to state that
our understanding of the natural world is
based on a set of a priori beliefs, namely
concerning ideal objects or universal values, that allow us to imagine and describe
the world around us. Religious people
believe that God dictates these universal
values; agnostics and atheists believe that
universal values are inherent in the human
reason. These transcendental values are the
source of human beliefs that guide humanity towards social and ethical rules and to
the observation of nature (Iaccarino,
2001a; Stent, 1974). In other words, science is deeply rooted in metaphysics, and

there is no conflict between religion and

science. Moreover, although the language
of science is often specialized, and thus
inaccessible to non-specialists, science and
culture are not different entities: science is
part of culture, and how science is done
largely depends on the culture in which it is
practised.
Science has had an increasingly strong
influence on European culture. In the nineteenth century the buzzword for science was
order. Scientists had discovered that the
movement of the stars is predictable, and
that all terrestrial and celestial phenomena
follow the same scientific laws like clockwork. They believed, according to the
Galileian vision, that the book of nature is
written in the language of mathematics, with
characters represented by geometric objects.
The mission of science was to discover the
laws of nature, and thereby explain all natural phenomena. This faith in science gave
rise to the philosophical movement called
positivism, which led to a widespread trust
in science and technology and influenced
social theory. Even after positivism faded out,
the Darwinian theory of evolution still influenced social phenomena, most notoriously
eugenics and racism. The faith in the possibilities offered by scientific progress still
shapes the beliefs and actions of people
today; in fact, expressions such as this has
been scientifically demonstrated, are often
used to cut short a discussion.

he work of scientists implies that they

challenge accepted explanations of
facts and propose new and original
ways of interpreting them. Originality, independence of thought and dissent are characteristics of the scientific culture, and
therefore a challenge to established cultural
values. The safeguards for independence
are free inquiry, free thought, free speech,
tolerance and the willingness to arbitrate
disputes on the basis of evidence. These
values are not important for science itself,
but have had a strong influence on the
development of todays democratic and free
societies. The success of science, and the
use of scientific knowledge, have profoundly changed everyday life, mainly in developed countries. Life expectancy has
increased strikingly and cures are available
for many diseases; agricultural productivity
has increased to match demographic developments; and technology has freed
humankind from arduous labour. New
methods of communication, information

2003 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

handling and computation have brought

unprecedented opportunities and challenges (Iaccarino, 2000, 2001b). These discoveries or inventions have radically
changed our way of describing the natural
world, and have influenced our everyday
life. Today, even the organization of society
itself owes much to scientific thinking
(UNESCO/ISCU, 1999).
Most of this progress took place in
Europe, and later in North America, and
these continents are still the primary players
in science. Table 1 shows that, during the
past decade, three-quarters of the worlds
scientific publications came from Western
Europe and North America; and if we take
the award of the Nobel Prizes for science as
an indicator of scientific excellence, we
can see from Table 2 that more than 90% of
the laureates in the natural sciences are also
from Western countries, despite the fact
that they are home to only 10% of the
worlds population. The small number of
Nobel laureates from the rest of the world
reflects differences in culture and in the
type of education offered, as well as a lower
level of financial support for science.
The governments of developed countries
consider science and technology as essential for economic progress and military
power, and therefore allocate abundant
financial resources to education and
research. In turn, a stimulating cultural environment, partly due to the high level of
education, attracts investments in private
research, thus adding to the public commitment to science. It is fair to say that in the
past few centuries science has had a strong
influence on cultural values all over the

Table 1 | Worldwide scientific publications

Western Europe
North America
Industrial Asia
Former Soviet Union
Oceania
China
India
Latin America
Southern and
Eastern Mediterranean
Sub-Saharan Africa
Rest of Asia

1997
(%)
37.5
36.6
10.8
3.7
2.8
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.9

Change after
1990 (%)
110
92
126
54
107
170
89
136
120

0.7
0.5

72
98

Source: Indicateurs 2000, Observatoire des Sciences et des

Techniques, Paris (www.obs-ost.fr/en/)

EMBO reports VOL 4 | NO 3 | 2003 2 2 1

science & society

Table 2 | Nobel laureates in natural sciences
(19011998) by geographical region
Region
Western Europe
North America
Eastern Europe
Asia
Australasia
Latin America
Africa
Arabic region

Number of
laureates
230
200
13
9
4
3
1
0

Percentage
50.0
43.0
2.8
1.9
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.0

world, but not always a positive one. In

developing countries, science education is
based on Western concepts and culture, and
it is taught by those for whom science is
often unrelated to their culture. This leads
students to deny the validity and authority of
the knowledge transmitted to them by their
parents and grandparents and creates tension in several societies. Even in developed
countries, general education is a recent
trend. In 1913, J. McKeen Cattell, the Vice
President of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science stated that:
There is not a single mulatto who has done
creditable scientific work (Cattell, 1914).
His remark reflects the cultural attitude at
the turn of the twentieth century in the USA,
which deprived black people of an appropriate education, and as a consequence,
made them less interested in pursuing a scientific career. Similarly, many countries
took equally as long to grant women the
same rights as men and thereby enable them
to participate in scientific enterprise.

v iew point

As each scientific discipline describes a specific field based on a set of established

rulesfor example, the description of biology at the anatomical, histological, cellular or
biochemical leveleach type of description
becomes more and more complete with
time. Does it come to an end, as Gunther
Stent declared for molecular biology in 1968
(Stent, 1968)? Stent started his scientific
career when many people believed, in the
framework of vitalistic theories, that it was
not possible to interpret the inheritance of
genetic traits in chemical terms. The elucidation of the genetic code was a victory for
him, but at the same time the end of a challenge. Stents statement upset many scientists
of the time who believed that molecular biology was still alive, and we have indeed subsequently witnessed an enormous number of
new discoveries and new knowledge in this
field. However, it is true that after 1968 work
on the elucidation of the genetic code consisted only of finding out the details. I believe
that specific types of scientific description do

ut what do we mean by modern science? The main characteristic of this

approach is to understand nature by
analysing each phenomenon according to a
predetermined set of rules. Scientific work
may be descriptive, as in the case of cosmology, palaeontology or anatomy. These
descriptions then lead to theories or paradigms, according to Kuhn (1970), that interpret the causes and effects of events, and
that can be tested through experiments.
When these experiments prove that the theory is wrong, new hypotheses are made and
tested. To quote Bertold Brecht in his play
about Galileo: The aim of science is not to
open the door to infinite wisdom, but to put
a limit to infinite error.
Another characteristic of science is that it
builds on the past, such that it is incremental.

2 2 2 EMBO reports VOL 4 | NO 3 | 2003

This extremely exact Balance of Wisdom was

built at the Institute for the History of
ArabIslamic Sciences according to the
description by Abdarrahmnal-Khzin from
Khorasan in Northeast Persia, who perfected and
described it in the first half of the twelfth century.
Image courtesy of Fuat Sezgin, Institute for the
History of ArabIslamic Sciences, University of
Frankfurt, Germany.

approach an end, as is the case for anatomy,

which was actively studied many years ago,
whereas today this knowledge is mostly
obtained through textbooks.
Scientists have been very successful in
studying specific aspects of the natural
world that are amenable to observation and
experimentation, because the necessary
theoretical and technical tools have been
available; this is true for microbiology and
the discovery of the causative agents of
infectious diseases at the end of the nineteenth century, and for the discovery of vitamins in the first decades of the twentieth
century. Scientists work on simple systems,
which are usually idealized or primitive
models of a real situation. They also work at
a specific level of analysis; for example, the
physics of elementary particles does not
contribute to the interpretation of the mechanism of muscle contraction. To use the
words of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: In my quest
for the secret of life I started my research in
histology. Unsatisfied by the information
that cellular morphology could give me
about life, I turned to physiology. Finding
physiology too complex, I took up pharmacology. Still finding the situation too complicated, I turned to bacteriology. But bacteria
were even too complex, so I descended to
the molecular level, studying chemistry and
physical chemistry. After twenty years
work, I was led to conclude that to understand life we have to descend to the electronic level and to the world of wave
mechanics. But electrons are just electrons
and have no life at all. Evidently on the way I
lost life; it had run out between my fingers.
Szent-Gyorgyi describes todays problems of science: the inability to integrate
results and concepts that come from different approaches and levels of analysis. The
reductionistic approach of most scientists is
to ignore selected facts and to propose a
model that is based on what they consider
to be key observations, which is certainly
useful when the model can be experimentally tested. Biological phenomena are
studied at different levels of organization,
and the theories formulated at each level
can explain only a specific set of facts.
When proceeding from a simple level towards a more complex one, new behaviours emerge. In other words, the whole is
more than the sum of the parts, or different
from the sum of the parts. For example, the
properties of a protein are different from the
sum of the properties of each amino acid
from which it is composed. The properties

2003 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

science & society

v iew point

of biological structures made of macromolecules held together through non-covalent

interactions are different from the sum of
the properties of each macromolecule. The
study of such complex systems in biology
or in other disciplines remains a major
challenge for the future, and may require a
change in approach.

of the natural world are empirical, and scientists offer a scientific explanation for only a
part of them. The traditional knowledge of
non-Western cultures puts empirical observations into a different, larger context. Thus,
in all cultures, we try to harmonize empirical
observations in order to describe nature and
to be able to interpret and predict it. As modern science is reaching its limits when
attempting to explain the inner workings of
the world around us, we should perhaps
remember and re-evaluate the contributions
of other cultures to the understanding of
nature, as the Renaissance scientists did with
the ancient knowledge of the Greek and
Arab scholars.

n this endeavour, we might find it useful to

compare Western science with traditional
knowledge. Whereas Western science
favours reductionist, mechanistic and quantitative methods, traditional knowledge
observes natural phenomena from a global
point of view. These observations are strictly
linked to local culture and to the predominant philosophy. In pre-colonial Africa, specialists knew well the characteristics of the
local climate and soil, and were able to give
expert advice on where and when to grow
crops. They had a precise knowledge of the
tropical flora, and of desert bushes, and
developed a sophisticated classification system of plants into families and groups, based
on their cultural and ritual properties. Mayan
scientists in South America developed a
highly sophisticated calendar through their
observations of the Sun and the stars.
American Indians and Australian aborigines
have gathered an immense amount of biological knowledge based on their observations of nature. The medical theories of the
Yorubas of Nigeria included the concept of
invisible entities causing infectious diseases,
analogous to the bacteria of Western medicine. Science and technology in Africa were
once quite advanced, comparable to
European levels of the time, in the fields of
human and veterinary medicine, agriculture,
food conservation, fermentation, metallurgy
and the preparation of soap and cosmetics
(Mazrui & Ade Ajayi, 1998). Cultures from
all regions of the world have developed a
complex view of nature, rooted in their philosophy, which has led to their understanding and explanation of the natural world. The
traditional knowledge of non-European cultures is the expression of specific ways of living in the world, of a specific relationship
between society and culture, and of a specific approach to the acquisition and construction of knowledge. This knowledge provides
much of the worlds population with the
principal means by which they fulfil their

REFERENCES

Apparatus for distilling rose water. Replica built by

the Institute for the History of ArabIslamic
Sciences, according to a description by the
physician az-Zahrw from the late tenth century
in Muslim Spain. Image courtesy of Fuat Sezgin,
Institute for the History of ArabIslamic Sciences,
University of Frankfurt, Germany.

basic needs. But colonization by Europeans

destroyed much of this indigenous knowledge and replaced it with the European
educational and political system that consequently devalued what was left of it. Slowly,
the importance and influence of traditional
knowledge diminished because of the success of modern science and technology and
the economic power that accompanies it.
For these reasons, the knowledge systems of
other cultures concerning the observation of
nature are all but lost to the Western world.
This is a great loss for modern science.
Although it has attained a dominant position, other knowledge systems do exist, and
we should accept that our understanding
of science is one knowledge system among
many others (Nakashima, 2000). Traditional
knowledge does not divide observations into
different disciplines to the same extent as science, and this more synthetic and holistic
approach may help to develop new paradigms for the observation and study of complex phenomena. Most of our observations

2003 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION

Cattell, J.M. (1914) Correspondence, Science, 39,

154164.
Iaccarino, M. (2000) in Proceedings of the World
Conference on Science, 69 (ed. Cetto, A.M.).
Banson, London, UK.
Iaccarino, M. (2001a) Science and ethics. EMBO
Rep., 2, 747750.
Iaccarino, M. (2001b) A vision for European
science. EMBO Rep., 2, 259262.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. University of Chicago Press,
Illinois, USA.
Mazrui, A.A. & Ade Ajayi J.F. (1998) in Histoire
Gnrale de lAfrique, VIIIA, 697745 (eds
Mazrui, A. & Wondji, C.) UNESCO Publishing,
Paris, France.
Nakashima, D. (2000) In Proceedings of the World
Conference on Science, 442444 (ed. Cetto,
A.M.) Banson, London, UK.
Stent, G.S. (1968) That was molecular biology that
was. Science, 160, 390395.
Stent, G.S. (1974) Molecular biology and
metaphysics. Nature, 248, 779781.
UNESCO/ICSU (1999) Declaration on science
and the use of scientific knowledge.
http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declar
ation_e.htm

This text is an elaboration of a speech given at the

Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences at the Vatican in November 2002.
Maurizio Iaccarino is
Secretary General of
the UNESCO/ICSU
World Conference on
Science and at the
Institute of Genetics
and Biophysics, CNR,
in Naples, Italy.
E-mail: iaccarin@
iigb.na.cnr.it
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.embor781

EMBO reports VOL 4 | NO 3 | 2003 2 2 3