1.0          Introduction

In this paper I will deal with the question of science and religion, with reference to Islamic perspectives and frameworks.  The paper will be divided into five sections:

• introduction
• a critique of the Barbour(Barbour, 2000) typology
• a review of the discourse on science and Islam as presented by selected Muslim thinkers, and a characterization of their approaches
• the relevance and use of history in the discourse on science and Islam
• concluding remarks.

I will begin by briefly looking at the discourse on science and religion in the West, using the typology proposed by Ian Barbour, and suggesting that although it might serve as a useful starting point, its application to the issue of science and religion in the Islamic world is problematic, thus necessitating a different framework.

In section two of the paper, I will review the discourse on science and religion/Islam as presented by several selected Muslim thinkers, namely Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Syed Naguib al-Attas, Ziauddin Sardar, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Ismail Faruqi. Although no systematic framework has been developed in the discourse on science and religion in Islam, contemporary Muslim thinkers have developed their own intellectual responses to the issue of science and Islam which can serve as a useful point of reference.  I will classify their responses into three categories, viz.:

• the metaphysical approach: Nasr and Naguib
• the value-ethics approach: Ziauddin Sardar
• the scientific autonomy approach: Hoodbhoy and Abdus Salam

In section three, I will take up the question of the relevance and use of history (of science) in dealing with the question of science and religion in Islam.  The relationship between science and religion in the Muslim world cannot be understood outside of its historical and cultural context, and therefore reference to history is essential in dealing with the issue. Some of the issues dealt with here are:

• misconceptions in the use of history of science in dealing with the question of science and religion
• the historical sociology of science in Islam
• the influence of colonialism on science in the Muslim world
• lessons to be drawn from history, and its relevance to the contemporary world of science in Islam

Finally, I will end the paper with concluding remarks on the following:

• the epistemology of science and religion
• the use of science and technology for development in Islam
• the relevance and use of history

Since the issue is multidimensional, the various salient dimensions as outlined above have to be dealt with, with a view to getting a good grasp of the issues involved in the relationship between science and religion in Islam, and suggesting the way forward.

2.0          Is Ian Barbour’s Typology of the Relationship between Science and Religion Applicable to the Islamic World?

Barbour’s typology, being more sociological rather than historical, cannot be straightforwardly applied to the analysis of the relationship between science and religion in the Islamic world. This is because of the different historical and cultural contexts that existed between science in the western world as compared to science in the Islamic world.  For example, in Barbour’s typology conflict appears as a rather dominant theme; given the history of conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church in the 17^th century, and between Christian theologians and Darwinists in the 19^th century, this makes sense. Thus the metaphor of “warfare” and “battle” used to describe the relationship between science and religion in the west, seems appropriate, given such a background.  Also the victory of the scientists over the theologians/religionists in those two episodes, seemed to seal the fate of religion in its battle with science in the West. This, coupled with the history of increasing secularisation of western society, therefore prompted at least two of the categories postulated by Barbour, namely: (i) conflict and (ii) independence.  The victory of science over religion, and the autonomy of science from religious authority, seems to imply ‘conflict’ and ‘independence’.  However, in Islam no such drastic episodes took place in the relationship between Islam and science in its history.  Although this does not necessarily suggest the total compatibility between Islam and science, with there being no conflict at all, either potentially or in actuality, the ‘disagreement’ or ‘incompatibility’ between the two is of a different nature, and should be approached with a more nuanced analysis that is sensitive to the subtleties of Islamic history.  For instance, instead of a direct conflict between science and Islam, it was suggested that science was ‘marginal’ in medieval Islamic culture and education, i.e. the so-called ‘marginality thesis’ put forward by Von Grunebaum (Lindberg, 1992, p. 173).  This marginality did not entail conflict, but only reflects the priorities in Islamic culture, where religious sciences prevail over the natural sciences.  Also, the rise of science in Islamic civilisation was partly attributed to the Muta’zilite Caliphs such as al-Ma’mun, with their rationalist tendencies. Although it is tempting to draw parallels with the influence of Protestantism on science in the west, such a comparison is flawed in view of the fact that the Muta’zilah was not really a separate religious sect in Islam, unlike Protestantism in Christianity.  What this suggests is that “Patronage” was an important factor in the development, rise and fall of science in Islamic culture, where this patronage is connected to ‘religious ideology’.  This ‘power factor’ in determining the fate of science in Islamic society is something which cannot be analysed using Barbour’s typology.  Also, Barbour’s typology, like Merton’s norms, assumes the distinct identity of science as an autonomous form of knowledge which is not ‘socially constructed’.  Recent literature in the history and sociology of science, however, have shown how the development of science was shaped and influenced by its social and cultural contexts.  Thus, my suggestion is that we work from the historical ground upwards, rather than impose neat sociological categories and impose on the (‘mismatched’?) historical realities.

3.0          Existing Views on the Relationship between Science and Islam by Muslim Writers

The relationship between science and religion has been discussed by both Muslim and non-Muslim writers.  Western scholars have discussed the issue mainly through Ian Barbour’s four-fold typology, and drawing on the works of historians, philosophers and sociologists of science.  In the Islamic world, the discourse on science and Islam have been influenced and dominated by the works of a few Muslim intellectuals namely Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Syed Muhammad Naguib al-Attas, Ziauddin Sardar, Pervez Hoodbhoy, and more generally the late Ismail Faruqi (Shah, 2001).  Any attempt to formulate an Islamic approach to the relationship between science and Islam must therefore begin by acknowledging and discussing the contributions made by these thinkers to the question of the relationship between science and Islam. I have selected the thinkers above because apart from their influence in shaping the discourse, they can also be regarded as representing the major positions in contemporary Islamic thought on science and Islam. I will begin by briefly outlining their respective positions, giving brief commentaries on each one of them, and suggesting how the discourse as a whole can be carried further or whether any policy implications can be drawn from them.

3.1          The Metaphysical/Traditionalist Approach: Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Syed Naguib al-Attas

Both Nasr (Nasr, 1981) and Naguib (al-Attas, 1989) priviledge Islamic philosophy and metaphysics when dealing with knowledge, including scientific knowledge.  Nasr is more familiar with modern science compared to Naguib, having been educated in physics and geophysics at Harvard in the 1950s.

However, the epistemological position they took when discussing scientific knowledge, is almost similar. This is because of their commitment to Islamic metaphysics and cosmology, through which they view scientific knowledge. They can be considered as ‘globalists’ in their approach to scientific knowledge because they conduct their analysis mainly at the general epistemological level rather than dealing with specific issues in science, or with any specific scientific theory. Even when Nasr deals with the biological theory of evolution, the arguments made are philosophical rather than scientific, unlike the approach taken by someone like Harun Yahya for instance.  Thus both of them consider science as a ‘lower form of knowledge’ based on rational and empirical sources only, in contrast to the ‘higher forms of knowledge’ accessible through religious intuition, gnosis or Irfan. Therefore, the knowledge of the Prophets and the Saints would be of a higher order compared to that of scientists.

Nasr calls himself a ‘Traditionalist’ on this account because he would not accede to the claim that modern science has advanced beyond religion in giving us ultimate truths about the world, including the natural world. Instead, Nasr sticks to his guns and preserve the authority of the Qur’an and the Hadith (as he interprets them) even in the face of modern challenges from science and technology. His uncompromising and unapologetic position against the theory of evolution in the face of scientific orthodoxy can be understood against this background.  The upshot of their metaphysical approach to knowledge is that they are able to preserve traditional beliefs in the ‘supernatural’ or Unseen worlds such as the world of angels and jinn, which modern science has written off or suspended belief in.  Instead, they returned to traditional sources and traditional interpretations of reality as understood by earlier Muslim thinkers especially the Sufis, instead of ‘going with the times’.  Unlike the approach taken by some writers such as Frithoj Capra (Capra, 1976), who attempted to engage with both modern science (quantum physics) and traditional cosmologies such as Taoism, and in a sense ‘updating’ the traditional cosmology through a modern scientific interpretation, Nasr chose to opt for a ‘Traditionalist’ (Jahanbegloo & Nasr, 2010) approach and avoided such engagements. His own autobiography revealed the conscious decision he took in this matter, when he was a physics student at Harvard.  Now, the question is: is there an unbridgeable gulf between the two or is a rapprochement possible?  For Nasr a rapprochement does not seem possible because science and religion are based on different premises regarding the nature of reality.  In science reality is ultimately physical, and that the only sources of valid knowledge are the rational and the empirical. In western thought, this issue has been more or less clinched by Immanuel Kant in the 18^th century, when he rejected the possibility of metaphysical knowledge in his Critique of Pure Reason.  Since then, western thought has imposed boundaries on genuine or valid knowledge, more or less along the lines set out by Kant and later revised by the Logical Positivists.  Even when Wittgenstein in his later work, tried to rescue non-scientific discourse from being consigned to the flames and the realm of the ‘meaningless’, he ended up by giving a secular humanistic account in terms of ‘language games’.  In other words, the west has not been able to re-assign the realm of the spiritual back into mainstream intellectual discourse (note the writings of Rorty (1999) for instance), while in the Islamic world following Al-Ghazali, the spiritual and metaphysical realm has remained cognitively respectable even today.

3.2          The Ethical Approach by Ziauddin Sardar

Unlike Nasr and Naguib, who chose to view science through Islamic metaphysics, Sardar (Sardar, 1977) instead looks at science through Islamic ethics.  Familiar with western critiques of science, Sardar adds to the growing dissenting voices against science in the west, but by bringing in his own Islamic background and perspective into the picture.  In the 1970s, critics of science—apart from philosophical critiques by Kuhn, Feyerabend and the Edinburgh School—point to the damage caused by science and technology to the environment though industrial pollution, to human security through the nuclear arms race, and the dangers of a ‘brave new world’ brought about by advances such as ‘human cloning’.

Sardar’s diagnosis is that the ills of modern science results from the fact that it is a by- product of a secular western civilisation that has abandoned religion and religious values in the transition from medievalism to modernity.  The solution therefore, is not to reject science but to envelop it within an Islamic value-system, so that science can be practised according to Islamic values and hence be of benefit to humanity.  Sardar begins by criticising the notion that science and technology are ‘value-free’.  To him, science and technology are not value-free but are infused by values adopted throughout western history and civilisation such as the Enlightenment, Capitalism etc.  These values which are ‘man-made’, in contrast to a divinely-inspired value-system, could not deliver men out of his ills.  Thus despite the promise heralded in the Baconian vison of the 17^th century of human salvation on earth through advances in science and technology, and the Enlightenment ideal of a rational approach to life and thought, we have not seen a better world despite advances in scientific knowledge and modern technology.  Sardar’s argument and solution is that since science is not value-free (both in a descriptive and a normative sense), it is best if science is practised according to Islamic ethics which is universal since Islam is a universal religion for the whole of mankind. He outlined several of these ethical principles such as justice, conservation, balance, avoidance of wastage etc, which could act as guiding ethical principles in the practice of science and technology.  The advantage of Sardar’s approach for Muslims is that he does not advocate turning away from modern science and technology, which the metaphysical approach indirectly does.  Although critical of science like his other western colleague, Jerome Ravetz, Sardar still entertains the hope that science re-directed can be harnessed for a better world.

In so doing, his approach also helps Muslims to cope with modernity by accommodating science within the Islamic value-system.  Although Sardar’s approach remains programmatic and lacking in details (eg. ‘what does an Islamic science policy look like?’), it is hopeful in that it allows for the retention of an Islamic identity in the attempt made by Muslim societies to modernise through science and technology. In fact he was quite critical of Nasr’s approach to modern science and technology, which he regarded as not quite useful in practical terms given the backwardness of Muslim countries in science and technology in relation to the West, and how this has hampered the Muslim Ummah and was partly responsible for its history of being colonised.

3.3          The Scientific Autonomy Approach: Pervez Hoodbhoy and Abdus Salam

If Zia Sardar was considered a radical by some, it is more so with Pervez Hoodbhoy (Hoodbhoy, 1992), who in his book Science and Islam, advocated for autonomy of science from control by Islamic religious authority.  Hoodbhoy drew his inspiration from the history of science in western civilisation, although he was equally aware of the history of science in Islamic civilisation.

In the west, science and scientists had to go through a long history of struggle against religious authority, before it finally became independent from religious control. This was symbolised and epitomised by the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church in the 17^th century. Although this was not the whole story, since religion was also a factor in the rise of modern science in the west as shown in the Merton thesis and in the institutionalisation of science in religiously-controlled medieval European universities, it cannot be denied that the advancement of science took place amidst a secularising European society, where the support from the secular state enabled science to operate quite freely, though now under the control of a secular state authority. In Islam, because of its all-encompassing nature, secularisation has never really taken root in Islamic society.  Thus no sphere of modern life, be it political, economic, legal, educational, or even cultural, can be totally free of religious injunction or authority.

Hoodbhoy himself when writing his book, personally experienced this when there was an attempt to revive “Islamic Science” and to “Islamise” science, when Pakistan was ruled by the Islamist General Zia ul-Haq.  Hoodbhoy regarded any attempt at what he considered as ‘religious interference’ in the development of science, as unwarranted and even detrimental to the Muslim cause.  To him the problem is not that science is “un-Islamic”, or at odds with Islam in certain respects. The problem rather, is contemporary Muslim backwardness in science and technology in relation to the west and other advanced countries such as Japan and South Korea.  This sentiment is shared by his mentor, ironically the rather religious Abdus Salam (Salam, 1984), and I believe most aspiring modern Muslim governments today.  But Hoodbhoy does not want to cut himself off totally from his Islamic roots, citing the pre-eminence of Muslim science in the past in support of the argument that science and Islam are not necessarily incompatible.  However, he was aware of the rationalist ideology of the Mu’tazilah, whom he credited for the support they gave to science in Islamic civilisation that led to its pre-eminence. That same spirit, he believed, should be exercised in our age.

Thus it is not Islam per se that is to be blamed for the decline of science in Islam, but instead the attitude adopted by certain Muslim thinkers and leaders, that have been responsible for the current malaise. What is needed therefore, is an ‘enlightened’ Islamic approach to modernity, including science and technology. It smacks of a ‘missed Protestantism’ in Islamic history, and suggests remedial action along those lines.

4.0          Science and Islam and the Challenge of History: The Social and Cultural Context of Science in Islam

The relationship between science and Islam cannot be properly understood outside of its historical and cultural context (Dallal, 2010).  Even then, the history of science in Islam needs to be properly interpreted in order to draw the right lessons, thus making history relevant for contemporary science policy in the Muslim world.  Science and technology policy in the contemporary world is heavily influenced by western models, such as the OECD models, namely the so-called Oslo and Frascati Manuals, which in turn is based on a different historical experience, and tied to a certain view of economic growth. It is more relevant to western countries that have achieved a high level of economic growth based on the K-Economy with substantial inputs from R&D.  Muslim countries would do well to reflect on their own historical experience in the relation between science and Islam, instead of slavishly imitating the west.

Even if Muslim countries succeed in achieving similar success by adopting those models, it might be at the expense of cultural stability and authenticity based on Islamic values.  Thus it is important for Muslims to understand the historical challenge in charting their own paths towards modernity, through the incorporation or assimilation of science and technology.  In this regard, we cannot strictly separate the thematic from the historical/chronological, the synchronic from the diachronic, because the past is still very much with us. We carry a greater historical and cultural baggage as compared to the west, which has discarded much of that baggage throughout its history.

In trying to draw positive lessons from history, I will first begin by discussing what I construe as the ‘misinterpretations’ of history, or the ‘wrong’ lessons that have sometimes been drawn from history, in thinking about the role of science in contemporary Muslim society.

1)            Firstly, there is the tendency to ‘glorify’ past Muslim achievements in science and technology, perhaps as a reminder of what Muslims were capable of in the past, and thereby act as a psychological motivator in the attempt to revive science and technology in today’s Muslim world.  However, despite its nobility, it conceals more than it reveals.  It conceals the actual status of science in medieval Islam (marginality thesis), and the role played by rationalist Muta’zilah caliphs such as al-Ma’mun in the propagation of science in Muslim society.  Are contemporary Muslims willing to abandon or change some of its conservatism, to promote science and technology?

2)            Secondly, the glory of Islamic science was achieved through the works of individual scientists such as Ibn Sina, Ibn Haytham, Al-Khwarizmi and others (Nasr, 1968).  Science was not institutionalised in Islam, and thus there was no continuity in the development of science after them.  Also, the ‘great individual scientist’ model is no longer appropriate in today’s “Big Science” which is capital-intensive and based on teamwork.  So what works for science in the Muslim world in the past is not necessarily what works today.

3)            Thirdly, the role of colonialism in Islamic history has not been adequately and properly factored in, when considering the relationship between science and Islam.  The effects of colonization are so deep in the Muslim world so that institutions and scientific activities carried out in the Islamic world today is the extension of the colonial heritage rather than the Islamic.  Scientific institutions in most of the developing world today is a legacy of the colonialists. Although in terms of history, we are proud of the glorious days of science in Islamic civilization, but the fact is that scientific institutions as well as various other institutions that we have inherited after independence are a legacy of colonial rule. Although we cannot turn the clock back and resume from where we had left before colonial rule, it does present a challenge if want to rethink the science-Islam relationship.  Colonial influence is not necessarily intrinsically bad, especially since if we realise that western science owes to Islamic civilization in its revival in the 12^th century through translation works from Arabic to Latin, via Spain and Sicily.  Science in today’s Muslim world has been subjected more to nationalistic concerns, rather than the Islamic, as a result of post-colonialism.  Therefore in order to relate Islam to science in the present Muslim world in practical terms, this has to be done in the context of nation-states rather than in terms of some abstract “Islamic or Muslim world”.  The OIC can perhaps act as a bridge or starting point in this respect, since it is an organization of nation-states with Muslim majorities.

Thus history has to be properly understood and interpreted in order for it to serve as a guiding light in articulating a genuine and authentic Islamic response and science policy for the contemporary Muslim world.  The social and cultural conditions existing then, and how it contributed to past success in Islamic science, must not be assumed as equally valid in today’s world.  The historical colonial experience and its effect on the Muslim world also has to be understood.  Thus while history might serve as an encouragement for Muslims trying to develop their own science and technology in today’s world, they must also learn to draw the right lessons from history if that success were not to remain purely historical.

5.0          Concluding Remarks

My concluding remarks will refer to the following three major points, namely:

• the epistemology of science and religion
• the use of science and technology for development, and
• the relevance and use of history.

The epistemology of science and religion.  Broadly speaking, as forms of knowledge, they are based on different assumptions, methodologies, scope, and purpose.  Their overlap, if any, is partial and may or may not result in conflicting claims.  In areas where they do not overlap, for example in the realm of morals and ethics that is mostly the province of religion rather than science, one turns to religion for guidance rather than science.  However, there are cases where the application of religious principles and moral codes would require an understanding of science if it involves technical issues such as reproductive technology (bioethics).  Claims made by religion with respect to the spiritual realm and the Unseen world, are ontological claims, which cannot be verified by or through science.  However, it is belief in these realities that underwrite the moral and social codes of Islamic societies.  To me, it is best to keep an ‘open dialogue’ regarding these issues, rather than make any dogmatic pronouncements. It could be more enlightening as it could open up more vistas of understanding that is hitherto unknown.  In any case, science is ‘fallible knowledge’ (Popper, 1972) and makes no claim to absolute truth.  The history of science has shown that our scientific understanding of the world has changed over the centuries, with there being no ‘ontological convergence’.  In any case, with regard to knowledge regarding the metaphysical world, science can best be looked at as being ‘agnostic’ rather than ‘antagonistic’ regarding such metaphysical knowledge.  One is therefore entitled to believe in both science and religion without there necessarily being any deep or irreconcilable conflict.  The belief in the reality of the spiritual world however, should not be used as an excuse for rejecting the pursuit of scientific knowledge, given that we have delimited the boundaries of science in relation to religion.  Furthermore, Islam encourages its followers to seek knowledge of the world, conceived as God’s creation.  Here one can draw upon the examples of past Muslim scientists who were at home in both science and Islam.

The Use of Science and Technology for Development.  Muslim thinkers such as Zia Sardar (Sardar, Explorations in Islamic Science, 1988), or even government policy makers in Muslim countries, have correctly pointed out that weaknesses in science and technology have been partly responsible for the current ‘backwardness’ of the Muslim Ummah.  In so agreeing, I am not thereby adopting a totally ‘modernist’ perspective with respect to religion and development, but acknowledging contemporary realities.  Islam was successful and respected in the past because of its political, economic, scientific, and military strength, not weakness.  That strength enabled Islam to flourish throughout the world.  Present-day Muslims therefore, cannot afford to ignore modern science and technology, for its own survival as a Muslim Ummah.  The spiritual strength of the Muslim must be supported and accompanied by its material strength acquired through science and technology.  However, the pursuit of modern science and technology must be guided by Islamic values and ethics to ensure that in the long run, science and technology will serve humanity and the Muslim Ummah, and not lead to its eventual destruction, which is a real possibility looking at the way the west is using its science and technology within the framework of Capitalism.  In fact even the capitalistic world had to resort to ‘regulatory measures’ based ultimately on some moral or ethical values, in order to ensure sustainability.

The Relevance and Use of History.  The question of the relationship between science and Islam should not be viewed in an ahistorical manner, because the relationship has been shaped by history which would therefore require a historical understanding in order to suggest the way forward.  History is also important because it gives a sense of Islamic identity in our attempt to relate science and Islam. Otherwise we would be caught up in existing frameworks of analysis, largely emanating from the west who has managed to universalise their own history, and provincialise the rest.  However, in our attempt to utilise history in order to achieve an accurate understanding of the relationship between science and Islam, we must be cautious not to fall into the trap of nostalgia and jingoism.  We should approach history with a sense of realism, and not as a means of psychological cover for our present weakness and inadequacies.  Knowing where we came from (through historical understanding), we would be in a better position to understand the situation we are currently in, which would then make us better informed when thinking of strategies on how to move ahead.  History is also important for another reason; that the past is still very much in our present—even in a modified form—and dealing with history is in a way dealing with an aspect of contemporary reality.  However, we also have to learn how to move on from the past and chart a new future which is somehow reconciled with its past, and for that we need a new creativity and a new energy. The challenge is therefore for us, contemporary Muslim thinkers, to help chart out that new future for the Islamic world.

References

Al-Attas, S. M. (1989). Islam and the Philosophy of Science. Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation.

Barbour, I. G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion; Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? New York: Harper Collins.

Capra, F. (1976). The Tao of Physics. Suffolk: Fontana/Collins.

Dallal, A. (2010). Islam, Science, and the Challenge of History. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hoodbhoy, P. (1992). Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality. Kuala Lumpur: S. Abdul Majeed & Co.

Jahanbegloo, R., & Nasr, S. H. (2010). In Search of the Sacred. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.

Lindberg, D. (1992). The Beginnings of Western Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nasr, S. H. (1968). Science and Civilisation in Islam. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Nasr, S. H. (1981). Knowledge and the Sacred. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Popper, K. (1972). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin Books.

Salam, A. (1984). Ideals and Realities. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Sardar, Z. (1977). Science, Technology, and Development in the Muslim World. London: Croom Helm.

Sardar, Z. (1988). Explorations in Islamic Science. London: Mansell.

Shah, M. H. (2001). Contemporary Muslim Intellectuals and Their Responses to Modern Science and Technology. Studies in Contemporary Islam, 3(2), 1-30.

Prof Mohd Hazim Shah began his career as a tutor in History and Philosohy of Science, under the Dean’s Office of the Faculty of Science, University of Malaya in 1977. He is currently the Deputy President of the Malaysian Social Science Association.

After the first industrial revolution on the 16th Century, the world needed a workforce to fill the assembly lines and factory floors that were coming up every day. In response to the need for this workforce, the ‘industrial’ model of school and learning was created. In the Industrial model of the school, learning was teacher-driven, curriculum was focused on creating a large number of (somewhat) equally literate pupil, and conformity rather than individuality was emphasized. This model served and fed the industrial revolution very well.

As the age of science dawned in the 18th and 19th century in Europe, the industrial model of education was found to be deeply and inherently lacking. Unravelling the mysteries of science and addressing challenges required an archetype of a learner who could passionately follow his or her instincts, was deeply curious, and did not ‘conform.’ Eversince, the world has been in search of a system of science teaching, tailored to create thinkers, inquirers, and discovers, needed to fuel the scientific revolution of the day.

There is a global interest in improving science learning and promoting inquiry based science education (IBSE). IBSE approaches focus on student inquiry as the driving force for learning. Teaching is organised around questions and problems in a highly student-centered inquiry process. In IBSE, students learn through and about scientific inquiry rather than by teachers presenting scientific content knowledge.

The evolution of an idea

The idea of inquiry based education originated in the United States in 1992, when Leon Lederman – a Nobel Laureate (1988) – launched ‘Hands on’ – a science education program in Chicago. This was picked up by the French Académie des Sciences, in 1996, and they started their program “La main à la pâte, (LAMAP),” which is currently one of the biggest IBSE programs in the world. LAMAP expanded its activities in more than 50 countries around the world. LAMAP comprises a series of modules, each dealing with a particular topic and related natural phenomena. For example, a waste module highlights the problem of waste produced by human activities and different possibilities of processing this waste. An energy module encourages students to design experiments, to highlight the different sources and forms of energy such as wind, sun, and falling objects,etc.

The Australian Academy of Sciences also runs a a very successful program for IBSE. The program is called primary connections. Primary connections links science with literacy. I had the pleasure to visit one school adopting this program last October. It is amazing to watch the second and third year primary students performing very simple and naive experiments. For example, second year students were given worms and they were observing its activity when kept in room temperature compared to those kept in a fridge. In another experiment fourth year students were observing the change in the size of a stick as the sun moved. The joy children showed when they explained to us the experiments and their results, was untold. The program increases teacher confidence and competence in linking science with literacy, increases the awareness of science and engagement with learning for all students, and it also links schools, parents, and the community. The crucial element is the availability of qualified teachers to deliver on the goals on the programmes.

Such programs enable the students to discover the beauty of science and help them discover their abilities. They also inspire and motivate those who often find science boring in the classroom to learn and know using experience rather than reading. Bruce Albert, the former Editor in Chief of Science and President of American Association of Advancement of Science once noted the irony: “the penalties for “failing” schools in my home state of California are tragically wrong: Students who struggle with reading or math, are given double periods of reading or math drill, and the very set of activities that could excite them about school, is eliminated.”

IBSE in the Islamic World

Inquiry based science education, is not very commonly used within the Muslim World, primarily because of lack of appropriately qualified teachers, but also a lack of emphasis in these societies on science, in general. There are a few examples, such as, Malaysia which currently runs the Science Education Programme (SEP) of the International Academies Panel.

Pakistan is another example of an Islamic country which started an IBSE-LAMP program . It is a cooperation between Pakistan Science

Primary grade Arab science students at work

Foundation (PSF) and the French Académie des Sciences and the French embassy in Islamabad. This program includes training of teachers of 27 schools by French experts. The trained teachers act as trainers for other Pakistani teachers in other schools and they start applying IBSE methods in their own schools.

In Malaysia, Science programs are deemed less attractive compared to other education pathways, such as the Arts. Over time, Malaysia has recognized that IBSE at primary level, is the way to increase the number of students in science pathways at secondary and tertiary levels, in order to meet the ambitious target of scientists and engineers that Malaysia has set for itself.

But still, the successful examples of IBSE in developing countries, generally, and in Islamic world, in particular, are very few and not highlighted as they should be. Dato Lee Yee Cheong, the Chair of SEP Program of the Inter Academies Panel (IAP) noted in his remarks, at the Conference of African European Mediterranean Academies for Science Education in Rome last May that, “IBSE is not doing well in developing countries, due to inability to engage the ministries of education fully in the program.”

Malaysian students indulge in IBSE

Gateway to progress

No doubt, that science is able to create a better world. To exert its role, there must be a better understanding of science in the society. It has been proven that IBSE improves science literacy of school pupils. It enables them to both question and doubt thereby teaching curiosity. IBSE instills the willingness to explore new ideas and reliance on evidence and logic.

Despite this, though, IBSE is still not well recognized in the Islamic world, may be due to reluctance to change in the society and disinclination of governments. Islamic countries should capture the opportunities and expand applying IBSE programs in its primary and secondary schools.

If we want to develop, we must change. Improving science education is the only gateway for development in the Islamic world.

Sameh Soror is associate professor at faculty of pharmacy, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt, the current co-chair of the global young academy and serves as a member of the global council of IAP science education program (SEP).

References:

1. http://www.globalyoungacademy.net
2. http://www.pathwayuk.org.uk/what-is-ibse.html
3. http://www.fondation-lamap.org
4. https://www.primaryconnections.org.au
5. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=21563
6. http://www.interacademies.net/Activities/Projects/12250/18276.aspx
7. http://www.psf.gov.pk/lamap.php
8. http://www.myforesight.my/download/myforesight7.pdf

*The images are courtesy the writer

UNITED States President Barack Obama’s visit this weekend is testimony to the friendship he shares with our prime minister and marks the first hospitality extended by Malaysia to America’s chief executive since Lyndon B. Johnson touched down in our then-fledgling nation 48 years ago.

In the words of Malaysian special envoy to the US, Datuk Seri Jamaluddin Jarjis: “We have long waited for the US president, and Malaysia is ready to show him what we have.”

The president has made laudable overtures to Muslim-majority countries since the beginning of his first term, articulating his vision most famously on a trip to Cairo in 2009.

As he told Cairo University students that year, he seeks “a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Obama also eloquently recognised “civilisation’s debt to Islam”.

“It was Islam,” he said, “at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

The “Golden Age of Islamic Civilisation” referred to by Obama lasted about 1,000 years — from the 7th to the 17th century — and spanned a territory from southern Spain to China.

Sadly, the 57 Muslim-majority member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) are among the poorest in the world today and lag behind in science, technology and innovation (STI), the engine that drives prosperity.

Only two countries in the OIC, namely Malaysia and Turkey, spend more than one per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on research and development; the majority spend less than 0.5 per cent. And support to develop our societies’ skills in Science, Technology, Engineering and Technology (STEM) is woefully low.

In his Cairo speech, Obama pledged help: “We will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We’ll open centres of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programmes that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitise records, clean water, grow new crops.”

Very welcome words, indeed.

On engaging the West — and America in particular — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad offers these insights: “The relationship between the Islamic world and the West has never been cordial. From the time of the Crusades to the present Palestinian conflict, there have been disagreements and even open confrontations between the Islamic world and the West. There’s much to be gained from some degree of understanding between the two.”

According to Dr Mahathir, “true Muslim values and practices can contribute something towards arresting the moral decay in the West. On the other hand, there are also so many things in the West which can contribute to the development of the Muslim world”.

These contributions include assistance in maximising the application of STI in economic development and in adopting best practices drawn from the experience of Western education systems.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has fostered these beneficial relationships between the West and Malaysia throughout his premiership.

In May 2011, for example, he established the Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council (GSAIC) for Malaysia with the assistance of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT).

Based in New York, the GSIAC includes eminent scientists, captains of industry and policymakers from around the world whose aim is to demonstrate in Malaysia the sustainable development of an emerging economy nation through such tactics as improving STI capabilities and promoting multilateral trade and investment.

In another major move, during MIGHT’s 20th anniversary last November, Najib announced the Science to Action (S2A) Initiative, intensifying efforts to apply science and technology to national development and the people’s wellbeing, in line with the New Economic Model and the Economic Transformation Programme.

In accordance with the Government Transformation Programme, a new mode of science governance will also be adopted.

“The ability to create, distribute and exploit knowledge through science, technology and entrepreneurship has become a major source of competitive advantage, wealth creation and improvements in the quality of life,” Najib observed.

A start has been made by the scientific community here in engaging our US counterparts in science, technology and innovation. However, our mutual aspirations have not been fully realised and it is hoped that during the president’s visit this weekend these ambitions can be translated into highly tangible near-term outcomes.

The writer is the Science Advisor to Malaysia’s Prime Minister.

Source: NewStraitsTimes

Science Adviser to the Prime Minister of Malaysia

For Malaysia, the past three decades have been a period of rapid and sustained growth. Measuring growth with the traditional Gross Domestic Product yardstick, Malaysia’s economy has increased more than a hundredfold. Over the past four decades, we have averaged nearly 7% annual growth. Poverty rates have fallen from 49%, to less than 4%. Per-capita GDP has risen from US$370, to more than US$9,000.

This growth has been matched by a fundamental change in the structure of our economy. Like many Asian countries, we have moved from a basis of agriculture and raw commodities to a multi-sector economy, driven by services and manufacturing. The New Economic Model, introduced by Prime Minister Najib in 2010, focused on three key principles which include high income, inclusiveness and sustainability. These three principles, will drive our progress towards a fully developed nation; a competitive economy, strategically positioned in the region and global landscape, environmentally sustainable and offering a high quality of life.

Malaysia is also a country of 28 million people in South-east Asia comprising of a diversity of races, cultures and religions. We would like to think ourselves as moderates, a trait that is fast disappearing in today’s polarised society. In fact, Prime Minister Najib has put forward the concept of the Global Movement of the Moderates, in which he urged, that the moderates of this world take a lead in creating a peaceful and prosperous world in the 21st century.

However, prosperity is also dependent on economic well-being. It is the Prime Minister’s goal to dramatically improve economic development in Malaysia, ensuring that it becomes a fully-developed country by 2020. But he also recognizes that in today’s knowledge-based economy, the role of science is sacrosanct.

When I became his Science Adviser two years ago, one of his early instructions was for me to set up an international mechanism, to advise him on the role of science, technology and innovation as an engine of economic development – sort of his “kitchen cabinet’. He however prefers “out of the box” advice that one normally does not get from the Academy of Sciences, which we have in many places.

Prime Minister Najib wanted an unconventional group of people, that would deliver pragmatic advice – the sort of eminent individuals who sit in the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) President’s Council. This is the background for establishing the “Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council (GSIAC)”, comprising of members from the Academy’s Council and cabinet members and senior corporate figures, from Malaysia. The council is chaired by the Prime Minister Najib himself.

Zakri at Nobelist Mindset Program

The objectives of the Council include, providing advice on Malaysia’s aspirations of being a high income country through wealth creation and societal well-being, benchmarking Malaysia’s ranking and competitiveness in Science and Innovation against technologically advanced countries and improving Malaysia’s capabilities in Science, Technology and Innovation.

GSIAC is also aimed to generate and increase bilateral trade and investment value for short, medium, and long term timeline. The Council is deemed a crucial added value, to the efforts of the Malaysian Government, to make a quantum jump from middle-income country, to a high-income economy, by the year 2020.

Under the Malaysian Biomass initiative, one of the innovative project that has been identified, is to convert the waste to wealth. It involves maximising the yield and economic benefits of palm oil industry, including development of palm oil biomass, to improve both the national environment and economy, by moving towards production of high value green chemicals (HVGC). A Public-Private Partnership involving Malaysian companies, has been established to develop the industry, which could generate revenue, new jobs and reducing carbon emission to propel Malaysia towards a low carbon economy.

Among the other innovative projects that have been identified, is the creation of a model “Smart City” and “Smart Village,” in which an integrated system of information and other technologies will help maximise the efficiency of the community’s resource use and minimize waste. The Council has identified Iskandar Malaysia as the greenfield area for the Smart City initiative, since it is still in its developing stages and provide abundant opportunities for players to deploy the Smart City initiative.

Zakri at the National Entreprenership eEducators Forum 2012

Currently, Iskandar Malaysia is on track to becoming a strong and sustainable metropolis of international standing. Meanwhile, the Smart Village initiative is designed to empower and connect communities in rural areas through science and technology, including, socio-economic growth that matches the urban standard of living. The Council endorsed “Rimbunan Kaseh,” as the smart village model for Malaysia.

The teaching of Science, Technology, Science, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), is also one of the focus for the Council. It is a critical area for any country to be competent in, if it aspires to be technologically-advanced. Prime Minister Najib invited the Academy to help with this, because he understands the importance of the STEM pipeline and how it impacts the community at large.

Prime Minister Najib recognizes the expertise of the Academy and had requested the Academy to oversee an evaluation of the Malaysian educational system, from kindergarten to graduate school, and the country’s public research assets. We are also working with the Academy, and the Academy partners like the State University of New York, to implement specific interventions to build our “Cradle to Career” programs. The Academy’s programs in Malaysia – in areas ranging from Nutrition Science collaboration to Cradle-to-Career interventions, like the Nobelist Mindset Project – are incorporated into a comprehensive approach, that will help the Malaysian research community build its own human capacity, through this pipeline model. To date, the Nobelist Mindset program has begun to garner attention from countries such as Australia and South Africa.

GSIAC group

Besides New York, the Council also met in the San Francisco, California last year. During the meeting, a special session on “STI Strategies of Innovation Driven Companies” was discussed. It is quite obvious, that for any company to progress further, it needs to innovate and reinvent itself. These include the effort to inculcate the Silicon Valley culture of “Innovate or Perish”. The key to this must be to encourage the Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), to venture into the new potential growth areas, where returns on investments are multi-folds. This also will include the increase number of new technology-based companies or “start-ups”, especially among young scientists and entrepreneurs, from both genders.

Realizing that science is the essential fuels for the economy, Prime Minister Najib launched the Science to Action (S2A) Initiative on 1 November last year. The S2A is the latest initiative of Prime Minister Najib, to intensify the application of science and technology for industry development, people’s well-being and governance of science, technology and industry that aligns to the New Economic Model. The S2A initiative is made up of three key components: Science to Industry, Science to Well-Being and Science to Governance.

In a nutshell, the unique partnership with the formation of GSIAC, is also a form of social network, which is a key to scientific innovation. The partnership in GSIAC, is emblematic of the academic, industry, and government sectors to establish multilateral partnerships, to increase the impact of their strategic initiatives. The challenges and opportunities of the globalized world are so complex, that only multi-stakeholder efforts are seen as robust enough to achieve our common objectives.