It is curious that neuroscience has been a locus of conversation between buddhists and scientists, and a place from which buddhist scientists do research. We find that under its same umbrella there are somehow gentle approaches of exploring our mind alongside the darkest and most aggressive way of researching, with vivisection, or the use animals, at its core. The use of animals, of living beings, in order to get a quick result is widespread in science. It is accepted as a fact. Nevertheless it is the most vivid setting sun expression of aggression towards life. And sadly enough, it is an actual expression of how much science sees the world: a dead collection of elements ready to be grasped and used.
That view can reach unimaginable acts of cruelty that are well documented by many organizations that work on animal rights. Added to that is the actual paradigm of Science, that the observer has no relation whatsoever with what is observed, all this makes science an area ripe with the potential of expressig the solidity of egohoood. It is "my" thesis, it is "my" theory that has to be proved, it is "my way" of seeing things. Also, there are many more aspects that contribute to darken this view, for instance huge commercial and funding pressures that often have a big influence on researchers and their aims.
Nevertheless, not a single word against vivisection has been uttered in those arenas. So, as community, are we aware as that the numbers in a graphic of a scientific paper or its pictures meant the life of a living being? What do we think about this? On one hand, Shambhala Buddhism is a view and practice that has compassion, egolessness, gentleness at its very heart and activity. This non- aggressive approach toward ourselves and our world brings healthiness and peace to every sentient being that has a connection with it. On the other hand, science has a vast variety of approaches regarding how to see and deal with our world.
As Shambhala practitioners we do have an ethical point to view on life and society, and we know this view should be present in all aspects of our society and life, so what to do with Science?
Our aspiration is to bring this issue to the community and to see where this conversation unfolds, in a not so distant future perhaps a Shambhalian way of having science?
Interesting topic, but the antagonism towards science is palpable. Should we "let science into our 'kingdom' ?" Please, this is not 15th Century Tibet. Science is part of our world and offers a beautiful and significant view of the world. No, it is not the only view, but at its very best science complements and augments the view we perceive through our spiritual practice. We can not have a dialog about science that begins with a monologue challenging it. Regarding the "benevolence credential", it really seems to work the other way. Buddhists have sought, in science, validation for their own world view--"See, the MRI of the meditating monk's brain shows how relaxed he is. Cool, Buddhism was right all along!" Yes, unspeakable things have been done in the pursuit of science, but then so have they been done in the pursuit of spirituality and morality. To say that scientist have not seriously addressed profound issues such as vivisection is simply wrong. To say that science is stuck in ego is only a statement of the general samsaric situation--see also "my guru", "my practice", "my 'kingdom' ", "my beliefs". To suggest that a scientist sees herself as completely outside of the observation or experiment misunderstands that view. All scientist are aware of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle--the observer perturbs the outcome. And that is as true in neuroscience as it is in quantum physics.
ReplyDeleteSo let us have a rationale dialog, one informed by fact, wisdom, and compassion. (Full disclosure: have been a practicing scientist for 40 years, and a Buddhist for 25.)
Bruce Gaber
I think the strong tone of this post misses an important point. One of the senior students locally always stresses that karma is about volition, not just "what happens". To that end, I've worked in animal labs (a long time ago!) and I've never encountered anyone who enjoyed injuring an animal. That is not to say that animal experimentation is "okay" - only that people aren't doing it with an intention of cruelty.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, funding drives the experiments that get performed. If I can quote myself, (in my role as science coach) "people don't hit monkeys on the head with hammers because it's bad science or because it's good science - they do it because someone pays them to do it."
So if our concern is about how science is carried out, then I think we have to start with guidelines for how science is funded. That's simple for us now - we don't fund any science - but assuming that we are someday able (and therefore obligated) to consider how we fund science as a society, it seems some recognition of the universality of life has to underpin what we do.
Strictly from a numbers perspective, however, we might also want to look at our dietary habits as a community, if we are concerned about our footprint. I personally suspect that a lot more animals are mistreated and then killed out of ignorance than aggression or passion.
Sergio and Alexis, thank you for raising the issue of how science fits into the Shambhala vision of enlightened society. The questions you pose are interesting. In my mind they could be reframed as three core issues: (1) what is science, (2) is there such a thing as enlightened science, and (3) how does science as an institution fit into an enlightened society.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that you approach these questions from the point of view of ethics. In your first post you particularly explore the ethics of animal research, which obviously is only one small part of the overall scientific activity going on in the world.
As it happens, I had the opportunity, in the mid-1970s, to talk to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, the Druk Sakyong, about this very issue. The context was that I was doing animal research as part of my position on the faculty of the University of Vermont medical school. I had a PhD in Neurophysiology and was training to study the sensory systems of the brain by measuring electrical activity in the brains of cats that were anesthetized. At the end of the experiment (which often lasted more that 12 hours) we administered an overdose of the anesthetic and the cat died. When I became a student of Trungpa Rinpoche in the early 70s, and began studying and practicing, it quickly became evident that ‘scarifying’ animals in this way was not consistent with my emerging Buddhist inspired worldview. Fortunately, the opportunity arose, when he was giving a program at Karme Choling, to ask his advice.
I was struck by how he approached the question. He never told me what do to. Instead, he asked about the research itself and particularly whether it would benefit beings and perhaps alleviate suffering. At the same time he said quite simply “killing beings is not a good idea”. I was left with a clear picture that the decision was mine and that I should make it by balancing all the factors involved and the consequences that would ensue from the decision.
Over the next few days I contemplated the situation. My research was looking into the neural networks involved in sensation. While this might, in the very long run, lead to insights that might be helpful to beings, I was clearly not doing research that could be relatively directly linked to a new treatment that would cure a disease and save many lives. So, I stopped doing animal research.
The point, for me, is that in Shambhala we do not rely upon fixed views about what is ethical and what is not. I once heard the Druk Sakyong say, on this topic, that other spiritual traditions might offer a book with rules about what to do and what not to do, but in buddhism we learn how to make those decisions ourselves, based on the actual situation.
From that point of view you could say that every decision we make in our lives, moment to moment, is an ethical decision, because what we choose to do has consequences. It is also interesting to consider the idea that we are actually conducting a ‘scientific experiment’ with each decision we make; testing our hypothesis about what will be helpful by observing the consequences of our decision and resulting actions.
I look forward to further conversations with you on the full rang of issues you have raised.
Very warmest regards….dave whitehorn (Mountain Drum)
typo correction: sorry; 'scarifying' should be 'sacrificing'.
ReplyDeleteGood morning,
ReplyDeleteIt’s a wonderful surprise that this discussion has started. Thank you very much to Sergio and Alexis for starting it.
I myself studied a Ms. Sc. in Theoretical Physics, then I did another postgraduate in Computer Networks and for many years I have been working and teaching in the area of Telecommunications Engineering. In this area, I have studied a little about social aspects of Technology: Especially authors like Manuel Castells and Paul Virilio. Finally I have been attending a monthly class on “Jacques Lacan and the contemporary thought” for several years now. The work of French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan is very obscure, but when you find somebody that can explain it to you, it is really amazing.
What I learn most interesting, it comes from the work of Jaques Lacan. He stresses the difference between Science and Technology. He said that in this Era, the Technology is ruling the world much more than any social class or group of people. It is a headless movement that perpetuates itself. And it is invading every aspect of human life. Even Science it is more and more subordinated to the needs of Technology rather than being done for social interest or following other kind or principia.
In this, he stands similar positions than Martin Heidegger. It is what has been called “techno-scientific systems”. These systems works in a vicious circle producing trash: trash food, trash TV, trash bonus, trash clothes, even trash universities, etc. It is very interesting the way Lacan explains this vicious circle. It is what he calls the “capitalistic discourse”.
On the other hand, we could think in a new Technology that should be at the service of a new Science (just the opposite that happens now). And these Science should be at the service of the Enlightenment of the society. (And, not both at the service of greed and aggression, as it happen now). For that project we will need, for sure, wisdom, compassion, fearlessness and humor as we learn in the Shambhala teachings.
I would love to hear about other people with the same area of interest. If would be nice to listen from anybody that is following the MIND & SCIENCE meetings with H. H. The Dalai Lama.
Warmly yours,
Eloy Portillo
Madrid Shambhala Center
Eloy.Portillo at gmail.com