MIT’s Episcopal Chaplain talks about her work with scientists and how making scientific discoveries can be spiritual and even holy.
Corie Lok
Religion and science are often portrayed as being at odds with one another. So it may be surprising that since 1964, MIT’s Episcopal chaplaincy has run a regular series of panel discussions on science, technology, and ethics called the Technology and Culture Forum at MIT.
The Reverend Amy McCreath, MIT’s Episcopal Chaplain, spends about half of her time doing traditional campus ministry activities and the other half working with a steering committee of MIT faculty to organize the 15 or so events that occur every year. The forum has covered a wide range of topics, from the controversy over stem cell research and water resources to food production and nuclear technologies.
MIT’s Episcopal Chaplain, Amy McCreath coordinates a forum about science, technology and ethics at MIT.
The Rev. McCreath sat down to talk with Nature Network Boston about her experiences with the forum at MIT.
Why do you coordinate the forum?
The Technology and Culture Forum was started by and has always been organized by the Episcopal Chaplaincy at MIT. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have a very long history of affirming science and engineering, as fruits of works of the mind, as being potentially good things. Thoughtful science and engineering are ways that people can be part of the ongoing work of creation and reconciliation, which we think is really holy work.
So we do the T&C because we want to ask good questions and present options to people who are in science and engineering so that they can think more deeply about the work they do and make good choices about how they use their skills and what kind of work they might want to do. We want to give them a sense that their work is a calling—something that’s meant to have a positive impact on the world.
What was one of the more memorable forums that you’ve organized?
My favorite forum that we’ve done so far was one that was called, “What good is evil?” We brought together a psychopharmacologist, a theologian, and a social commentator to look at this idea of evil, to explore why this concept was suddenly back in the public discourse. This was after September 11 and government officials were using the term “evil” a lot.
So the psychopharmacologist talked about how the brain develops an understanding of what love is and what happens when that breaks down at a neural level. And the theologian talked about evil in terms of western culture.
Bringing together unexpected combinations of people to talk about an issue is what we do best. We’re very consciously generalists and interdisciplinary.
Have you worked with scientists outside of the forum?
Last year we worked in partnership with Drew Endy, who does research in synthetic biology [where researchers build novel cells and organisms using synthesized stretches of DNA] at MIT. Drew was concerned, understandably, that the public might jump to a lot of conclusions if information about this new science wasn’t presented carefully.
So we brought together about 30 people working in biology, but also in other fields, like policy and science, technology, and society studies at MIT for what we called “synthetic teas.”
The goal was for these people to learn from Drew what was happening in synthetic biology and to hear his concerns about possible risks in this new field. And he learned from them how to communicate what he was doing to the public and heard from them what they thought the risks were.
It was a good way to begin the dialogue before going public with this new science. Because of T&C, I know a lot of people at MIT, so I helped Drew bring together people who maybe he didn’t know, but who had the expertise he was looking for.
Some people have some pretty strong opinions about whether science and religion should ever mix or can even co-exist. Have you encountered that kind of attitude at MIT?
When I first came to MIT, I assumed that people would challenge me frequently. I don’t get that. A lot of folks are indifferent. Religion is not a part of their consciousness or their concern. And because T&C reaches out and affirms the good potential of science, they don’t see me necessarily as any kind of threat. It’s not like I say, “Stop the research” or “I oppose all that you stand for.”
It’s important for me to be credible and trusted by the community. If I take a lot of very strong stances on issues, that puts that trust at risk.
How do you relate to scientists and engineers who aren’t religious?
A lot of students at MIT have a certain wonder and awe in how the world works. They take great delight in the physical world and its governing principles. While that’s not necessarily a religious thing, there’s a certain spiritual element to it. They may never call it that, but I would. That’s a great place to connect. Connecting at that level is part of my ministry. I don’t need students to become Christians to be able to have a valuable relationship with them and to play a role in their lives.