So you think you knew Templeton? A new report.

I realize that there’s a disparity of opinion among my readers about the John Templeton Foundation.  Some, like me, feel that its mission is to blur the boundaries between science and religion, debasing the former and buying off the many scientists whom it supports with its deep pockets.  Others, recognizing that Templeton does support woo, nevertheless see no problem with scientists taking Templeton money for real science—or even accepting the Templeton Prize for Scientists Who Say Nice Things About Religion.

Regardless of your take, you should by all means read a new 23-page report on the Templeton Foundation by Sunny Bains (link goes right to the pdf download). Bains is a journalist and scientist at Imperial College London, and her report was supported by Sam Harris’s Project Reason (I’m on the board of advisors).   I’ll just give her introductory precis, but if you want to comment on the issues, do read the whole paper.  Curiously, it was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology, which of course causes me some cognitive dissonance!

From the first two pages of her report:

For many who do not have a problem with the science/religion agenda of the Foundation, the issue is then one of integrity. Is the Foundation what it says it is? Are its stated goals and its actual goals the same (as judged by who and what it funds)? Does it operate in a transparent and non-corrupt way?

In this commentary, I consider five issues that suggest that the John Templeton Foundation is not what it represents itself to be:

1. The Foundation began as an overtly pro-religious organization. It has since changed its stated aims and goals, and their presentation, in a way that seems calculated to make them appear more “open-minded.” Nevertheless, the Foundation’s agenda—based on its actual activities—
seems to have remained the same.
2. The Foundation’s organizational structure and the awarding of its prizes appears to be rife with cronyism.
3. Respondents to the Foundation’s “Big Questions” (at least those questions with clear links to science) are disproportionately Foundation advisors and grantees, and yet it is implied that they represent a balance in responses.
4. The Foundation finances prestigious external organizations to run its activities, often without making the participants and/or audience aware of who provided the funding.
5. The Foundation and its current chairman, John (Jack) Marks Templeton, Jr., have a history of funding what could be seen as anti-science activities and groups (particularly concerning climate-change and stem-cell research).

_______

Bains, S.  2011.  Commentary: Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation. Evolutionary Psychology 9:92-115.

61 Comments

  1. TheBlackCat
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Has someone made a backup of all the sources, just in case they conveniently disappear or are changed?

    • TheBlackCat
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 9:43 am | Permalink

      I notice from the report they have already tried to erase one inconvenient piece of evidence (John Horgan’s involvement), so I wouldn’t put it past them to do the same for others.

    • Dominic
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      He says in the first footnote “If any of the web pages attached to the links provided are missing or have been changed so that they no longer include the information described here, please go to http://www.sunnybains.com/templeton
      and check to see whether a new source has been supplied. If not, please either leave a comment there or e-mail the author, who will then put the relevant source online.”

      • TheBlackCat
        Posted March 3, 2011 at 10:50 am | Permalink

        I somehow missed the part about putting the relevant sources online.

      • Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:03 am | Permalink

        He says …

        She.

        Many of the links in the article are to archive.org, so those should stay the same. I’m not sure why she didn’t do it for all of them.

        • Dominic
          Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

          Humble apologies! :(

        • Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

          Actually, for more recent versions of the website the webarchive doesn’t exist. I think it’s to do with the way site is built… I would have done them all that way otherwise.

          • Helen Wise
            Posted March 3, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

            That is a lovely job you’ve done on this report.

            • Marella
              Posted March 3, 2011 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

              My only quibble is that “non-corrupt” would have been more gracefully written as “honest”. And clearly it isn’t.

  2. Posted March 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    One knew, I think, that there was something amiss with Templeton, but the depth of its perfidy is much greater than expected — in particular, its cronyism. This is a gang of people devoted to giving themselves prizes for — what? What are they giving themselves prizes for? For being religious? For supporting the aims of the organisation. It must surely be one of the most incestuous “research” organisations around. Just totting up the numbers of advisory board members, or board members who have received funding or prizes is really outrageous. Short odds lottery is right.

    Also troubling is its bias towards right-wing agenda/business items such as its stand on global warming/anti-environmental groups, pro-smoking misinformation, pro-sanctity of life.

    One thing that I did not know before is Charles Taylor’s stand re Salman Rushdie and the idea that blasphemy laws do not limit freedom. Roman Catholic all the way! Disgusting.

    • Kevin
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      It’s all a PR con, designed to make themselves seem much larger and more influential than they are.

      Without Templeton’s deep deep pockets, it would just be the same 10 religious nuts that everyone avoids at parties.

      With Templeton cash, they grant themselves undeserved respect (well, to themselves in any event) and attention in the public arena.

      It’s all a ploy to make religion seem more prominent in scientific circles than it actually is.

  3. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist
    by Moshe Averick

    “In his masterfully constructed section on the Origin of Life, Rabbi Averick has dramatically spiked the ball back into the court of the non-believer.”

    Sounds like Creationism.

    Copies for review available upon request.

    There you go.

    • Insightful Ape
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Bleh. “Atheism takes faith” again. With an endorsement from a right wing talk radio host to boot.
      Boring.

    • Dominic
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      Right back at you Moshe. Because belief in angels & spirits & gods is so non-illusory.
      Huh. Right.

  4. Kevin
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m shocked. SHOCKED!

    …wait…actually, no I’m not.

    Lying for Jeebus, a Christian tradition for more than 2,000 years.

    • Marella
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

      Looks more like lying for pots of money to me!

      • Microraptor
        Posted March 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

        That tradition is even older.

  5. Helen Wise
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Can’t read the report without thinking of Michael Shermer and his association with Templeton. Makes me feel very sad for him, that he does not think of himself as a sell-out to his own brand (skepticism), but can still take their money. But I want to be careful here, else I turn up as an item on Stangroom’s incivility blog (for whom the words, “fuck off” and “Stangroom” will be forever linked. Yeah, thanks, PZ.)

    • Sili
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      but can still take their money.

      Well, he is a Libertarian.

    • Reginald Selkirk
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

      I’m reading the appendix now, p. 114 (PDF page 23) where it discusses the essays edited by Shermer on the question, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?”

      Participants included Cardinal Schoenborn, who notoriously wrote a pro-ID op/ed piece, and Mary Midgley, whose grasp of modern science might generously be termed “tenuous.” (See for example her comments on Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene) If these writers, selected by Shermer, demonstrably have a poor grasp of science, why should I care what they think about the implications of science?

    • Michael Kingsford Gray
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 5:18 am | Permalink

      Shermer is not a Sketptic, he is a Contrarian.

      • Tyro
        Posted March 4, 2011 at 6:55 am | Permalink

        Not sure how serious you’re being but that explains a lot, especially since “contrarian” is used most heavily in finance where Shermer is most dogmatic. Don’t get me wrong, some Libertarians like Radley Balko have well-considered views (especially on civil liberties) and their views should have a much wider audience, but Shermer’s arguments have rarely impressed me.

        • Michael Kingsford Gray
          Posted March 5, 2011 at 1:38 am | Permalink

          I am “dead serious”.
          Shermer has plainly not read his own book: “Why People Believe Weird Things”.

  6. James Robinson
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    I was deeply disappointed today to learn that Chris Mooney has taken Templeton funds in the journalistic category. Isn’t he supposed to be a skeptic?

    • Sili
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      I was deeply disappointed today to learn that Chris Mooney has taken Templeton funds in the journalistic category.

      Hello. Welcome to February 2010.

      Isn’t he supposed to be a skeptic?

      AAHAHASGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

      Oh. You’re not kidding?

      • James Robinson
        Posted March 4, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Thanks Sill. I’m behind, but I’m doing as much as I can to catch up. ;)

    • Aj
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      James

      Over the last several years many people have asked Mr Mooney that exact same question.

      He’s developed a habit for bold assertion, followed by declining to answer any criticism of his claims (though he does have a wonderful talent for promoting his books, whilst blatantly ignoring quite valid questions about them).

    • moseszd
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      Are you trying to be ironic?

      Because if you’re not, and thought he was an honest player, I guess this is your sad awakening to the fact Mooney has demonstrated, for years-and-years now, it’s all about Mooney and his incessant self-promotion.

      So, much like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, most of Fox News, Paris Hilton, Thomas Friedman, these other Templeton-funded losers or a host of other inept personalities whose fame is based on fame rather then being, well, correct based on the merits of insight, fact and logic.

      • moseszd
        Posted March 4, 2011 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        Huh. Hella-screwed up my editing…

        So, anyway, Mooney’s ‘defection’ comes as no surprise to me. There are always people who latch onto causes or issues to make their living. All while demonstrating feet of clay and the ability to blow with the wind.

        One of the most classic examples is David Horowitz, the wing-nut. At one time he was a big-time player on the “New Left” and was a socialist and worked for the Bertram Russell Peace Foundation at one point. When the political winds changed and the new left subsided in importance due to the winding-down of Vietnam, he moved to the right to keep on his ‘activism’ gravy train. Now he’s a Muslim-bashing, pro-war zealot who makes his money from wing-nut think tanks.

  7. Veronica Abbass
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    From page three of the report

    ‘According to the Foundation, “Feeling that the Nobel Prizes overlooked one of humanity’s most important disciplines—spirituality—Templeton established a foundation that funds the prize in perpetuity at a level guaranteed to exceed the Nobel Prizes…”‘

    When did spirituality become a “discipline”?

    • Kevin
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      Well, if you count nuns with rulers…

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        LOL!

    • Aj
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      For that matter, when did “mines bigger than yours” become a mark of spirituality?

    • Posted March 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      What was the name of that chain thing the Silas (Paul Bettany) used on his back in The Da Vinci Code?

    • Posted March 3, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Good spot!

  8. James Robinson
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Shermer is associated with Templeton?
    Brutal! Please say this isn’t so.

    • Jolo
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Shermer is connected, and has been for awhile.

    • Posted March 3, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      They used Shermer’s position in skeptics society to get some glare of openness and objectivity for their organization.
      Shermer probably used them just like a easy cash machine…

    • Tyro
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      Shermer keeps disappointing. I often wonder if it’s because he has the least scientific training of any prominent sceptic, at the very least he doesn’t appreciate his own blind spots.

      • James Robinson
        Posted March 4, 2011 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        Wow. Almost makes want to reconsider my subscription to Skeptic. But, the consciousness raising it performs is well worth the price of admission.

  9. Egbert
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    There is an elephant in the room, and it goes by the name: corruption. I did a little research myself on Templeton months ago, and completely agree with this report. I think a boycott by all scientists and sceptics is essential. Anyone who decides to grab such money must have their integrity questioned.

    • James Robinson
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      Agreed.

    • Tyro
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      There was some discussion about how they hide their involvement so that Dennet was twice tricked into working with them. Once he gave the honorarium to the Brights (his atheistic group), and the second time he refused any money and demanded they remove his name from publications. I figure anyone who would go to those lengths would have passed at the outset had he been aware – I wonder who else has been tricked?

      • Diane G.
        Posted March 3, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Ooh, I hope there will be more sterling examples like that!

  10. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Every time I see a selective list of Templeton Prize winners, I check to see if they mention Chuck Colson.

    Bingo:
    “Charles Colson (winner in 1993) was one of the architects of the plans to spy on the Democratic party that led to the Watergate scandal, and later became a Christian evangelist in prison and founded the Prison Fellowship.”

    All accurate, but they fail to mention that Colson’s evangelical Christianity is of the YEC variety. Sort of takes the shine off the later change in direction to science/religion compatibilism.

  11. Insightful Ape
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    “The evolution of Templeton”. That would be an interesting study.
    Subtitle: How Best to Cover Your Tracks While Corrupting Science.

  12. Tyro
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Some things which disheartened and surprised me:

    * Billy Graham won a Templeton prize

    * V S Ramachandran is on the board of Advisors

    * Shermer thinks (or convinced himself that) the job of a sceptic is to present a diversity of views, not to represent the actual proportions of those views (publish the controversy!)

    • Tyro
      Posted March 3, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Lots more than that of course. Disturbing article all around.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

      Shermer I knew about, but Ramachandran?
      There goes another potential heroe…

  13. Matt G
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    If you asked 100 scientists if they’d rather receive a Nobel Prize or a Templeton Foundation Prize, 95 of them would say “What’s a Templeton Foundation Prize?”

    And how petty is it that their prize is deliberately more money than the Nobel? It’s like begging “Please pay attention to us!”

  14. Helen Wise
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    The most discouraging finding in this report is that the Templeton Foundation has a staggering amount of money. They quite simply have the money to buy the integrity of enough scientists to tip the scales–scientists who will argue, as Shermer does, that they haven’t been bought.

  15. Michael Mills
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    Ironic that Jerry is quoting an article published in Evolutionary Psychology. No doubt the brain/mind is a set of evolved adaptations just as is the body. Keep reading the journal, Jerry. Great cure for cognitive dissonance.

    • Michael Kingsford Gray
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 5:23 am | Permalink

      WTF?

    • moseszd
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      If you had a point, you failed to make it. It could be an affirmation. It could (probably?) be a troll insult.

      • TheBlackCat
        Posted March 4, 2011 at 9:55 am | Permalink

        It’s the latter. From my reading apparently Michael is a bigger fan of evolutionary psychology than Jerry is.

        Michael is using the fact that Jerry cited an article that has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology but happened to be published in an evolutionary psychology journal to criticize Jerry’s opinion on the state of research in evolutionary psychology.

  16. 386sx
    Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    The Nobel prize means something. The Templeton prize… it’s all about the moolah. The ol’ chasharoonie. The green stuff.

  17. MadScientist
    Posted March 4, 2011 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    “The Foundation’s organizational structure and the awarding of its prizes appears to be rife with cronyism.”

    Oh, just like the Ford Foundation? I think that point could have been left out; it doesn’t seem relevant at all.

    I don’t understand the relevance of the global warming denialism (are they claiming that the world cannot be destroyed because the bible says so). I guess I’ll just have to read the report and see.

    Templeton is like many religious agenda groups – for example, “Pro Life”. They happily lie for Jesus while trying to push their own perverse view of the world onto people.

    As for some people saying “It’s OK to take their money”, I’ve found that in some parts of the world the majority of people have no concept of moral principles. And yet, as the ethicist may ask, would those same people be happy taking money from blood diamonds to fund their research? Unfortunately, some people would be quite happy with that situation, though I suspect most people would simply say “but this isn’t blood money, that’s not a fair question.”

    • Aj
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 6:38 am | Permalink

      I’m not really up on the standards for foundations of this kind, but my understanding is that the Templeton organisation does possess some type of tax exempt status.

      The fact that it then disburses these large sums of money to its own members does seem questionable.

    • moseszd
      Posted March 4, 2011 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Oh, just like the Ford Foundation? I think that point could have been left out; it doesn’t seem relevant at all.

      Once you consider how they present themselves and are using the awards, it’s very relevant. It’s like putting the prisoners in charge of the parole board…

  18. radaman
    Posted March 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know, this whole article rubs me the wrong way. The bit about Charles Taylor was superficial and pretty much wrong(I am a graduate school in philosophy and have read Taylor’s work). Point (1) seems like a stretch, and approaches a conspiracy theory.

    In addition, most readers of this article, judging by the responses, are quick to cast off as biased or false research done by any scientist who is merely associated with the templeton foundation. Research should be judged on evidence, not association with a company! The article almost invites this. Again, it should be noted that research is only as good as it’s evidence, not necessarily where it gets its funding from. Too many commentors are losing respect for many intelligent people because of their association with this organization
    .Charles Taylor, Ramachandran, Shermer; all are respectable researchers and thinkers.

    Even if the templeton foundation is biased, most foundations are: including project reason. It’s stated goals are as follows: Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

    • Microraptor
      Posted March 5, 2011 at 1:00 am | Permalink

      Nice idea, but the problem is, Templton’s shady method of doing business means that anything associated with them is automatically going to be held with suspicion. They’ve shown numerous times that scientific integrity and honesty are really not what they’re after, so at this point trusting them is like Charlie Brown thinking that maybe this time Lucy won’t yank the football away.


7 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] original link […]

  2. […] So you think you knew Templeton? A new report. I realize that there’s a disparity of opinion among my readers about the John Templeton Foundation.  Some, like me, […] […]

  3. […] Coyne bad… Religion = Frog Worship. And, of course, Templeton is a 4 letter word. Unsure why there’s so much venom here, because I didn’t think that […]

  4. […] Via Jerry Coyne. […]

  5. […] Jerry Coyne science, […]

  6. […] your research, then simply agree to help the Templeton Foundation.  As Sunny Bains pointed out in her recent report on the organization, it’s not that Templeton always takes its high-performing grantees and makes them members of […]

  7. […] an agenda that Jerry Coyne has written about extensively (some informative examples are here, here, […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30,630 other followers

%d bloggers like this: