Royal Society or Rotten Society?

The hard-line zealots of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institution, finally did for Michael Reiss yesterday.

Reiss was the Society's director of education. He is an evolutionary biologist - and a minister in the Church of England. Last week he went public with his belief that science teachers shouldn't simply dismiss questions from pupils about creationism, but explain why it's not compatible with science.

Reiss made clear that he did not believe in creationism himself, nor believed it should be given equal billing with evolution. It made no difference: within hours, the Royal Society zealots mounted a full-scale character assassination and last night Reiss agreed to step down.

The zealots' point-man was Richard 'Mad Mullah' Dawkins, who compared having "a clergyman" directing education at the Royal Society to "a Monty Python sketch". But the real heavies are known only to

seasoned observers of scientific fundamentalism: Sir Richard Roberts, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir John Sulston, Nobel Prize winners all.

Roberts plunged the knife, firing off a letter to the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, demanding to know "who on earth thought that [Reiss] would be an appropriate director of education?" and describing Reiss's religious occupation as "worrisome".

What many will find worrisome is the intolerance of eminent scientists to the suggestion of engagement with the questions of children. Yet they are far from alone. Fundamentalism is spreading across science, with zealots ready to attack anyone who dares question the accepted teaching - be it the unquestionable importance of animal experiments or the unimpeachable evidence for dramatic global warming.

The motto of Royal Society is 'Nullius in verba' - roughly speaking, take no-one's word for it. Its treatment of Reiss suggests that when it comes to words of dissent, the attitude of the Royal Society is closer to that of a madrassa than a learned body.