Wired Magazine has an article that explores an intriguing question that has attracted some recently -- does meditation affect a person’s neurological activity? This question is at the heart of a controversy that involves a recent appearance by the Dalai Lama at a neuroscience academic conference:

[Richard Davidson, a prominent neuroscience professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison]’s research created a stir among brain scientists when his results suggested that, in the course of meditating for tens of thousands of hours, the monks had actually altered the structure and function of their brains.

The professor thought the Dalai Lama would make an interesting guest speaker at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual meeting, and the program committee jumped at the chance. The speech also gives the Tibetan leader an opportunity to promote one of his cherished goals: an alliance between Buddhism and science.

But the invitation has sparked a noisy row within the neuroscience community. . . . The protesters complain that the Tibetan leader isn’t qualified to speak about brain science. They fret that he’ll draw media attention away from important findings presented at the conference. Worst of all, his presence muddles the distinction between objective inquiry and faith.

I have to admit that I’m in a bit of a conundrum on this one. On the one hand, as a liberal, I am naturally wary of efforts to mix religious beliefs with academic learning and research. The recent controversy regarding efforts to “teach” intelligent design in schools is a perfect example of this danger.

On the other hand, as a believer in Buddhist philosophy and meditation, I think that there might be something to the belief that meditation can affect neurological patterns in the brain, or at least lead to tangible emotional and physical benefits. At the least, shouldn’t there be a conversation and debate to explore this possibility?

More generally, is it better to apply a general principle across the board to try to simplify social issues (like religion should always be kept out of academic learning)? Or should we examine each issue or controversy on a case-by-case basis and risk constantly getting bogged down with details?

I suppose that it does not have to be mutually exclusive as long as we follow certain principles, such as academic learning can include analyzing religious beliefs as long as one religion or set of religious beliefs is not promoted or deemed superior over others. I suspect that’s what the Buddha would say.