but i am a physicist, and only recently (2 years ago) qualified with a 
Masters. so i am a recent student in this subject of terminal decline. i did 
not spend the last 4 years swallowing glibly information coming my way. for 
a start that would have requried better lecture attendance than mine, but 
also a mindset which would have lead to failure. i speak only from my 
experience, but how i got here, and the same for my peers, and why we 
studied physics, was because we had inquisitive minds. big questions needing 
big answers. we questioned everything and i still do. i regard no source or 
idea as sacred. i don't take anyone's word as final by itself. that's not 
how we progress. yes, some students do swallow

yet, i am in medical physics now which is not an area which centers around 
money, or about religion, and i am soon leaving this job to learn about 
permaculture, improve my photography, and try to build an energy efficient 
house in south america.

things aren't always as they seem.

as for increasing numbers of people in science believing in religion, or 
adopting fundamentalists. i am surprised that there are as many as there 
are, but the number is still very small. in  my institution i believe there 
were more previously than there are now. it is still very much an aethesit 
institution (at least amongst those i know), me being one of those 
aetheists. but whilst i have difficulty understanding how people believe in 
evolution, or religious scripture, yet work in physics (and to be honest, i 
don't understand faith in major organised religion's tenets full stop, but 
that is a personal thing), if they are working hard and successfully and 
innovatively in their field, then who am I to comment upon their beliefs? or 
judge them?

does it impact upon the the work researchers do which might be connected 
towards instigating, promoting, resolving or mediating crises?

best,

Jon

ps. re 9/11

i think people think too highly, and unquestioningly of scientists. believe 
me, i know enough 'experts' who regulalry adorn newspapers and the BBC who 
are nothing more than well-meaning (and sometimes not) charlatans. to say 
one physicist or academic supports a theory goes no way to proving it, just 
as one negative statement does not. investigation, debate, consensus.