The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Report: Collins to lead NIH
Posted by Bob Grant
[Entry posted at 26th May 2009 02:46 PM GMT]
Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, is close to taking over the top spot at the National Institutes of Health, according to a report by Bloomberg News.
Elias Zerhouni, Collins' would-be predecessor, voiced his approval for the pick, telling Bloomberg that Collins has "done things many scientists wish they could do once in their lifetime, and he's done it repeatedly." Collins recently unveiled a new foundation, BioLogos, that promotes "the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives," according to the organization's Web site. Collins, who is an evangelical Christian, has said that his new foundation is an attempt to resolve Christian faith with scientific evidence, especially with regard to evolution. In 2006 he published a bestselling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, that stirred some controversy in the scientific community. Related stories: [12th March 2009] [28th May 2008] [28th May 2008] |
Rate this article
Fabulous choice
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-07-09 12:23:22]
[Comment posted 2009-07-09 12:23:22]
President Obama should be applauded for an outstanding selection. Dr. Collins is a highly accomplished scientist with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in leading science and medical journals. He succesfully led the NHGRI towards completion of the Human Genome Project, which has fueled forward genetics and increased the pace of scientific discovery. I note that many on this blog immediately think Francis Crick when thinking of Dr. Collins. History will without doubt remember both for their outstanding contributions to science.
Religion and Science
by C M
[Comment posted 2009-05-29 13:55:51]
[Comment posted 2009-05-29 13:55:51]
As a scientist, to be truly objective, there is no definitive proof "for" or "against" the existence of a higher power/s that created everything we know.
In addition, there is absolutely NO reason why evolution could not have been created by a higher power. The Bible says earth created in 6 days. In point of fact, it doesn't say how long a day really is does is it? NO it doesn't.
If there's someone that TRULY believes the Bible verbatim, then if you have a daughter, how much can I buy her for? I'd like to know. Do not be selective in what you say is the "truth" from the Bible, and other things you don't believe or practive. Selectivity of truth is not possible.
This pick is surely political. However, as long as the guy does good, sound science that's a good start for me.
In addition, there is absolutely NO reason why evolution could not have been created by a higher power. The Bible says earth created in 6 days. In point of fact, it doesn't say how long a day really is does is it? NO it doesn't.
If there's someone that TRULY believes the Bible verbatim, then if you have a daughter, how much can I buy her for? I'd like to know. Do not be selective in what you say is the "truth" from the Bible, and other things you don't believe or practive. Selectivity of truth is not possible.
This pick is surely political. However, as long as the guy does good, sound science that's a good start for me.
By the way...
by Mike Pyle
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 16:32:56]
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 16:32:56]
To set the record straight, Dr. Collins is a physician.
Have you read his book?
by Mike Pyle
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 16:22:47]
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 16:22:47]
To paint Collins with a 'Creationist' one color fits all brush stroke is to distort his views. I trust no one commenting would be so intellectually dishonest as to criticize Collins or his appointment without having read his book. It was a worthwhile read regardless of where you fall on the origins spectrum.
Simply put: Believing in a higher power discredits your scientific integrity.
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 12:27:24]
[Comment posted 2009-05-28 12:27:24]
A true scientist needs scientific evidence to believe in a certain theory or claim. The scientific evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming not to mention that since our genome is 99% homologous to the chimpanzee it is mathematically impossible we did not evolve. To say that you believe in some higher power creating all things without any proof calls into question one?s scientific integrity. Scientists require data and evidence to believe or begin to believe in a theory or claim. Any proof of a higher power is completely lacking. I would prefer to see a true scientist in this position that remains completely objective. With Dr. Crick mixing his science and religious beliefs he is clearly a ?subjective? scientist that would likely cut corners to get to a certain power position in society. Lets hope he is not the choice of President Obama.
FYI -- Collins is a physician scientist...
by Sergio Vasquez
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 17:25:36]
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 17:25:36]
...and has the requisite dual MD.,Ph.D certifications to claim as much.
I've followed the man closely and he seems in touch with his theistic and empirical approaches to science so at to attempt to reconcile them in a memoir widely available for purchase. He does not hide behind his beliefs, but rather is open to criticism of them. Lest anyone forget, one need not be an atheist to perform good science. Whether or not his science is any good is for history to decide, but lets not crucify the administration for wanting a high profile and rather successful bureaucrat at the helm of one of the most important grant giving bodies in the nation.
That being said, I would like to see the list of vetted candidates and see why this name seemingly floated to the top of the list.
I've followed the man closely and he seems in touch with his theistic and empirical approaches to science so at to attempt to reconcile them in a memoir widely available for purchase. He does not hide behind his beliefs, but rather is open to criticism of them. Lest anyone forget, one need not be an atheist to perform good science. Whether or not his science is any good is for history to decide, but lets not crucify the administration for wanting a high profile and rather successful bureaucrat at the helm of one of the most important grant giving bodies in the nation.
That being said, I would like to see the list of vetted candidates and see why this name seemingly floated to the top of the list.
better science and health of the nation
by Rafaela Canete-Soler
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 14:47:22]
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 14:47:22]
I do hope that President Obama keeps his promise ?to restore science to its rightful place?. And I do hope that, in selecting a candidate, President Obama considers: What is in the records and professional experience of a candidate that makes her/him the best choice to lead an institution created to better science and the health of the nation ?.
Whether a candidate holds a theist or atheist view of the world is, in my view, a personal option that is to be respected and does not/should not constitute a requisite to lead the NIH.
Whether a candidate holds a theist or atheist view of the world is, in my view, a personal option that is to be respected and does not/should not constitute a requisite to lead the NIH.
What was he thinking?
by Aaron McCoy
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 13:33:59]
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 13:33:59]
Terrible terrible disappointment! Who does this pick please? I thought Obama was going to "restore science to it's rightful place?" This is a victory for creationists.
Openess and freedom
by Rafaela Canete-Soler
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 08:47:57]
[Comment posted 2009-05-27 08:47:57]
Folks,
It is extremely disappointing that you don?t seem to be able to express your views other than in the anonymous mode. Science and medicine are also about openness and freedom to expose our views and convictions, prove them with facts and subject ourselves to the scrutiny of other?s perspectives.
Thank you
It is extremely disappointing that you don?t seem to be able to express your views other than in the anonymous mode. Science and medicine are also about openness and freedom to expose our views and convictions, prove them with facts and subject ourselves to the scrutiny of other?s perspectives.
Thank you
Big Contract Science, Little imagination, Big Bible, Country-Crippling
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 20:09:09]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 20:09:09]
This, I 'pray', is not the direction Obama will take the NIH. This is a serious step backward to Bush-type pandering and not the individual who speaks for American ingenuity and breakthrough science.
If we want big mindless budget consuming science with a biblical bend and Cheney-type contracts, this is the right choice.
If we want the HOPE for REAL Change at the NIH, real innovation, real medical breakthroughs, look for a real scientist and or physician not someone who panders to the born-again right to direct America's hope for the future.
I voted for Obama expecting change and hope, not poor Country-Crippling decisions like this.
If we want big mindless budget consuming science with a biblical bend and Cheney-type contracts, this is the right choice.
If we want the HOPE for REAL Change at the NIH, real innovation, real medical breakthroughs, look for a real scientist and or physician not someone who panders to the born-again right to direct America's hope for the future.
I voted for Obama expecting change and hope, not poor Country-Crippling decisions like this.
Help! We need a Scientist not Someone Using Religious Beliefs to Gain Political Favor
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 20:01:29]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 20:01:29]
Collins is best known as the born-again Scientist. Scientifically he is known as the Government Scientist who LOST the Human Genome Race to Ventor because he did not understand technology and innovation. He has few real scientific achievements under his belt with the exception of cloning work done largely by collaborators and most scientists believe he has used his bible and born-again Christian tactics to gain political favor and position his entire career. While I don't know if that is true- it is widely perceived.
Re: To be the NIH director you should have an MD degree
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 16:48:27]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 16:48:27]
That translational research is better understood by scientists with an MD background may or may not be true, but why focusing in translational research only? Projects related to the "New Pathways to Discovery" initiative may be better understood by a Computational Biologist... What's important is the vision of the candidate.
Regarding mixing science and religion, I don't think F. Collins' religious believes interfered with his scientific performance when he was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. However, I have to admit the idea makes me feel a bit uneasy...
Regarding mixing science and religion, I don't think F. Collins' religious believes interfered with his scientific performance when he was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. However, I have to admit the idea makes me feel a bit uneasy...
Re: Not Good
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 15:45:52]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 15:45:52]
Mixing religion and science is worse than mixing religion and politics.
To be the NIH director you should have an MD degree
by Jesus Villar
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 14:29:50]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 14:29:50]
I have no doubts that Francis Collins is a bright scientist. I even believe that he deserves to be a candidate to the Nobel Prize for his discoveries. However, I think that a clinical scientist would be more appropriate to lead the National Instutes of HEALTH. Translational research is better understood by scientists with an MD background. I do not know whether he hold a MD degree.
Jesus Villar
Canary Islands, Spain.
Jesus Villar
Canary Islands, Spain.
Not there yet...
by ROBERT KILLOREN
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:22:58]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:22:58]
The headline seems a bit misleading... he hasn't been picked yet, but I think he would make an excellent director so I hope it is prescient.
Both Sides of the Story
by Nils Jansma
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:16:11]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:16:11]
This sounds good. Maybe if we take these issues out of the hands of the self-interest minded extremists, we might start to learn something truthful from the actual facts about both sides of the natural / supernatural realms.
Not Good.
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:11:45]
[Comment posted 2009-05-26 12:11:45]
This is not a good selection for the leader of the NIH. Crick is not representative of leading scientists of our era, most of which are not religious at all (less than 8% of biologists in the National Academy of Scientists are religious). Furthermore, he is a major advocate of big science and is not a supporter of hypothesis driven science (not surprising in my opinion). I wish President Obama could would take a democratic approach to this appointment and allow the NAS to elect the leader of the NIH (or at least provide some input)?.
Comment on this blog