Francis Collins, Obama's Pick For NIH Chief

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is choosing an influential scientist who helped unravel the human genetic code _ and is known for finding common ground between belief in God and science _ to head the National Institutes of Health.

Obama called Dr. Francis Collins "one of the top scientists in the world" in announcing his nomination Wednesday.

"His groundbreaking work has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease," Obama said.

The NIH is the nation's premiere medical research agency, directing $29.5 billion to spur innovative science that leads to better health. Collins, an early gene-hunter, would come to the job not just with the scientific credentials, but with a reputation for translating the complexities of DNA into language the everyday American can understand.

The folksy Collins led the Human Genome Project that, along with a competing private company, mapped the genetic code _ or, as he famously called it, "the book of human life."

"It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God," he said at a 2000 White House ceremony marking release of the genome's first draft.

For that work, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award. But he may be more widely known for his 2007 best-selling book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

And this spring Collins, 59, was named one of GQ Magazine's "Rock Stars of Science," posing in cool shades as part of a publicity campaign to bring celebrity to science.

Story continues below

advertisement

John Porter, a former Republican congressman from Illinois who now chairs the health advocacy group Research!America called Collins "a perfect choice."

"He knows the science and he is an outstanding leader," Porter said.

Collins promises to make the NIH's important work more understandable not only for patients but for lawmakers who hold the agency's purse strings, said American Heart Association President Dr. Clyde Yancey.

"The real advantage he brings is the ability to translate deep and complex science to the lay population ... in a meaningful way that allows it to be tangible and actionable," he said.

Collins has discovered numerous genes important for diseases, including the one that leads to cystic fibrosis.

But the true power of genetics, he told a meeting of scientists in Washington last month, has yet to be realized as researchers eventually learn enough to provide customized predictions of which diseases really threaten an individual, and personalized care to respond.

Today, "you can get fancy DNA tests for hundreds of dollars," Collins told The Endocrine Society meeting _ but your better bet for now may be a simple family tree of health, checking what ailments Mom, Dad and Grandpa had to predict your own future. "That's a free genetic test of great power."

NIH is familiar turf: Collins spent 15 years as the NIH's chief of genome research, before stepping down last year to, among other things, work with Obama's campaign. He also helped found the BioLogos Foundation, a Web site formed by a group of scientists who say they want to bridge gaps between science and religion.

Comments

[Gimme2steps]

Dr. Francis Collins: the ultimate NIH insider’s appointment by NIH lobbying from inside the West Wing

Who was doing the lobbying behind the scenes for the Dr. Francis Collins appointment? The obvious possibilities: either the NIH itself or the religious right.

To clear away the smoke and mirrors, there is a direct NIH connection to the West Wing; the White House chief of staff R. E. and his brother head of the Bioethics NIH I. E. I. E. is also executive chair of the NIH Assembly of Scientists (AOS).

The AOS made the news 4 years ago when the LATimes reported “NIH Dissident Scientists Hire Drug Industry Lawyers.” The AOS had hired drug industry lawyers’ firm Arent Fox to lobby congress to oppose new rules barring financial deals with biotech and pharmaceutical companies that had recently been imposed on NIH scientists.

Before the “draconian” NIH rules were imposed, taxpayer paid NIH government scientists were collecting unreported mega-bucks from big Pharma for publishing glowing reports that had appeared as peer-reviewed independent NIH medical evaluations of pharmaceuticals- a conflict of interest (COI). Government NIH scientists were paid hidden medical stealth shills for big Pharma.

Where was the voice of the leadership potential Dr. Francis Collins during this COI investigation? And what ever did happened to the NIH conflict of interest investigation that was re-opened by the Inspector General’s Office? Perhaps the appointment of Dr. Francis Collins to lead the NIH is not so surprisingly -no change.

[PartyPartyParty]

I have absolutely no problem with an Evangelical Christian talking about his faith. I do, however, have a problem with an Evangelical Christian's asserting that religious faith has a place in scientific inquiry.

This man has supported efforts to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes. Creationism, if it's studied at all, should be studied in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology or physics class, and it should certainly have no place in the NIH.

[daffey]

Yet, he is a man of faith, and yet he is one of the groundbreaking scientists of our time working in the field of science. Funny how dogmas can be challenged by ugly facts.

[ManiDeli]

Truth is supported by evidence. Lies require belief.
Science and religion are in total conflict starting with page one of the Bible.

God is the immature man’s Santa Claus.

[daffey]

Tell that to the dumby up there who apparently did some things with that DNA stuff.

[boatrat]

And, when reciting important religious figures, don't forget Mendel. But the real point is that science has moved on. Religion is still where it was back in the dark ages.

[brooklyncitizen]

What is alarming on this thread is the misconception about faith and science being incompatible. Many of the first scholars and scientists were monks, Catholic & Muslim and their contributions to mankind are unparalleled. To dismiss the link between religion and science is a knee jerk reaction to the current political climate in America.It is a myopic view.

People like Bill Maher rely on revisionist history to justify their personal bias and ignorance. It is expedient to dismiss the contributions to philosophy, science,art and politics that has been made by countless clergy or scientists that were religious for thousands of years.From the Catholic Louis Pasteur who invented pasteurization to Catholic Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin to Washington Carver whose discoveries and inventions still shape our lives today. A self-declared a man of God he didn't profit from his inventions, did not seek patents and freely gave his discoveries to humanity.

[RuinedSaint]

One must admit, though, that what can be believed without being a limitation on ability has changed over the years. 300 years ago, most scientists believed in Genesis as a literal accounting of how Earth, the universe, and all life came to be. Today, anyone that believes that isn't going to make much of a scientist, and for obvious reasons.

Religion, if believed as an extra "layer" over reality, doesn't impair the scientist; religion that forces the individual to believe something *other than* reality is a severe impairment.

[brooklyncitizen]

While I am in agreement with your last statement many devout Catholics prior to this "300 year" window were scientists/ philosophers that didn't "believe" Genesis or the literal interpretation of the Bible and continually pushed for truth in their work.

People like Descartes, educated by Jesuits who gave us Cartesian geometry; even Copernicus (sun is the center of the universe) was a devout Catholic.
If we step back and assume a mature perspective we realize that life in and of itself is complex and though some people are wired to hang on to absolutes (we call them fundamentalists be they religious, atheists, political) some of us are "comfortable" with contradictions and partial truths. Life is a mystery and our dialogue with this mystery has produced tremendous discoveries and creativity (i.e art, poetry, literature etc.).

Science is our new religion.

[daffey]

Actually not. You would be surprised the diverse approaches to Scripture that have occurred over the eons. The problem today is that much of our history is taught by non-believers based on books written by non-believers and housed in institutions that more or less eschew any positive interpretations of religious faith. Meaning that it is so homogeneous, if you don't look for it, you may not realize that there is a whole lot of historical data that is often not discussed or brought up in modern 'religion is old, dumb, and against science and science is new, smart, and the wave of the future' templates.

[Erich Oliphant]

Of course, many early scientists were monks and believers of various stripes. Part of that is due to the facts that there was little secular 'infrastructure' (universit­ies,patron­age,etc not aligned with the religious establishment) until recently, second is the fact that non-belief was a sometimes mortally dangerous world-view most of our history. Galileo got house arrest as opposed to the death penalty becuse he backed off of his 'atomist' views.

I think no one would attempt to deny the scientific contributions of the religious. However, the fact that say Gregor Mendel was a monk says nothing about the compatibility of faith and science. FC's positive is simply a matter of 'cognitive dissonance' where one abandons the scientific principles he uses in his day-to-day work in attempting to reconcile conflicting worldviews. The scientific value of the contributions of Pasteur, Fleming and Carver is why we know their names, not their work in trying to reconcile science and religion. No one argues that one cannot be both religious and a scientist, but people like FC's attempts to establish the relationship between the two are profoundly unscientific and deserving of criticism. That is very different than simply working in a lab Monday to Friday, then going to church on Sunday. No one's criticizing that I think.

[Erich Oliphant]

Oops. That's "FC's position" not "positive" above.

[brooklyncitizen]

Good points...but some posts seem to reflect a disconnect beteween the two.

Yes FC should be challenged though thankfully he isn't someone who accepts intelligent design,or challenges evolution, there is nothing primitive in his thinking. He will be an adminastrator.

Lastly, I trust that President Obama is cognizant of the scientific setbacks we suffered under that faux-religious zealot George W. Bush.

[daffey]

Your view misses out on the fact that, contrary to popular Hollywood takes on history, if you challenged the Church you didn't automatically get sent to the stake. Hence Thomas's entire work meant to prove the existence of God. Hence the amount of works by various individuals back through the ages arguing about this or that doctrine. One of the reasons we know there was much in-fighting is because they recorded it - and many didn't get killed because of it. Sure, there were periods, but your example of Galileo is one that is far more complex than the usual Maher take on things (how many know that the Pope who threw him to the dogs was initially a supporter of his?). But the split between religion and science did not, in truth, come because of religion fighting science as much as it came because the rationalist and enlightenment thinkers increasingly leaned on science in the hopes that it would somehow disprove religion (which hundreds of years later, it hasn’t), and in so doing, alienated many believers who had no intention of throwing their beliefs out on the latest scientific theory.

[PerpetualMotion]

I agree especially with your first statement. It is somewhat unique that Americans have come to associate faith in God as "anti-science" or vice-versa. It's also important to realize, however, that Obama is tapping someone for this position that both has the credentials for the job AND doesn't alienate the traditionally skeptical (at least in the U.S.) as well. It seems like a good choice to me, so maybe our country can finally find some common ground on such issues as Stem Cell research, which have been all but ignored since 2001, with Collins helping shape our scientific future.

[PartyPartyParty]

Science relies on empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of the existence of any god(s).

I want the director of the NIH to understand this difference.

[PartyPartyParty]

Let us not forget what the Catholic Church did to Gallileo, and that the Vatican has recently excommunicated scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research.

[boatrat]

Given that only a very small percentage of scientists are believers, I find it outrageous that Obama would go out of his way to select a Christian apologist as his NIH pick. Especially one so outspoken on the subject as Collins. His is not a representative view of the scientific majority.

[rue]

The fact that a scientist believes in god, is not a proof of god's existence. Such proof has yet to be found.

[brooklyncitizen]

Gee how profound.

[PartyPartyParty]

And how mature of you.

There is no empirical evidence that any god(s) exist.

[nodogs]

Collins is delusional. To put someone in charge of NIH who believes in intelligent design and is a part of the religious right is destructive of science - regardless of his so-called scientific achievements. The NIH funds scientists who also do research in areas that are considered 'forbidden, evil, sinful and only in the realm of god by the religious right'. Mr. Collins will have the opportunity to establish policy to prevent or slow down the progress of science and reason in America. One can only look at amazement at Obama in placing such a radical, yet soft spoken religious fanatic, in such a sensitive place. This is an appointment that would have easily come out of the Bush administration - not an enlightened one. Obama has once again demonstrated how seamless and 'transparent' the transition between the Bush administration to his has been. For those of you who believe in the compatibility of science and religion - you know nothing about science and less about religion and its fundamental assumptions. The real difference between Obama and Bush is that the former drinks wine while the latter guzzles six-packs.

[wy125]

Collins does not believe in intelligent design. He comes out strongly against ID and creationism. He most certainly believes in evolution.

[RuinedSaint]

You mean *accepts* evolution; Facts don't require belief.

[nodogs]

Stating that the language of genetics was previously only known to god, as Collins has said, is merely a thinly disguised version of intelligent design to satisfy the religious delusion. It begs and answers the question "well who made it"? and implies that it MUST be god - after all HE was the only one that knew about it and must have created it in HIS grand design of the universe and all life. Thus what we have is a skyhook or intelligent designer of the code, its creation and its function on earth. Let's not mince words here - a rose by any other name still smells like a rose.

[weebils]

I have seen interviews with him and he is extremely intelligent but not condescending. T o put him down for his beliefs is as wrong as those who put down atheists. I do not belong to any organized religion but I do think there is a higher power that exists. I do however believe that more good has and will come through scientific breakthroughs then through organized religion. His work has been helpful in so many ways and yet he remains a very humble person. I think he will be phenomenal in the position. Great choice.

[Erich Oliphant]

Science is based on the verifiability of assumptions. I don't see the need to personally attack FC, he seems like a nice guy. However, his attempts to reconcile his faith and his job are certainly open to criticism (per the tenets of his profession, science) , as his best arguments (in his book and elsewhere) still boil down to WIlliam Paley's 100+ year old, weak watchmaker argument. You find a watch on a beach, there must be a watchmaker, ergo, you see people, trees there must be a people, trees maker (who we'll not just call god, but the god of my particular faith). Forget scientists, philosophers have torn this argument a new one many times over.

So yes it's more than appropriate to take him to task for making unsubstantiated, unscientific arguments, especially given his day job where's he's done great science. Because as I've said elsewhere, the need to address fallacious 'arguments from authority', is particularly powerful. The power of his work and sound science on the genome is undeniable, but we shouldn't allow the aura (i know, it's unscientific :)), of that work lend undue credence to his other positions. His attempts to 'prove' the existence of God are like the Pope saying that condoms don't reduce the risk of AIDS. Entirely unsupported by the evidence.

[prodijy]

To my knowledge he's NEVER tried to 'prove' god exists, and his statements are nothing to sound the alarm over.
To me: known only to god is a slightly more profound way of saying "unknown"....I don't feel it bespeaks intelligent design at all

[Tazru]

Did the new season of Fringe start already?

[nodogs]

You are smart, succinct and on target.

[Tazru]

I thought this was part of The Pattern, we must seal the portal to the other universe quickly. I hope I end up in a universe I like.

[Tazru]

If the Republicans had picked this guy, HuffPo readers would be out in the streets protesting.

Read Collins's book, then tell me there is no conflict of interest here.

[RuinedSaint]

I've read his book; I see no conflict of interest.

Oh, and I'm an Atheist.

[Abrafo]

Hey people, God and science are not necessarily incompatible!

[Tazru]

Yes they are. One is something that some people imagine to be real, the other is measuring and observing real phenomena.

[Abrafo]

you forget that science is also something that came out of the curiosity of men trying to understand the things around them.

[NineLives]

Hey, Tazru.

We're wasting our time and keystrokes trying to get the "god-heads" to think for themselves.

Religion, brainwashing, peer pressure and many thousand of years of lies are almost impossible to overcome.

You and I need to extend our efforts in making sure that the young are not lied to and to keep religion out of our politics.

[weebils]

No they are not incompatible. Science also requires a belief system. A belief that things we cannot see, feel or even smell do exist. If not for those beliefs we wouldn't have things like electricity.

[Tazru]

Wrong. All those things can be measured. An imaginary friend can not be measured, we can however monitor your brain activity while you imagine your friend.

[Erich Oliphant]

+1

Yes, science is a belief system based on rules. Rules founded on logic and reason, guided by principles and practices such openness, peer review, falsifiability, reproduceability, the weight of objective evidence, the need to compensate and account for the limited nature of human perception. Also the fact that nothing is 'sacred', all must be open to debate and review in light of evidence and the application and refinement of the 'rules'.

If belief systems are tools that we use to navigate the world, then just put the results on the table. We've had religious, spiritual beliefs for thousands of years, 'modern' scientific beliefs for perhaps the past 500. Yet the past 500 years have been marked by more advances in every conceivable area (from 'hard' sciences to things like ethics) than the past 5000.

So yes it's a belief system, but if we objectively measure the benefits to mankind, orders of magnitude more valuable and perhaps a sign of our 'growing up' from cultural infancy to perhaps say, adolescence.

[RuinedSaint]

"A belief that things we cannot see, feel or even smell do exist."

I can't see an atom; must not exist.

Science is only an accounting based on evidence; if there is no evidence for something, then science ignores it. Science will easily accept the existance of gods; just provide evidence that gods exist.

[Johnagain]

"Science also requires a belief system."

Gosh, thanks for that bit of information. I wonder if the NIH will give me a grant if I can convince them to 'believe' that research to test my hypothesis is worth funding. If only they had some faith in my arguments, instead of asking for proof all the time. In my next grant application I'll substitute the preliminary data section with a prayer asking the grant reviewers to just have faith in my ideas. After all, God told me my ideas are right, and who are these unfaithful doubters to tell me I'm wrong?

[nodogs]

If you can put any property of god or the presence of god into a theory that can be empirically tested by rational and objective methodology please do so. If it is a theory that is not subject to testing then it is not a theory or a belief that has any constructive value. To simply state that god must exist because it is 'a matter of faith' is not a valid reason or proof of existence - it is delusional at best. While you may wish to believe in god it is not in and of itself objectionable. It does become a significant and dangerous belief when people ACT on that delusional belief - e.g. the Taliban, killers of health professionals, genocidal wars, racism etc..

[azulmarina]

Science + Religion = conflict

With science you need proof, that's why many scientists are atheist or agnostic. You can't prove invisible pink unicorns or the flying spaghetti ......Republicans must be ecstatic with Collins pick

[Tazru]

They are check the sites. Dancing in the streets, they think he will prove their buybull is right.

People should know the history of the Religions they belong to.

[Abrafo]

He wrote a book about God and science, do you think you can come up with a groundbreaking scientific finding like Collins did? Some of you think you can't believe in God's existence and yet be a good scientist. Great scientists like Descartes believed in the existence of God and yet made breakthroughs in science.

[Tazru]

I know that some of the scientists of the past were "believers", what about now, and what percentage?

Some people can drive home drunk without incident, does that make the practice valid?

[Erich Oliphant]

He is a great scientist, no one can take that away from him. The book is great for about first 75% where he sticks to science. Unfortunately, even as a 'layperson', it's easy (and a little sad) to see the gaping holes in his arguments as he tries to reconcile the science with his religious beliefs.

The fact that great scientists have beliefs that they can't justify scientifically (are they reproducible, falsifiable, etc.) does not lend any credence whatsoever to those beliefs. It just means that they've abandoned 'the method' due to belief and we shouldn't succumb to 'arguments from authority' in those cases. Issac Newton believed in phlogiston theory and the 'luminiferous aether', but we commemorate his contributions to optics, physics and mathematics. Similarly FC will be remembered for his work on the Human Genome Project, but his religious beliefs and attempts to mash them up with real science will just be a historical footnote.

[Tazru]

What would people be saying now if that had been a Republican President to pick this man to run the NIH?

[drbillybob]

Why not Ventnor? He completed the Human Genome Project first ...

Oh, that's right, he made a huge profit doing it ... never mind.

[NorthSide]

Perhaps one reason Craig Venter was not chosen was because he is not a medical doctor, while Collins is an MD.