
For those who don't follow such news with bated breath - President Obama has nominated Francis Collins to head up the NIH (National Institutes of Health). This is, in my opinion, a great choice. He is an accomplished scientist and administrator. You can see the NY Times article here: Pick to Lead Health Agency Draws Praise and Some Concern. (Photo to right from BioLogos Site.)
I've been following some of the discussion over the last several months as the prospect of Collins's selection has been a matter of gossip and speculation. I have no NIH funding, the research we do is not sufficiently closely tied to human health concerns, although I have had NIH funding in the past. So my interest is indirect - anything good for science is good for all science on some level.
I think that the concerns expressed in the article over the hype of the Human Genome Project and its lack of success (on which the jury will be out for a long while yet) is a red herring. Hype is common in science and all of his critics know it and practice it themselves.
But of course Collins is drawing attention for other reasons as well - most significantly his book The Language of God and his outspoken Christian stand.
I find it interesting that there are a few
different concerns common around the web.
Some - a relatively small number - hold that religion is fundamentally inconsistent with good thinking and thus anyone who holds to a religious belief is suspect for fuzzy brain.
Some fear that religious belief --> theocracy ---> undermines freedom, democracy, good science.
Some fear that appointing him, no matter how good he is, will lend credence to faith as a valid option!
Some fear that appointing him will mislead our youth into thinking that evolution is consistent with faith (from the evangelical side).
I will avoid quoting from blogs and comments on articles here - but I expect the conversation will become rather heated in some arenas.
What gets me is the suggestion by some that his "Biologos foundation" because it seeks to promote a synthesis of science and faith is a conflict of interest - an "unwanted incursion of religion into the public sphere." I also think it interesting that Collins has been an Obama supporter for quite awhile, yet appointing him raises fears of a return of "the theocracy of George W. Bush" and a cave-in to the religious right.
What do you think?

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon












Good thoughts on Collins' appointment by John Stackhouse of Regent College, to whom Scot links sometimes:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/07/12/a-scientist-who-believes-in-god.aspx
I'm not familiar with that particular blog (I don't find anything about this on Stackhouse's own blog), but judging by the comments after his post it is in need of wise voices like Stackhouse.
AHH,
Thanks for the link - these are good thoughts by Stackhouse.
I wonder if he'll be reporting into the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, John Holdren...
Does anyone know?
James,
NIH is in the Department of Health and Human Services. I am not sure of all of the reporting lines - but basically he would report to the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services and thus the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. Here is the DHHS org chart.
Sebelius is almost as bad. I mean, I don't think she's written in favor of mass sterolization of undesirables like Holdren has, but her position on the murder of undesirable babies couldn't be more clear.
One could hope that Collin can stand strong, and even have an impact, but I'm thinking this is a token appointment.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.