Subscription Center
May 26, 2009 05:24 PM | 10
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will likely bring on geneticist Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, as its new director, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday.
The agency, which has been run by acting director Raynard Kington since October 2008 after Elias Zerhouni stepped down, is in late stages of screening Collins, noted Bloomberg.
The 59-year-old candidate was director from 1993 until 2008 of the National Human Genome Research Institute (which produced the map of the human genome in 2003) and received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007 for his genetic research, which is the highest U.S. civilian honor.
"NIH is a huge enterprise, and I think Francis has very good experience with getting the best out of a huge enterprise from what he did in the genome project," David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize in medicine, told Bloomberg earlier this year. "He's also very well liked in Congress."
Collins is also the founder and president of BioLogos Foundation, a group of scientists who, according to the organization's Web site: "believe in God and are committed to promoting a perspective of the origins of life that is both theologically and scientifically sound." In 2006 Collins published New York Times bestseller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Some, including Richard Dawkins (fellow scientist and author of The God Delusion), have questioned Collins' ability to be an effective scientist while maintaining a Christian belief system.
Upon presenting an early draft of the human genome map in 2000 at a White House ceremony with President Clinton, Collins explained, "We have caught the first glimpse of or instruction book, previously known only to God," the New York Times reported.
Read Collins' "Mapping the Cancer Genome," from the March 2007 issue of Scientific American, which he co-authored with Anna Barker, a deputy director of the National Cancer Institute.*
Image of Francis Collins speaking in 2003 courtesy of Ernie Branson/NIH
*Correction: (6/2/09): This sentence was changed after publication to correct Anna Barker's title.
Tags:
NIH
More News Blog:
Next: Rising stars of the sea: Will global warming benefit starfish?
Previous: Rooks make hooks (and other tools) in labs, but not in wild
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
10 Comments
Add CommentAs the person who brought to mankind a view of the human genome, which continues to astound those who believe in a Creator God as well as those who don't, for where he is at in his journey of life, I feel he would be an excellent director of the NIH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrancis Collins' ability as a scientist has been absolutely proven beyond question, irrespective of his beliefs, which is more than can be said for Richard Dawkins, if the 'God Delusion' is any guide to his science.
An intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. And scientists can only apply intelligence in understanding DNA and the universe if the universe itself has an underlying intelligence. This reality is central to science, without which science would cease to function. .Collins understands this reality, Dawkins does not. In short, Collins is an ideal choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause. And scientists can only apply intelligence in understanding DNA and the universe if the universe itself has an underlying intelligence. This reality is central to science, without which science would cease to function. .Collins understands this reality, Dawkins does not. In short, Collins is an ideal choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"An intelligent effect always demands an intelligent cause" Where is this written? What evidence you you provide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is this written? It's common knowledge, and common sense. This reality is the principle upon which the entire industrial world is built. And better still, you might check this out yourself. Try removing all the intelligent people working on a nearby construction site and assembly plant and see what kind of building or product you get by throwing materials together in a non-intelligent way. You could even try it out on your family, by suggesting that no one is allowed to apply intelligence to anything they do, including cooking your dinner. And see what the effect is. It's as easy as that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have got one of the points I was making and that is, what Dawkins is trying to do. That is, have Christians automatically disqualified from having anything to do with science. The Christian God is the God of the physical world as well as the spiritual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Dawkins does not recognize the Christian God or any god for that matter and as such confuses empirical science with scientific models like evolutionary theory and blends them together. A scientist who is a Christian recognizes the difference and his empirical science will be in agreement with everyone elses but will adhere to a different origins and earth history model.
Francis Collins, as well as doing empirical science recognizes the differences and adheres to a theistic evolutionary model which is different again to a straight out Biblical Creationist model.
@Trevor Holt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCollins ability as a scientist is not what's being questioned here (although of course you are aware that the Human Genome Project is a huge bust and hasn't delivered on many of its key goals yet, right?) Rather, what people are concerned about is his very public agenda since he left science (he resigned from NIH to write a religious book). Specifically, we're worried about his evangelical musings and his very public attempts to reconcile Christianity with scientific knowledge; to provide an explanation for scientific concepts such as evolution within a framework of theism.
Simply highlighting that he has good scientific credentials, is diverting the argument and completely misses the point. "Hey look over there at those flashy lights! Oh by the way, I just gave your NIH grant to someone who studies the effects of prayer on wound healing". Hitler was apparently quite an intelligent person. Apparently George Bush is an excellent mountain biker. Are these facts relevant when we consider the impact these people had on society? No. Please stick to what is being debated here, namely whether someone with an outspoken creationist evangelical Chirstian agenda, can be considered credible as the head of a scientific organization?
I think the bigger danger here is not so much what Collins will do in office (although funding of pseudo-science and diverting research dollars towards projects with a spiritual basis are grave possibilities). The worry is the message this sends to the world about American science. The reputation of US bio-research is already in tatters following the Bush years and the stem cell ban. Collins will completely destroy any remaining credibility.
It is one thing to hold a set of beliefs, and keep them to yourself and get on with your job - a lot of scientists manage to do this well. Collins is different - he is OUTSPOKEN and has an AGENDA. He is someone who relishes the thought of spreading his religiosity message far and wide (as evidenced by his need to open a website publicizing it, and writing several books on the topic). There is every reason to believe he will use his position at NIH to further this agenda. He will just find it too tempting to stay quiet on his beliefs.
Dr. Collins' scientific credentials are extraordinary. In addition to running the NHGRI thought the completion of the human genome and the creation of a haplotype map, a less celebrated, but more useful accomplishment, Dr. Collins personally headed the research team to find causative genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, neurofibromatosis and a form of leukemia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe accomplished all of this while having the same religious views he has been more public about since leaving NIH.
His writings and recent interviews have been an effort to show that a person with religious convictions can, at the same time, pursue and report on outstanding scientific accomplishments.
Dr. Collins, who knows how to make things happen and knows how to work well with politicians, will make an exemplary leader of NIH.
I am a chemist. The chemical reactions that I observe make me feel amazed how they follow order that points to the Creator. I do not have problem practicing Christian beliefs along with science. We are rational and emotional beings created in God's image and are definitely different from other species. For Dr. Collins to be vocal of his faith, he is following the Great Commission, that is to preach the gospel to all nations. He met God while searching for answers that science could not give. His remarks on science as a means of worship happened to me. I marveled at God's creation as I observe more reactions take place in my lab. Is that difficult to comprehend?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore information about the human genome project you can find in:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.geneticsofpregnancy.com/Encyclopedia/The_human_genome_project.aspx
This site contains information On Pregnancy Diseases And Genetic Testing.