…and this is a 
In all the news about Obama's choice of an appointment to the Supreme Court, there's another possibility looming:
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 areport by Bloomberg News. Collins, who was the director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993 to 2008, is in the final stages of being screened by the administration of US President Barack Obama, an unnamed source told Bloomberg.
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.
I didn't see much "controversy in the scientific community" over that book; I think everyone agreed that he had a perfect right to express his religious views, and there was near-unanimity that they were the views of a gullible fruitbat…an opinion confirmed by his wacky Biologos website. I know he had a good reputation as an administrator of the human genome project, but do we really need to go back to the Bush years of god-walloping goofballs at the head of every major government agency?
There are some objections being raised in the comments that have made me feel like I have to expand on this.
Collins is extremely well qualified for this job. If all we did was look at his CV to see if he's competent to administer the NIH, I'd say they'd be hard pressed to find a better guy.
I don't care if the director goes to church. If that's what he wants to do as a hobby on sunday mornings, no problem.
However, and I think this is a great big HOWEVER, Collins also has a tremendous amount of religious baggage. This is also a political position, and it is fair to look at all the other stuff he brings into the job, and I'm afraid Collins is more than just a guy who goes to church...he's a religious freak. I've read his book, and I've browsed his website, and he's waving a great big hairy ideological flag in addition to his perfectly commendable credentials.
Look at it this way. If we had someone who had an administrative record as good as Collins', but who was as overtly and proudly atheist as Richard Dawkins, everyone would be doubtful about Obama's judgment as I am right now -- they'd be rightly wondering if this hypothetical candidate would be a diplomatic dead duck...not to mention the right-wingers would be out for his head. Somehow, because Collins happens to be weirdly Christian, we're supposed to simply overlook the fact that he struts about with his underpants on his head?
Well, Collins is not going to have my confidence, that's for sure. His writings reveal a man with an extraordinarily poor grasp of scientific reasoning and a surprising lack of understanding of evolutionary biology (his argument that morals could not evolve, for instance, is stunning in its ignorance). I also suspect that he's going to use this position as a laurel to peddle religious nonsense. I'm assuming he'd have the decency not to do it while he's in office, but afterwards, it'll be a stock part of the credentials he will trot out to validate his bogus beliefs, never mind that a large number of the scientists he will be working for think his apologetics are utterly loony.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Marc Abian | May 27, 2009 10:58 AM
Do you really think he's going to let his religion interfere with his job?
Posted by: carovee | May 27, 2009 11:01 AM
I may be mis-remembering but wasn't the human genome project crawling along at a snail's pace until Craig Venter threatened to scoop them?
Posted by: Ken Cope | May 27, 2009 11:02 AM
Collins' noisy religiosity may be what gets him singled out for the job.
Posted by: fl bluefish | May 27, 2009 11:05 AM
Maybe he will be able to talk to his Holy Guardian Angel and find out why Homeopathic Medicine doesn't work very well.
Or maybe lead a national prayer for "medicinal prayer" to work better.
Posted by: Eric the Half-Bee
|
May 27, 2009 11:08 AM
It is Obama's M.O. When it works, I don't object too strongly. If he can cram some noisily mystical person in a role where the mysticism won't interfere with his functioning (no guarantees there--the guy might be a first-class, self-important loon for all I can tell), then he gets to burnish his religious cred wihtout causing problems. Reflexive middle-of-the-roader that he is, he might even think it's good to pepper the administration with religious people.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 27, 2009 11:08 AM
Tut-tut PZ. Despite his wacky religious convictions there isn't any sign that Collins has let these beliefs affect his day to day administrative and scientific duties (the only things that should be relevant to the post).
In fact he seems to have a particular talent for compartmentalization that works to our advantage in this case (he seems to be a scientific naturalist during working hours and a religious nutter after hours). As scientists and evidence based physicians lets not demand ideological conformism from our profession apart from the necessity of working within the bounds of methodological naturalism.
Posted by: Paul Browne | May 27, 2009 11:10 AM
"god-walloping goofballs2
Don't you think that's a little unfair on Collins (though not on Bush)?
Collins' scientific and administrative records are excellent and appropriate for the job, and while I might not agree with his religeous beliefs, theistic evolution or his beliefs on the origin of morality in humans I'm prepared to put up with them as they make him a pretty formidable weapon in the struggle against ID/creationism.
To be honest I expect that he'll be a pretty decent leader of the NIH, and perhaps a better communicator on controversial issues (vaccines, animal research etc) than some previous incumbents have been.
Posted by: astrosmashley | May 27, 2009 11:10 AM
Hey, why not Genie Scott? She has lots of street cred of late plus she's not "actively antagonistic" against the religious while remaining firmly on the grounds of good science. I never thought I'd be apologizing for the apologists per se, but she would be awsome!. In my dream world of dream worlds it would be Coyne...However, Scott is a perfect choice!
Posted by: James F | May 27, 2009 11:10 AM
Francis Collins != Monica Goodling
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 27, 2009 11:11 AM
His ideas are fairly ridiculous, but relatively harmless compared to other "godly" ideas.
As long as he's not deciding policy by his theism, I'd let his accomplishments do the talking. No religious test, only scientific ones, where appropriate.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 11:13 AM
"2 said
"I may be mis-remembering but wasn't the human genome project crawling along at a snail's pace until Craig Venter threatened to scoop them?"
I think you are misremembering. The Celera project would have taken much longer but for the fact that the public sequencing project released all their BAC sequence data online, thus allowing the Celera short sequences to be quickly assembled on an anchored scaffold. Without the public sequencing effort Celera would have taken years more to complete its work. Without Celera the public project would have gone on exactly the same.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 27, 2009 11:14 AM
They should just demand that he not talk about waterfalls, particularly those that split into three streams.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: CW | May 27, 2009 11:16 AM
Even if he doesn't (which is not really a risk I would prefer to take) selecting the founder of BioLogos for the post makes a very, very loud statement.Not that I am surprised. Only the previous Bush administration could leave people with the impression that Obama is somehow a liberal.
Posted by: Slaughter | May 27, 2009 11:16 AM
"god-walloping goofballs"
OK, so maybe it's unfair to include Collins in that group.
But can I use that name for my softball team?
Posted by: rodiel | May 27, 2009 11:20 AM
Venter pwns Collins anytime.
[If Collins believes in the talking snake]"He's not a bright guy." (Dawkins in an interview by Bill Maher)
LoL.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 27, 2009 11:21 AM
In addition to the reply from Anonymous, it should also be noted that advances in sequecing techniques meant that the HGP productivity increased over time, not least because of research done into speeding the project up.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 27, 2009 11:22 AM
In this context all I care about is that Collins is a proven effective administrator of an NIH institute and as such an obvious choice for the top job.
Posted by: gillt | May 27, 2009 11:22 AM
It's not all bad.
Collins' likely replacement as head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, currently acting director of that institute, is a committed atheist.
Posted by: PZzer | May 27, 2009 11:25 AM
Not an atheist! Not an atheist! Persecute! Persecute!
Yeah, because that's EXACTLY what is happening, and that's not hyperbole in any way, shape or form!
So, any bartenders here who can tell us how to mix a god-walloping goofball? And can ScienceBlogs maybe call in a site administrator who knows how to make posting software actually work properly? Seriously, I visit sites which are basically run by one guy from his den, and the posting software is quicker, cleaner and more feature-laden than the sorry excuse for code this site uses.
Posted by: Pete | May 27, 2009 11:30 AM
I think Collins will do an excellent job.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 27, 2009 11:30 AM
Not an atheist! Not an atheist! Persecute! Persecute!
blah blah blah
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 11:30 AM
Neither Scott nor Coyne have anything resembling qualifications to run the bureaucracy of the NIH. Collins does; he's a proven administrator. Unless he starts pushing through funding for prayer studies, he seems like a reasonable pick to me. It's not much of a bully pulpit for proselytizing, and his silly side-beliefs probably do make him acceptable to the deluded. *shrug* All considered, a shrewd pick by Obama, who is playing in the real world.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 27, 2009 11:31 AM
Any chance you could read before opening gob ?
The blog entry prior to this one is: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/as_youve_noticed_were_experien.php
If you bother to read it you will see that Scienceblogs are indeed bringing in outside consultants to assist.
Care to explain how you missed that ?
Posted by: Cloudy | May 27, 2009 11:36 AM
@#23
But they have technical difficulties here all the freaking time, and it's been this way for a while. ScienceBlogs needs to consult with Slashdot or someone like that. I've personally done some website message board coding in my day. This is not difficult stuff.
Many of the religious sites I troll have far better message board code. That's just embarrassing, man. ;-)
Posted by: Dan52
|
May 27, 2009 11:36 AM
I thought we would make some progress rebuilding the wall of separation of church and state with the election of Obama. At least I hoped so. This appointment is going the wrong direction. His Biologos website receives funding from the John Templeton Foundation, another faith-promoter. I registered MY displeasure at whitehouse.gov. There are many other possibilities to head the NIH that aren't as tarnished as Collins.
Posted by: skeptical prof | May 27, 2009 11:36 AM
I think the more crucial problem with Dr. Collins has been that he has let his own faith in genetic determinism and a drive (if not a lust..) for concentrating power in the hands of "big science" lead him into supporting bad science. He never learned the lesson of his own work with cystic fibrosis, which in my opinion is that finding genes of major effect does not quickly translate to cures. His support for HapMap and whole genome association studies, which in the best case scenario can only capture disease associated variation "out of Africa" and seemed to population and evolutionary geneticists 10 years ago to be a recipe designed only to identify genes of minor effect (i.e. most small populations with alleles contributing major effects to disease probably didn't make it through the Toba super eruption bottleneck and the challenges of climate change...there is a real blindness to evolutionary biology and paleontology in the WGA community). His work at NHGRI was of questionable efficiency in part due to a dogmatic and non-consultative leadership style that fit in at the Bush era NIH. However, this brought huge opportunity costs with it as two generations of young research careers were sacrificed to build a big science enterprise that, objectively, hasn't delivered much except new concentration of power in the hands of an ever shrinking number of research centers. I honestly feel Dr. Collins will be an unmitigated disaster for NIH, after a decade long period of mis-spent resources when a doubled budget brought huge resources to the haves but didn't really expand U.S. science's "idea base". Additionally he has been a vigorous defender of failed big science ideas...I see no evidence of the scientific objectivity that NIH desperately needs if it really wants to get U.S. innovation back up and running...which will happen with investigator driven, rather than technology center driven research. I am all for research technology centers that function to serve the problem driven research of small labs, but the huge "IP grab" projects that ultimately answer few questions in a useful way are a colossal waste of money. These seem to be the projects that Dr. Collins has favored throughout his career, I worry that team Obama lacks the science chops to figure this out, but here's hoping. Dr. Collins has at least tacitly been behind a "how dare other scientists even question NIH's direction, organization, and motivation" approach to the scientific community that has done extremely bad damage to U.S. science. Real, extensive, consultative peer review includes a detailed understanding of the source and content of dissent...this has been sorely lacking at NIH for a decade. The lesson of the U.S. economic melt down is that centralization of social power and “father knows best” management approaches have inherent flaws for all organizations..we don’t want NIH to = AIG…but many of the same failed management approaches have become embedded at NIH. An NIH director drawn from a small lab background, with less government service history and a strong vision of community in science, could be a wonderful alternative.. maybe there is a good 40 year old out there somewhere? :-)
Posted by: astrosmashley | May 27, 2009 11:38 AM
#22...True. I did forget that it essentially is an administarative post and that that kind of work does take a certain kind of person with certain qualifications...Like I said...In a dream world I might choose X. But again, you are right in the end. I do think Collins would do a knock down job...Some of us do have a tendency to get a bit zeaous at times...
Posted by: skeptical prof | May 27, 2009 11:40 AM
I think the more crucial problem with Dr. Collins has been that he has let his own faith in genetic determinism and a drive (if not a lust..) for concentrating power in the hands of "big science" lead him into supporting bad science. He never learned the lesson of his own work with cystic fibrosis, which in my opinion is that finding genes of major effect does not quickly translate to cures. His support for HapMap and whole genome association studies, which in the best case scenario can only capture disease associated variation "out of Africa" and seemed to population and evolutionary geneticists 10 years ago to be a recipe designed only to identify genes of minor effect (i.e. most small populations with alleles contributing major effects to disease probably didn't make it through the Toba super eruption bottleneck and the challenges of climate change...there is a real blindness to evolutionary biology and paleontology in the WGA community). His work at NHGRI was of questionable efficiency in part due to a dogmatic and non-consultative leadership style that fit in at the Bush era NIH. However, this brought huge opportunity costs with it as two generations of young research careers were sacrificed to build a big science enterprise that, objectively, hasn't delivered much except new concentration of power in the hands of an ever shrinking number of research centers. I honestly feel Dr. Collins will be an unmitigated disaster for NIH, after a decade long period of mis-spent resources when a doubled budget brought huge resources to the haves but didn't really expand U.S. science's "idea base". Additionally he has been a vigorous defender of failed big science ideas...I see no evidence of the scientific objectivity that NIH desperately needs if it really wants to get U.S. innovation back up and running...which will happen with investigator driven, rather than technology center driven research. I am all for research technology centers that function to serve the problem driven research of small labs, but the huge "IP grab" projects that ultimately answer few questions in a useful way are a colossal waste of money. These seem to be the projects that Dr. Collins has favored throughout his career, I worry that team Obama lacks the science chops to figure this out, but here's hoping. Dr. Collins has at least tacitly been behind a "how dare other scientists even question NIH's direction, organization, and motivation" approach to the scientific community that has done extremely bad damage to U.S. science. Real, extensive, consultative peer review includes a detailed understanding of the source and content of dissent...this has been sorely lacking at NIH for a decade. The lesson of the U.S. economic melt down is that centralization of social power and “father knows best” management approaches have inherent flaws for all organizations..we don’t want NIH to = AIG…but many of the same failed management approaches have become embedded at NIH. An NIH director drawn from a small lab background, with less government service history and a strong vision of community in science, could be a wonderful alternative.. maybe there is a good 40 year old out there somewhere? :-)
Posted by: Yoritomo | May 27, 2009 11:41 AM
Collins seems to be another example of Obama appointing someone to the top spot who did some real work in that area: Charles Bolden for NASA, or Steven Chu for the Department of Energy. Sotomayor was also heralded as "most experienced". I don't think that's the worst method of picking appointees, even though Collins' religious views may not be to our liking.
Posted by: skeptical prof | May 27, 2009 11:43 AM
I think the more crucial problem with Dr. Collins has been that he has let his own faith in genetic determinism and a drive (if not a lust..) for concentrating power in the hands of "big science" lead him into supporting bad science. He never learned the lesson of his own work with cystic fibrosis, which in my opinion is that finding genes of major effect does not quickly translate to cures. His support for HapMap and whole genome association studies, which in the best case scenario can only capture disease associated variation "out of Africa" and seemed to population and evolutionary geneticists 10 years ago to be a recipe designed only to identify genes of minor effect (i.e. most small populations with alleles contributing major effects to disease probably didn't make it through the Toba super eruption bottleneck and the challenges of climate change...there is a real blindness to evolutionary biology and paleontology in the WGA community). His work at NHGRI was of questionable efficiency in part due to a dogmatic and non-consultative leadership style that fit in at the Bush era NIH. However, this brought huge opportunity costs with it as two generations of young research careers were sacrificed to build a big science enterprise that, objectively, hasn't delivered much except new concentration of power in the hands of an ever shrinking number of research centers. I honestly feel Dr. Collins will be an unmitigated disaster for NIH, after a decade long period of mis-spent resources when a doubled budget brought huge resources to the haves but didn't really expand U.S. science's "idea base". Additionally he has been a vigorous defender of failed big science ideas...I see no evidence of the scientific objectivity that NIH desperately needs if it really wants to get U.S. innovation back up and running...which will happen with investigator driven, rather than technology center driven research. I am all for research technology centers that function to serve the problem driven research of small labs, but the huge "IP grab" projects that ultimately answer few questions in a useful way are a colossal waste of money. These seem to be the projects that Dr. Collins has favored throughout his career, I worry that team Obama lacks the science chops to figure this out, but here's hoping. Dr. Collins has at least tacitly been behind a "how dare other scientists even question NIH's direction, organization, and motivation" approach to the scientific community that has done extremely bad damage to U.S. science. Real, extensive, consultative peer review includes a detailed understanding of the source and content of dissent...this has been sorely lacking at NIH for a decade. The lesson of the U.S. economic melt down is that centralization of social power and “father knows best” management approaches have inherent flaws for all organizations..we don’t want NIH to = AIG…but many of the same failed management approaches have become embedded at NIH. An NIH director drawn from a small lab background, with less government service history and a strong vision of community in science, could be a wonderful alternative.. maybe there is a good 40 year old out there somewhere? :-)
Posted by: Barnard's Star | May 27, 2009 11:53 AM
Hope is not a stratagem. I voted for Obama, but only because he was this election's "lesser evil" for me. The thought of Sarah Palin getting within line of sight of the White House gave me night sweats. But I am having a great time reading all the glassy eyed fools who now have reality crashing down on their hope. Hoping in a politician? From the Chicago machine? What mind warping drugs were you using, and can I score a hit?
Posted by: Ranson | May 27, 2009 11:55 AM
I really think that the Seed Overlords need to change their polite little "Don't post again" screen to a walloping, flashing, 150-point eye-burner saying "DON'T FUCKING POST MORE THAN ONCE."
Posted by: James Sweet | May 27, 2009 12:09 PM
All three comments at Scientific American are basically saying that someone who is religious will do a *better* job and that Dawkins is a tool. I don't feel like registering, but perhaps some other folks could fix this?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=former-human-genome-project-leader-2009-05-26#commentbox
Posted by: Barklikeadog | May 27, 2009 12:11 PM
skeptical prof.. I tend to agree with your assessment of Collins but I lack knowledge of him in areas you are talking about. Specifically what you said here
What were those failed big science ideas he has/d and how did he have a hand in keeping 2 generations of new researchers from emerging? I know little of his history & I'd like to know what you know more specifically. I think his choice is pandering only to the woo-side and will hold back science in the U.S. still.Posted by: SteveN
|
May 27, 2009 12:15 PM
I, too, was dismayed this morning when I read the news of Collins' probable appointment as head of the NIH. Having thought about it a little, however, the head of the NIH has to be more of a manager and a politician than a scientist, and he did do a good job as head of the Human Genome Project. Hopefully, he will continue to have the ability to keep his beliefs separate from his duties.
SteveN
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 27, 2009 12:41 PM
It is stupid of them to have that message in 10 pt, in that strange font where boldface is barely bolder than regular typeface. That makes it an effort to read, so people don't make that effort and just assume it just says "error, your comment didn't get through", even though it actually says the opposite.
But that's not surprising. The Sb standard layout for all blogs is like that.
Which is itself astoundingly stupid. I mean, I can read it, but anyone with slightly weaker eyesight… <headshake>
Can the Overlords fire their webdesigners at last?
Posted by: Joel | May 27, 2009 12:47 PM
I think you are being unfair and reactionary to the news about Francis Collins. His scientific credentials are impeccable, and he's had a scientific career that many researchers could only dream of.
Also, if you do your research, like read his book (gasp!), you'll find that he's pro-choice, pro-stem cells, pro-evolution, and a harsh critic of intelligent design. He was also a huge supporter of Obama during the presidential campaign, and even consulted for the campaign if I recall correctly.
I'm not religious, but Francis Collins has proven to be a rational and articulate bridge-builder between religion and science. You can question the need for such a bridge, but I believe that in the current political climate in America, someone like Collins can really make a positive impact on the public's appreciation for science which would hopefully translate into increased funding for research and a purging of nut-jobs attacking science in school curriculum.
Let's judge Francis objectively based on his accomplishments and his actions, not subjectively and preemptively based on ideals.
Posted by: James F | May 27, 2009 1:03 PM
Joel (#37), well said.
Let me add something else I find admirable about Dr. Collins. Show of hands, how many have heard of Amitav Hajra? Hajra was a graduate student of Collins's who fabricated and falsified data on multiple publications. It was a nightmare scenario for any principal investigator, but Collins first privately notified other leukemia researchers who might be impacted by the work, confronted Hajra (then in Michigan) in person, and after his former student's confession promptly retracted all of the affected papers. In a time when academic fraud is sometimes swept under the carpet for years, Francis Collins handled the matter like a true professional.
Posted by: ERV | May 27, 2009 1:06 PM
Judge Collins based on his accomplishments?
Fine!
No one would have any idea who Collins was if he wasnt appointed to a position to head a program that was already up-and-running for him. He would be just one more anonymous scientist in the crowd.
Compare him to his nemesis, Craig Venter, who is a wild innovator that worked for everything he has.
Or a previous NIH director like Harold Varmus, who through his own work, revolutionized virology and cancer research, and won a Nobel for his efforts.
Watson declared that the automated sequencing machines could be run by monkeys-- How the hell can anyone say Collins is a 'great scientist'?
He is functional. Fantastic. So is every other PI in the country.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 27, 2009 1:07 PM
Agree that his scientific credentials are impeccable, but the BioLogos thing is disturbing. I quote from the site:
"God is the creator and sustainer of all
physical laws and has the ability to suspend those laws"
http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-and-miracles/
Eh, that's kind of disturbing... I don't really want the head of a science organization to believe a magical sky daddy can change physical laws on a whim...
As a friend of mine put it in a different forum, this is truly "befuddling". It's like, he's probably a good choice, but... then you click on BioLogos and it's like, WTF? I just don't know what I think... Isn't there a better choice?
Posted by: Joel | May 27, 2009 1:15 PM
ERV (#39)
Don't take my word that he is or is not a great scientists. Judge for yourself. The following link will take you to the 401 scientific peer-review papers Collins has published in Genomics and Medical genetics.
http://bit.ly/YMdNe
I also wanted to add that Collins has been a strong and outspoken supporter of genetic non-discrimination legislation.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 1:16 PM
Criticizing intelligent design only means so much when you sincerely believe that seeing a waterfall split into three streams shows that Yahweh exists and Jesus loves you.
We can only hope that one day he will realize that only one sheds any light on how the world works. But then, he has no reason to cross that bridge. His sciency religion book made him more money than pure science ever would. It's too bad rational can easily be seen as "milk flock, make lots of money, they're eager for science to make them feel good about baseless faith". That's the world we live in, but it's sick to see scientists pandering to line their pockets like Collins does.
Posted by: ERV | May 27, 2009 1:28 PM
Joel I know how to fucking use PubMed.
I also know that a center authorship on a genome screen with +20 authors means you did ~jack shit.
You think 'Isolation and characterization of somatic cell hybrids with breakpoints spanning 17q22-->q24' should earn him NIH director position? 'An optimized Alu-PCR primer pair for human-specific amplification of YACs and somatic cell hybrids'? Basic shit that every scientist does every day. But because Collins got a lucky ass appointment, hes a 'great scientist'.
*rolleyes*
Posted by: carovee | May 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Thanks #11 for setting me straight.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 27, 2009 1:37 PM
SteveN (post #35) said: I, too, was dismayed this morning when I read the news of Collins' probable appointment as head of the NIH. Having thought about it a little, however, the head of the NIH has to be more of a manager and a politician than a scientist, and he did do a good job as head of the Human Genome Project.
TomJoe replies: To address the bold faced text ... what if the position were more of a scientist position? His beliefs would then disqualify him? On what ground? Your prejudice?
Posted by: TomJoe | May 27, 2009 1:44 PM
Abbie (post #43) said: But because Collins got a lucky ass appointment, hes a 'great scientist'.
TomJoe replies: So those who elected him to the National Academy of Sciences were all wrong about him?
Posted by: Joel | May 27, 2009 2:03 PM
ERV (#43)
I'm sure you're a PubMed Ninja, just can't assume the same for every reader. Pardon my indiscretion.
I think your response is fair. Now the question is, what objective criteria or metric would you suggest using to determine wether or not someone was a 'great scientist'?
Posted by: James Sweet | May 27, 2009 2:06 PM
@TomJoe: On what ground? On the ground that if you believe that physical laws can be suspended on a whim, I'm not so sure you are the most qualified to be studying physical laws... y'know?
With the exception of the BioLogos stuff and his book, I don't think anybody can reasonably say that Collins' religious beliefs are a problem for this appointment. If he wants to believe something crazy in private, go for it! But when he starts trying to reconcile crazy beliefs with his scientific work, that starts to become a matter for concern...
For me personally, I'm not quite sure. I am "befuddled" as I said before. He seems like probably a good choice, but some of the stuff on the BioLogos site deeply concerns me.
Posted by: TomJoe | May 27, 2009 2:14 PM
On the ground that if you believe that physical laws can be suspended on a whim, I'm not so sure you are the most qualified to be studying physical laws... y'know?
No, I don't know. Of course you've pulled the old "If you are religious, you cannot possibly make a good scientist." canard. How many times has that been disproved? Other than countless times of course.
Posted by: SLC | May 27, 2009 2:32 PM
Hey folks, the co-chairman of President Obamas' science advisory committee is the aforementioned Dr. Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize winner and former director of the NIH. I would be wiling to bet that the president consulted with Dr. Varmus before making this appointment.
Posted by: ollie | May 27, 2009 2:32 PM
People are package deals. Yeah, I wish that Collins wasn't a Christian.
But he is a good man and a brilliant scientist it is for the latter reason that I approve of his pick.
I chalk up his cognitive dissonance to eccentricity.
Posted by: eNeMeE | May 27, 2009 3:17 PM
Anyone whose organization quote mines Stephen Hawking does not deserve this sort of appointment.
Hell, anyone who quote mines doesn't.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
May 27, 2009 3:18 PM
This is not as bad as it looks. What this does do is to center the conversation, perhaps, right where we want it to be. The conversation that needs to happen can not not happen if he is appointed, and it can not be ignored.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2009 3:39 PM
I'm not wild about the appointment, but I see it as reasonable. First of all, the appointment should sail through congress. It doesn't do any good to appoint someone who raises huge red flags, and wastes a lot of political clout to get approved this early in the presidential term. Second, the job requires a manager who also knows both science and politics. Someone who can do two out of the three is OK, but if they can do all three, even better. And Collins, because of his previous experience with the NHGRI, he is in a better position than many other candidates, as he knows his way around the science and technology subcommittees in congress. My two cents.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 3:40 PM
Abbie, your scorn is way over the top.
Collins earned an MD and a PhD. He was elected to the National Academy in 1993, for research achievements before he became NHGRI Director that same year. Cherry-picking a couple of unimpressive (to you) papers is not a fair summary of his output. He successfully administered one of the NIH Institutes for many years. He's a solid pick for this administrative position, despite his religion.
You have how many degrees? pubs? R1s? "lucky" Institute Directorships? It comes off as pretty obnoxious (to me) with the virtual eye-rolling etc.
Posted by: Orac
|
May 27, 2009 3:51 PM
Agreed. As much as I like Abbie in general, she's way, way off base on this one to the point of self-parody. Being a good scientist AND successfully administering large organizations represent a skill set that is very uncommon, and Francis Collins has it. (Also, they don't just let anyone into the National Academy of Sciences, you know.) Just because PZ and Abbie scorn his religious views does not make him a bad pick, and that really does seem to be the main objection.
Concentrate on whether or not he he has the skills and vision to do a good job. Skeptical Prof is the only one so far who's really made concrete objections on the basis of Collin's history running the NHGRI, the Human Genome Project, and his other history, rather than attacking or defending his religion.
Posted by: amphiox | May 27, 2009 4:11 PM
And I think Collins doesn't even need to be a great or even good scientist to be a quality pick for this position. He needs to be a great administrator. On the science side, all he needs to be is competent.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 27, 2009 4:15 PM
@TomJoe: I'm not arguing that you cannot be both religious and a good scientist. Of course you can.
I am expressing concern that if your religious views are such that they impel you to create a website promoting the idea that miracles can be used to alter physical laws, that might interfere with science.
I'm not disturbed by the fact that Collins is an Evangelical, I'm disturbed by his BioLogos website. But it's starting to look like his track record is fine nonetheless, so maybe it's much ado about nothing. I don't think it makes me prejudiced to have been concerned about that though...
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 4:23 PM
Everyone knows that science and religion are Non-Overlapping Magisteria. How dare you imply that one's convictions in one might affect their approach regarding the other. They're obviously disjunctive fields.
Posted by: Karey | May 27, 2009 4:24 PM
Well I for one worry when a supposed scientist spends his free time trying to make evidence match up to preconceived notions he has. That is not what an honest investigation for truth does.
Posted by: Uppity | May 27, 2009 4:29 PM
"I know he had a good reputation as an administrator of the human genome project, but do we really need to go back to the Bush years of god-walloping goofballs at the head of every major government agency?"
The inference here is that Collins may be a good administrator, but he's nothing special as a scientist (since his science chops aren't mentioned). What is the basis for that inferential claim (unless I'm totally misreading)?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 4:31 PM
His ideas are fairly ridiculous, but relatively harmless compared to other "godly" ideas.
WRONG.
You all actually need to read his fucking book. Did you actually look at the biologos site?
The man essentially believes all higher brain functions and behavior comes from god.
As to his ability to compartmentalize, seems to me having watched him carefully for the last 6 years, it's actually breaking down, and more and more woo is leaking in.
What happens when it breaks down entirely, and he turns into another Michael Egnor?
Will those who thought him "harmless" think so then?
I know from experience, having worked with NIH in political battles before, that the head of NIH actually has a lot of political clout.
I would not want to see someone like Collins with that much clout.
Posted by: Prometheus | May 27, 2009 4:33 PM
As I said on Abbie's blog the director of NIH actually directs. If Varmus could not starve out the outrageous waste and complete nonsense of the The National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine it will reach obscene and epic proportions under the tutelage of an individual who does not merely invest in magical thinking but actively wallows in it.
I am not just cheerleading for Abbie and Meyers. I was appalled at Collins glaring misrepresentations to the already histrionic press of the status of the project at the NHGRI.
When he had an affirmative obligation to represent the project and report on its status to immensely powerful political figures who were waiting for very real information he literally TOOK OUT A GUITAR AND SANG A FUNNY SONG ABOUT IT on more than one occasion.
What the hell????
I promise you the following:
Massive studies on vaccine and autism correlations.
(The kind you do over and over in the hopes of finding it when it isn't f*cking there)
More intercessory prayer and health studies (cause 10+ million for "Its bullshit" is unsatisfying).
Big checks for anything remotely skewed into the social science quest for justifying identity politics.(Prenatal Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Associated with Global Warming in Inuit Paraplegic Transgendered Toddlers: An NIH Funded Study)
The creation of about a million boards related to science and ethics to wit 1/2 scientists(Uri Gellar, Erich von Däniken, Bill Nye etc.) 1/2 clergy(Rick Warren, Dobson, Schuller etc.)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 4:46 PM
Of course, "clout" for the NIH is, by itself, a good thing.
Steering the Institutes toward all manner of pseudo- and ascientific woo and...postmodern social science?...would of course be a very bad thing.
That is a worst-case scenario, though. It's not clear to me why you think his professed style of christianity would cause him to do that.
I find his propensity to favor big science over individual PIs more worrisome.
Posted by: Quinn | May 27, 2009 4:53 PM
Obama is himself a self-professed Christian nut (although like many others I tend to believe he's just saying this for political expediency and is at heart an atheist) so I suppose I can live with it.
Posted by: SteveN
|
May 27, 2009 5:00 PM
In answer to TomJoe's question (#45), I would be more concerned if someone like Collins was to be directly involved scientically in studying the evolution of human morality, for example. I am not convinced that he would be fully objective under such circumstances. He has already shown himself to be fully capable of performing the role of a mananger/politician, however.
Please note that I am myself a scientist in charge of fairly sized research team and some of my most respected (in terms of scientific ability and creativity) friends and colleagues also happen to be religious. So no, I do not have a 'prejudice' against religious scientists per se. Collin's book and website put him another league altogether, however.
SteveN
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 5:03 PM
In addition to Collins's pretty-much-objectively-unassailable qualifications for the job and whatever (likely positive) role his religion may have played, Obama is certainly factoring in this as well.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Fun excerpts from the BioLogos site:
That, in a section that is described as "detailed" and "technical". Note the subtle use of objects that have "evolved" through conscious iterative design processes.
...
Yet tell them that the story of Joshua is just an after-the-fact genocide apologetic, and they pretend not to hear you. At the same time as claiming that all of Mohammed's teachings were after the fact rationalizations to excuse his behavior.
And people think he might scale back NCCAM? No development in modern science poses a particular challenge to the view that there are undetectable magic chi lines that acupuncture acts on.
Oddly, there was no evidence provided with the assertion.
"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
Whatever his stated opinion is regarding Intelligent Design, everything he promotes in the area of religion follows the same logic. The same unproven or unprovable assertions. He uses the same rhetorical tricks about how he "used to be an angry atheist". Reading C.S. Lewis and ignoring the rebuttals where people pointed out that "lord, liar, or lunatic" is a silly thing to ask when the issue of whether the person even existed in the first place isn't exactly definitive.
Of course, it's my suspicion that the whole thing is just a ploy to get faith-related funding money and sell more books. I encountered him at a book whoring at a megachurch, and he just struck me as telling people what they wanted to hear while putting a sciency sheen on the whole thing to lend more credibility. That still doesn't exactly endear me to having him in a position where he will have financial clout regarding the funding of science in the US.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 5:11 PM
I guess I just doubt that Collins is going to make religiously motivated decisions about scientific funding. If I turn out to be wrong, I'm going to be as pissed off as anybody.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 27, 2009 5:19 PM
I don't think he will, either. I think he will later use his position for propaganda purposes, though, and right now, I don't have much confidence in his ability to reason scientifically.
Posted by: Prometheus | May 27, 2009 5:22 PM
As director he will hold sway over this office of the NIH.
http://nccam.nih.gov/
No, that isn't a parody website or a link on Oprah.com it is a funded Office of the United States Government. One he will oversee.
Seriously, critically look at that, then read Sam Harris' review of Collins' revolting book.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/
Keep in mind that he published that nasty bit of self important self delusional shamanism to coincide with his pronouncements as the face of the human genome project.
He used us, he used the press, he used his tax funded position and he used a scientific watershed event to promote a self indulgent chick tract with a double helix on the cover.
Now he cashes in by giving neck massages to Presbyterians, telling them they are going to heaven and they did not miss out on 2,100 rounds of Sunday morning golf for naught while he waits for an appointment to a position of enormous power.
How do some people not get that this sucks?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 27, 2009 5:36 PM
No, he doesn't. Have you read the BioLogos site? Creationists like David Klinghoffer complain about statements at BioLogos such as this one:
The fact is that Collins plays a familiar theist game, throw out as many gaps as you can, and try to fit god in them.
While the bit above is not credited as having been written by Collins, it is difficult to see how it is at BioLogos without at least his tacit approval. And Klinghoffer, who I did argue with at his site, whines that Collins et al. are willing to admit that morals may not be miraculous after all. Which is just wrong, don't you know?
Collins is a sappy religionist, no question. But he's not going to stick his neck out and claim that "higher functions" are necessarily unexplainable by science. He's going to argue for it, but leave enough of a safety door open to allow for future developments.
I will say this--anyone putting him up for director of NIH had better extract a promise that he won't interfere with neuroscience. I doubt that he would, but I do think he's put out enough nonsense that the request for such a promise is not unwarranted.
On another subject, if someone says that Collins' religion is "relatively harmless compared with other "godly" ideas," and you disagree, you damn well better show how they are not "relatively harmless" compared with, say, David Klinghoffer's anti-science claptrap. So far, declarative statements and demonstrably incorrect information appear to be all that you have for your claims.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Prometheus | May 27, 2009 6:21 PM
Dubya published his list of members of the President's Advisory Council on Stem Cell research and I spent a month with blood squirting out of my eyes like a horny toad because all but two of them were professed members of Opus Dei or regular contributors to Neuhaus' First Things magazine.
Supposedly calmer heads said "Prom I know it looks like he just stuck his head into a meeting of the college of cardinals and said 'can we borrow you guys for a minute' but wait and see. Some of those guys have impressive credentials."
Bullshit.
I was right.
I am right about this too.
Posted by: Govt.Bureaucrat | May 27, 2009 7:06 PM
>Being a good scientist AND successfully administering large organizations represent a skill set that is very uncommon, and Francis Collins has it.
To this I would add teacher/ communicator. Many good scientists can go to Capitol Hill and completely tank. Staffers have the Blackberries going working--what? A pending markup? Tonight's hookup? Who cares--they are not listening to the esteemed Dr. X.
Collins can teach science concepts to a group of visiting legislators, or Congressional staffers, or the public and literally leave them panting for more. I have personally only seen two other scientists that I consider to be in his league in this department (I am sure that there are other I have not met, but this is a very rare skill in the science set.)
One person here mocked the use of his famous guitar at a gathering of some politicians. Understand how, why, and when he uses this and you will begin to understand why FC has had the jobs he has had (and will have) and why you have the job you have.
I have read enough today to understand that the New Atheist/Noisy Atheist (NANA's) crowd will not be able to make piece with this selection (if it happens.) A Dawkins clone might make the NANA's happy but would be a disaster for the NIH and the future of biomedical research.
To everybody else (not many here, I suspect, but lots elsewhere) I would council patience. I think that he would be a good choice. I have not shared his religious views for 30+ years but do not think that they disqualify him or that they will distort his leadership at the NIH.
GB
Posted by: Sasha | May 27, 2009 7:24 PM
Yeah, people can compartmentalize, but do you really want the head of the NIH to be a person that can compartmentalize THAT much? From his website, he appears to be a guy who's put serious time and energy arguing evangelical Christianity and science go hand in hand when we all know it doesn't.
He'll use his new post to push the next installment of "The Language of God," and claim how Jesus Christ and science are completely compatible. Come on, there's got to be someone else who's just as qualified and won't set back scientific rationalism back a few decades.
I took a look at his BioLogos website. My guess is that his worldview is something most PZ blog readers wouldn't agree with. I'm with poster #71, how can people here not see that this sucks majorly?
Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | May 27, 2009 7:25 PM
"The State Board of Education shall examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism."
Now, supposing the state declares evolution equivalent to atheism based in one sect's literal interpretation of genesis. What does that do to the religious sensibilities of people who take genesis to be allegory? I'm afraid there's no way they can do this without getting hoist on their own petard.
.
Posted by: ck | May 27, 2009 7:43 PM
So an energetic, hardworking person with a lifetime of experience as a scientist, administrator, teacher and andministrator (thanks GB) might head NIH. Too bad Francis doesn't understand scientific reasoning! He's just as bad as Isaac Newton! Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster *that* religious nut wasn't also named to head something he was utterly unqualified to do... like... the Royal Mint. Oh, wait.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 8:22 PM
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm
Gert does an excellent job here of reviewing Collins' book; both the good (the genetics - not perfect, but good enough), and the bad (the Moral Law arguments).
Collins:
"Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist"
and there you have it.
Collins sweeps under the rug of his theology entire fields of scientific endeavor relating to psychology, physiology, and animal behavior.
Those who think him a wonderful choice for NIH should really read what he says in his book carefully.
would you like YOUR field of endeavor to be swept out of mind because of the mans predispositions to fit god in self-made gaps of pure ignorance?
Posted by: Enzymer | May 27, 2009 9:14 PM
Oh calm down.
Yes Collins's religious beliefs are, hmmm, retrograde. But there are other offsetting virtues.
I've known several people who've worked for him over the last 20 years. Uniformly they rave about what a smart capable and decent guy he is. Whatever his religious beliefs, openly gay guys have worked with him and also report him as a very nice and decent guy.
His performance in organizing and running the Human Genome Project was really awe-inspiring. He predicted the kind of increases in efficiency in sequencing that have occurred. But more importantly he initiated several projects (including Dr. Ventor's) that helped make sequencing cheap.
Sorry for the rant, but y'all got under my skin.
Posted by: Prometheus | May 27, 2009 10:48 PM
Simplifying science to the point that it is wrong and doing it to a popular tune to appease and bilk the Booboisie isn't any more difficult or admirable than any other storefront fortuneteller or dealer of three card monte.
The key to a good grift is to be likable and have a general air of being harmless.
So you bought the aluminum siding.
So what?
Hire Tony Robbins or Captain Kangaroo.
His appointment is still an apology to religion for science that has nothing to do with his marketing skills or qualifications and it is still bullshit.
Posted by: Sloan | May 27, 2009 11:44 PM
So, bottom line: Francis Collins shouldn't get the job. Why? Because he's a Christian, and we think Christians are nuts.
Yeah. Okay.
Can't you people see what bigots you've become?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 11:50 PM
Can't you people see what bigots you've become?
obviously you see things that aren't there, so why don't you explain where the actually bigotry lies, eh?
Posted by: ck | May 28, 2009 12:08 AM
Ichthyic writes: "would you like YOUR field of endeavor to be swept out of mind because of the mans predispositions to fit god in self-made gaps of pure ignorance?"
You'd have a lot more gaps of ignorance without Collins and many other Christians doing honest work within your field, and the same is true in mine. As to the "gaps" Collins describes, I agree that it may be possible to explain aspects of unselfish human behavior on evolutionary grounds. However, that misses the point of the argument (of Collins, and of Lewis before him). Rather than rehashing old arguments, here is a pointer.
Yes, I've read Collins' book. And for the most part, I agree with him. So go ahead and chalk up my comments to the evil meme. Oh, but there isn't any evil. Never mind.
Posted by: Alex Deam
|
May 28, 2009 12:47 AM
Can't you see what a poor reader you've become?
Most people here have been disagreeing with PZ on this.
Posted by: PapaHans | May 28, 2009 2:46 AM
Collins sounds like a pretty decent guy, smart, not a hater, and he believes in evolution, (on the radio he sounds more like a Deist than the evangelical he claims to be), but....I just heard him tonight on that dried-up, infertile nazi harpy Laura Ingraham's show quacking about ID and the Genome Project, he pretty much had his head all the way up her ass. His appearing on her show at all disqualifies him from any position of import.
Posted by: DLC | May 28, 2009 2:48 AM
The question is, what is his religious wingnuttery going to lead him to do as administrator of the NIH ?
Having seen his website before, I can tell you that I'm worried about his ability to see the real world. Yes, for those with reading comprehension problems, I am concerned that he is delusional and so not fit for office.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 2:52 AM
You'd have a lot more gaps of ignorance without Collins and many other Christians doing honest work within your field
the point is they don't need to be christians to do it, and often IT INTERFERES with what and how they decided to do it.
I just pointed out how Collins' dissonance led him to entirely ignore entire fields of endeavor.
that he managed to realize the importance of genetics does not excuse his total lack of education regarding other aspects of evolution.
so sorry, but your argument doesn't fucking hold water.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 28, 2009 3:12 AM
It seems to me that this appointment will work to your guys' advantage. Collins will likely funnel more money to the Human Genome Project and it will probably be an atheist who gets to decide how to spend it.
I wonder if I can get a job developing software tools for research on the Human Genome Project. That would really be fun. PZ, can I get you to write me a letter of recommendation?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 3:18 AM
That would really be fun. PZ, can I get you to write me a letter of recommendation?
you're a real nutter, Stimpy.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2009 3:53 AM
Hell is wrong with that???
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 28, 2009 4:28 AM
WTF? A religious nut as chief of the NIH?
DOOMED! DOOMED!
@Marc Abian: Will his religion interfere with his job? Absolutely. Because of his religion, he will oppose a large body of work being carried out with the aid of the NIH. Here's a hint why: he unabashedly uses what little credibility he has in science to push his religious views; he will not change overnight and, if appointed, will use his position of privilege to push more of the same nonsense.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 4:44 AM
more @ ck, from his "previous" argument:
To my mind, Lewis does an admirable job of setting forth a summary of core Christian beliefs, shows that they are at least plausible, and points out significant flaws in several common arguments to the contrary.
all lewis does is set up strawmen of the contrary arguments and tries to prove THEM flawed.
it's fucking nonsense all the way round, which is what one might expect from someone not trained in any of the fields he comments on.
that someone like Collins would rely on CS lewis, of all people, as a guide to philosophy, let alone science, is ludicrous, and EXACTLY why there is a problem here.
Instead of making the case FOR Collins, you've actually provided a great case example of what the problem with him is.
uh, good job?
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 28, 2009 5:40 AM
I wonder what Collins would think about this:
Animals can tell right from wrong.
It seems Collins' only reason to believe in a deity is that morals must be god-given. That's what separates 'us' from animals. Somehow, I don't think he will be convinced by the evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 28, 2009 7:42 AM
If Collins wants to pray to his imaginary god in a church then it is his right and freedom to do so. When he is in his lab doing science, then his demented religion should not intrude into disciplines that are devoid of anything that stinks of nonsense. One can imagine him eventually peering into a microscope and exclaiming "isn't god wonderful to give us such design?", and in time leading the lab in prayer to divulge more of his "god's work". Why doesn't he set up his lab in his church and see if the reverse can be stated: "Isn't science just wonderful?". He is the wrong choice for this important position, as his religion will eventually taint pure science to it's detriment.
Posted by: Uppity | May 28, 2009 8:51 AM
"If Collins wants to pray to his imaginary god in a church then it is his right and freedom to do so. When he is in his lab doing science, then his demented religion should not intrude into disciplines that are devoid of anything that stinks of nonsense. One can imagine him eventually peering into a microscope and exclaiming 'isn't god wonderful to give us such design?', and in time leading the lab in prayer to divulge more of his 'god's work'. Why doesn't he set up his lab in his church and see if the reverse can be stated: 'Isn't science just wonderful?'. He is the wrong choice for this important position, as his religion will eventually taint pure science to it's detriment."
He's unfit because of what you "imagine" he might "eventually" do? Since there's apparently no evidence of his having actually done anyting like what you "imagine," he's deemed unfit by many here simply because of what he believes. No evidence of substantive wrongdoing. Ideological impurity is enough.
No evidence that he's a poor administrator (indeed, all signs point to his being a great administrator). No evidence that he's a poor scientist (indeed, all signs point to his being a terrific scientist). No evidence that he's a poor communicator to the public, the scientific community or the political community (indeed, all signs point to his being an excellent communicator).
If y'all had any practical clout, it isn't hard to imagine the level of repression that would become numbingly commonplace. The only difference from the fundies would be who gets purged. Disgusting.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 28, 2009 9:21 AM
Why not just scrap that old rule about no religious test for governmental office. What harm could it do?
Many people here seem to be worried over the potential for wrongdoing by Collins rather than citing particular evidence of such. They believe it is likely that his religion will force him to act in such a way although until now it hasn't happened in his work sphere.
There is a word to describe believing without evidence.
Faith.
I'm afraid that unlike many here I am not a man of faith.
I need solid evidence to draw my conclusions and I have seen no convincing evidence that Collins cannot work within the bounds of methodological naturalism.
It doesn't mean he's the best person for the job but it does suggest that the reasons cited for rejecting him should be treated in a more skeptical manner.
Posted by: ck | May 28, 2009 11:09 AM
Plenty of folks are willing to extrapolate what Collins would do based on their perception of his religious beliefs. His actual track record belies those concerns. He is guilty only of being as outspoken about his beliefs. Of course, nobody 'round here has that problem, right?
Ichthyic writes: the point is they don't need to be christians to do it, and often IT INTERFERES with what and how they decided to do it.
Interferes? Hardly. Collins' Christian convictions positively impact his ethical approach to science, as someone demonstrated very clearly above. I might, with equally poor justification, worry that your atheism would affect your science. There is nobody in this racket who is unbiased, but if most of us do our jobs ethically, and if peer reviewers and advisory panels do the same, then it works well enough.
I just pointed out how Collins' dissonance led him to entirely ignore entire fields of endeavor.
Where? I just reread all your posts to this thread. It's not here. Perhaps you mean the moral law argument --- you wish that he'd given equal time to E.O. Wilson?
...all lewis does is set up strawmen of the contrary arguments and tries to prove THEM flawed.
I already answered that criticism in detail (linked above), and amazingly it went almost unchallenged (one day I'll learn not to write long posts on a dying thread).
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 12:00 PM
Atheists don't oppose stem cell research for purely religious reasons. Collins does.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 28, 2009 12:39 PM
Anonymous said:
"Atheists don't oppose stem cell research for purely religious reasons. Collins does."
Does he?
Show me the evidence for that - not just statements of his religious views on creating embryos for the purpose of collecting stem cells but actual evidence that he has tried to prevent other scientists from pursuing a line of research that contradicts a particular sectarian religious viewpoints.
Posted by: Prometheus | May 28, 2009 1:22 PM
"We do not in nature see somatic cell nuclear transfer occurring. This is a purely manmade event. And yet somehow we have attached to the product of that kind of activity the same moral status as the union of sperm and egg."
From a 2005 interview and yes he brought his guitar and sang a hymn.
He sees no problem with stem cells derived from human cloning because a cloned embryo is of the inferior soulless man made variety whereas embryonic stem cell research makes baby Jeebuz weep salty salty tears blah blah blah....
This is the guy they gave the Inamori Ethics Prize?
WTF
If his crazy wasn't in a big bag with the word Jesus stamped on it he wouldn't be considered to head an institution, he would be locked away in one.
again and again and again
I don't care about his stupid religion I care about his being appointed BECAUSE of his stupid religion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 7:08 PM
His actual track record belies those concerns.
frankly, you know fuck all about his actual track record and publications.
admit it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 7:16 PM
Collins' Christian convictions positively impact his ethical approach to science, as someone demonstrated very clearly above.
what, by rejecting stem cell research using human embryos?
I might, with equally poor justification, worry that your atheism would affect your science.
no, it would be falsely equivalent, as is your usual argument. Do show exactly how atheism would interfere with a specific research project, fucktard.
you wish that he'd given equal time to E.O. Wilson?
wtf?
I'm going to assume what you really mean is that you deny
the massive amounts of evidence available to indicate that even complex behaviors have heritable components to them?
because in reality, that's all sociobiology is, and by using Wilson, I assume that's what you mean.
It's obvious you know so little about what you're talking about that you're entirely ignorable, so...
*plonk*
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | May 28, 2009 8:30 PM
The most interesting thing about these comments is that helps to differentiate between those who are bigots and those who are not.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 8:35 PM
The most interesting thing about these comments is that helps to differentiate between those who are bigots and those who are not.
As usual, stimpy chimes in with a purely senseless one-liner.
There are no bigots here, since by definition an idea is not a person.
Posted by: bmmg39 | May 31, 2009 3:49 PM
"Atheists don't oppose stem cell research for purely religious reasons."
Plenty of atheists and agnostics oppose embryonic research for ethical reasons that don't derive from religious belief. You can't simply read about one person's viewpoint and conclude that it "obviously" came from his or her religion.
Posted by: skeptical prof | June 2, 2009 2:06 PM
Oops. yep I missed the small type...sorry. To answer the one question about his actual...vs. philosophical..qualifications, I think a good example of a predictably bad technology choice, that Dr. Collins still cheerleads for, is the HapMap. Targeting extensive resources in an area of marker development with the hope and prayer (sorry) that heritability for disease states will generally be high (based on twin studies and familial traits)and that "biomarkers" will inevitably have strong predictive value for health seemed like a huge leap with extremely limited evidence...and definitely resorted in funding allocation shifts. The "faith" these choices revealed was in genetic determinism and the ability of dense (but probabilistic and possibly biologically irrelevant) data sets to provide value. Open letters from research deans about the failure of younger faculty, even in highly supported research institutions, to gain grant traction is one obvious and predictable outcome..(The editorials in the Feb 13th edition of Nature highlighted some of these issues). In chats I have had with faculty at large research centers one outcome is "the highest number of tenure failures and early carreer faculty moving out of science we have seen in 30 years"...which I think counts as a significant negative outcome of a shift to chancy big science...at least to a point considering that many of these folks are (or were) both able and hardworking...even if their grants didn't quite make the payline. In general a "big science vs. small science" approach justified as "translational" has been an NHGRI boon-doggle under Dr. Collins. Unfortunately because over concentration of resources in large labs at technology centers at research universities also was harmonious with Dr. Zerhouni's "the only good dean is a three crane dean (this is a direct quote from one of his speaches at a scientific meeting)" approach to research infrastructure at major research centers this led to real disaster for younger and smaller institution folks. The failure of WGA, HapMap, Biomarker, high-throughput approaches to "quickly lead to cures" isn't to say these approaches don't have value, but I really feel their primary purpose was to aid America's top 100 university's in empire building, while young labs and small labs in small to mid size institutions (where undergraduates can actually do the research side by side with faculty that might focus them on science and medicine careers) just got hammered. I would be more confident in Dr. Collins if I heard a reasoned "yes in retrospect WGA could have been predicted to have had problems, we failed to anticipate bottlenecking and population structure, limits on heritability studies and there was some applied wishful thinking in our X billion dollar rush to apply the fruits of the human genome project to high throughput discovery...really we are doing basic research not translational research because of the many unknowns" instead all we get is cheerleading "the glass is half full...look at the 60 genes associated with small contributions to height we discovered..that is more than we knew before"..sorts of discussions...which then really lead me at least to ask, "but at what cost to the community of discovery?". The answer to this will play out, but where is Dr. Collins the skeptical scientist saying "evidence says...wga was oversold"...I see no evidence of scientific objectivity in the life led at NHGRI over the last decade. Yes the management of the enterprise was arguably fine...but has the science really been that strong? We'll see I suppose.