…and this is a 
Oh, great. He's been appointed by Obama.
He'll do a fine job…he's a competent administrator. I think we can trust him to manage the institution smoothly.
We can also trust him to drape Jesus over every major announcement, use the office as a platform for promoting religiosity, and otherwise taint the whole business with embarrassingly inane nonsense…just as he did with the human genome press conference. Isn't it about time our government promoted secular values that work over these antique and ineffective superstitions that just make their proponents look goofy?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kobra | July 8, 2009 7:26 PM
Goofy? Now that's putting it lightly.
Posted by: Joe
|
July 8, 2009 7:26 PM
Does anyone know his position on that abstinence-only miseducation?
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 8, 2009 7:29 PM
One of the minions of H. Varmus told me and the frau that Harold is looking to "make a mark" (as if a Nobel is insufficient?!) and so is eschewing basic research in favor of translational science. The disaster that was the stimulus package and NIH grants is part and parcel with that desire. (2 years funding for immediate impact R01's, on what planet does this guy do science?) Hopefully Collins does not suffer from the same syndrome.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 8, 2009 7:31 PM
Meh. Just means that any 'real'* scientists at any pressconferences will just have to correct him in public: "I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that."
Or "no, we did not pray away that gay/cancer/cystic fibrosis/earthquakes."
*you know, the ones who've done the work.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 8, 2009 7:35 PM
Excuse me... but didn't we vote for Obama because we thought we WERE NOT going to get 4-8 more years of this nonsense?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 8, 2009 7:36 PM
No, the gov't should just be neutral.
The problem with Collins is that he's not in his announcements.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: SmartLX | July 8, 2009 7:36 PM
Meh, with any luck it'll keep him busy enough to let BioLogos slide. It'll certainly put him in close proximity with biologists whenever there's a nasty bug doing the rounds, and that can only be good for him.
Posted by: JD | July 8, 2009 7:37 PM
Awww shit. Not that strumming hack.
Posted by: Carlie | July 8, 2009 7:41 PM
Excuse me... but didn't we vote for Obama because we thought we WERE NOT going to get 4-8 more years of this nonsense?
No, we voted for Obama to keep Ken Ham from being appointed the head of NIH.
Posted by: taiki | July 8, 2009 7:53 PM
Given Al Franken's success with the senate, I feel it's fine to quote him.
"Progress, not perfection." While yes, he could've tapped any number of wildly qualified folks, the fact is, Collins does the research then praises God. It's also not like he tapped someone from the NCCAM or Kevin Trudeau for the job either.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 8, 2009 7:53 PM
Are you quite sure its the National Institute of Health?
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/05/francis-collins-appointed-director-of.html
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | July 8, 2009 8:00 PM
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Yes, this guy is religious. I saw him on Bill Maher's Religulous and he made that pretty clear. I don't really have a problem with that per say. My first question is, how did he do as head of the human genome project? Did he stick with the facts or what? Honest question because I really don't know if he was controversial or not. If he was going on about god making the gene work and all that or using his position to preach then yeah I'd say he disqualified himself. If he stuck to doing his job and kept his religion more a private matter then so what? If he did a good job then being recognized by Obama would be a good thing. Now, if Collins did a good job but showed himself to be a total whackaloon then this would be a good opportunity for the administration to expose that and discredit him which they might not have been able to do otherwise, given his stature. I'll have to read up on him more to know what he has been like so far.
Posted by: shaun | July 8, 2009 8:03 PM
Im torn between 'At least he is a sodding scientist, and will probably do a passable job in his actual role' and 'oh for fucks sake can we not get a break here?'
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 8, 2009 8:05 PM
No, we voted for Obama to keep Ken Ham from being appointed the head of NIH.,/i>
An important point to remember since we're seeing, and will apparently continue to see, some really bonehead moves from our present president. It could be worse. Far worse. As our experience with each succeeding month of the GW Bush administration showed us, it can always get worse, and the John "Dead Man Walking" McCain/Sarah (R-CloudCuckooland) Palin administration would've been so far worse than this.
For one thing, the White House Department of Law would've kicked poor PZ off the intertubes by now.
Posted by: Dale O'Flaherty | July 8, 2009 8:09 PM
Sorry if this is off topic but the Irish blasphemy law passed in the Dail. It just needs to be passed in the Seanad (our senate) and then the president can sign it into law.
Could you spread the word about a meeting this Saturday between 2-5pm in Wynnes Hotel Dublin.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/07/08/a-brief-summary-of-the-ireland-blasphemy-law/
http://blasphemy.ie/
Posted by: aratina cage
|
July 8, 2009 8:15 PM
Don't kid yourselves, people. Obama appointed him because he appeals to the religious right and the bipartisan spirit that Obama has been courting so hard. This appointment will probably freak out Kwok, didn't he compare Obama to Hitler?
Posted by: ollie | July 8, 2009 8:15 PM
Collins constantly harped against "putting God in the gaps" and he is a competent scientists. So I am fine with this pick.
At least our President acknowledged the "non believers" which is more than we got from anyone else in recent memory.
Posted by: Carlie | July 8, 2009 8:30 PM
As our experience with each succeeding month of the GW Bush administration showed us, it can always get worse, and the John "Dead Man Walking" McCain/Sarah (R-CloudCuckooland) Palin administration would've been so far worse than this.
True, and I'm thankful for it, but we still need to hold Obama's feet to the fire. I want the myth that America is a right-leaning monolith shattered, and shattered good.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 8, 2009 8:39 PM
"At least our President acknowledged the "non believers" which is more than we got from anyone else in recent memory."
George W Bush acknowledged non believers in at least one of his speeches, too. That should give you some idea of what such comments are worth.
Posted by: fishman | July 8, 2009 8:40 PM
I'm not worried about Collins, no matter how silly his religious views might be. He has been a good administrator, has sound scientific judgment, and his faith doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of making good decisions. That's all that really matters.
Posted by: fishman | July 8, 2009 8:43 PM
I'm not worried about Collins, no matter how silly his religious views might be. He has been a good administrator, has sound scientific judgment, and his faith doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of making good decisions. That's all that really matters.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 8:44 PM
The more I see of this administration's workings, the more I think we should nominate PZ for president.
Posted by: debaser71 | July 8, 2009 8:50 PM
I told you so...
So where's all the "ya know I think Obama is a closet atheist" crowd now?
I've said this during the primaries...when Obama speaks of hope and change (tm) it rings just as hollow as when republicans speak of freedom and liberty.
Posted by: Bridget McKinney | July 8, 2009 8:51 PM
Collins is, as far as I know, a man of great intellectual integrity. It seems to me that this is a great choice, as he "he appeals to the religious right and the bipartisan spirit that Obama has been courting so hard," as a previous commenter stated. However, Collins isn't a religious whack-job, either. He's a scientist who happens to believe in God, and seems for the most part to keep that separate from the actual science that he does, even if he DOES mention God in press releases.
I think it's a little petty to cast aspersions on the guy just because he believes in God. I'm pretty sure I woke up in America this morning, where we have constitutional amendments protecting our right to believe anything we want as long as we aren't being harmful by it.
Rabid hate and general nastiness from atheists only makes atheists look like bigots in this case. By all means, we should all be denouncing Ken Ham and Westboro Baptist Church for all we're worth, but Francis Collins doesn't deserve the bile that I'm seeing spouted over this appointment.
Posted by: JD | July 8, 2009 9:02 PM
Okay, fair enough. He just better keep BioBogusTardos out of his public statements.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 8, 2009 9:02 PM
Aratina Cage @ 16 - Yeah, Kwok will freak out that it wasn't his good buddy Ken Miller...you know, the guy he had lunch with yesterday, when he sat next to his old high school buddy - you know the guy who won that award...
As for this, I'd expect to see more alternative woo crap. Collins seems to be sliding more and more into la-la land, though nowhere near as much as someone appointed by the Moose Queen. Obama so far has been a huge disappointment, but again, he is better than the alternative, sad to say. He seems to want the accolades as The Great Uniter, who will Heal This Countries Wounds, while he further destroys the Constitution on executive power, and stabs his supporters in the back appealing to people who want to literally stab him in the back.
Maybe we can get funding for a prayer study worshipping the Flying Squid Monster (The Flying Spaghetti Monster is but a pale, half-remembered shadow of this Great God)?
Posted by: fishman | July 8, 2009 9:23 PM
I'm not worried about Collins, no matter how silly his religious views might be. He has been a good administrator, has sound scientific judgment, and his faith doesn't seem to have gotten in the way of making good decisions. That's all that really matters.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 9:24 PM
Rather than whining about Collins' absurd beliefs, we need to commit ourselves to influencing him in this role.
He could leverage his bully pulpit given his evangelical credentials to effectively promote the TOE. The media loves shit like this, far more than an atheist promoting science. It'd be great to see a big drop in the number of people who reject evolution; he can help and we can still ridicule his absurd faith.
Posted by: Kevin Hunter
|
July 8, 2009 9:40 PM
Check this out! Thio Li-Ann, outspoken hatemonger against gays, is invited to teach a Human Rights position at NYU!
http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2hy8Jd/themoderatevoice.com/38572/should-someone-who-teaches-human-rights-back-human-rights-for-lgbt-people//
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 8, 2009 10:25 PM
Calm down boys and girls......
1. Collins is an excellent scientist.
2. He did a very good job with the Genome Project (particularly with regard to public access...something that gets easily forgotten now), and from what I have heard, he has done a good job at the NHGRI.
3. Many scientists were not especially happy with Elias Zerhouni's tenure at the NIH and will be excited at Collins' appointment.
4. We will have to wait and see whether Collins takes the NIH in a new direction. A lot depends on how the economy fares and whether the President can allocate as much to the NIH as he has indicated he wants. If both look good, Collins will have the means to really move US biomedical research forward.
5. Anyone who think that Collins will allow his religious views to interfere with running the NIH is making wild predictions on the basis of no evidence.
6. Speaking of which, #16, do you have any evidence that Collins was appointed because of his religious views?
Yes, I cringe when he talks about God. But as a scientist who depends on grants from the NIH, I am optimistic, and I wish him every success.
Posted by: Michael | July 8, 2009 10:27 PM
Yeah, we're in America. But sorry -- anyone who calls themselves a scientist and can still believe in god (not to mention write a whole book on the subject) is seriously compartmentalizing.
Science is about evidence and facts. How can anyone who employs the scientific method believe in such nonsense? And write a book trying to convince others to believe in it?
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 8, 2009 10:28 PM
Calm down boys and girls......
1. Collins is an excellent scientist.
2. He did a very good job with the Genome Project (particularly with regard to public access...something that gets easily forgotten now), and from what I have heard, he has done a good job at the NHGRI.
3. Many scientists were not especially happy with Elias Zerhouni's tenure at the NIH and will be excited at Collins' appointment.
4. We will have to wait and see whether Collins takes the NIH in a new direction. A lot depends on how the economy fares and whether the President can allocate as much to the NIH as he has indicated he wants. If both look good, Collins will have the means to really move US biomedical research forward.
5. Anyone who think that Collins will allow his religious views to interfere with running the NIH is making wild predictions on the basis of no evidence. If people think the NIH Director is a bully pulpit to evangelize for religion OR science, they are mistaken. No NIH Director has played a significant part in public (i.e. media) life.
6. Speaking of which, #16, do you have any evidence that Collins was appointed because of his religious views?
Yes, I cringe when he talks about God. But as a scientist who depends on grants from the NIH, I am optimistic, and I wish him every success.
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 8, 2009 10:30 PM
True, and I'm thankful for it, but we still need to hold Obama's feet to the fire. I want the myth that America is a right-leaning monolith shattered, and shattered good.
Certainly. We've made a step, and it's a huge step, but it's only a huge step because of the wretched place we started from. We've got a long way to go.
Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 10:48 PM
Collins always comes across as a little demented or Alzenheimers-esqe when he goes into god talk.
Remember, this is a man who thinks the invisible creator of the universe sent a special sign to him in the form of a 3 pronged waterfall indicating that Christianity is "the truth". He engages in outright atheist bashing and special pleading on his biologos website where he uses the language of science to justify his irrational beliefs.
I'm sorry, but that's wacky. It's embarrassingly wacky. I think there are actual sane people that are qualified for the job. I prefer to have science done by people who have a passion for science, not people who have a passion for a particular fairytale that they imagine to be "higher truth".
Posted by: Karl Broman | July 8, 2009 11:04 PM
I figured this was in the works when Collins resigned from being head of NHGRI (as apparently appointments can't come from within).
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 8, 2009 11:26 PM
#34 "I prefer to have science done by people who have a passion for science"
Please. Collins is listed as an author on several hundred scientific papers. You may not like his God-speak (I don't), you may think there are better potential candidates for the NIH Director's slot (I do), but don't presume to think he has no passion for science. You just make yourself sound silly.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 8, 2009 11:27 PM
Why don't you just come out and fucking say it, Francis Collins is a first class grade A American fucking retard.
It's going to be worse than Michael Griffin running NASA into the fucking ground like only an American retard really can.
We're going to be all over every fucking word that comes out of his retarded American ass, trust me.
Posted by: Abbie | July 8, 2009 11:35 PM
But on the up side, he'll give you plenty of material ;-)
Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 11:39 PM
Collins' passion is for Jesus not science. His genomics is good... not great. He does not let himself learn or admit to any scientific teaching that puts his faith in question. He believes that his god is busy at work on the quantum level. He really believes this.
Read his biologos website. His passion is in using science to justify the special divine secrets he imagines himself "in on". I seriously due think he's a bit demented. Suppose it turns out that his religious vision was due to an epileptic seizure in the area of the brain known to evoke such feelings? How willing do you think he'd be to consider that possibility? I think lots of rational people have a right to be concerned about Collins' heartfelt delusions and special pleading for his beliefs.
Posted by: Joey Giraud | July 9, 2009 12:02 AM
"Suppose it turns out that his religious vision was due to an epileptic seizure in the area of the brain known to evoke such feelings?"
Bah, a brain dysfunction isn't the least bit necessary. Anyone here could have a religious vision if they wanted to badly enough.
Posted by: Joey Giraud | July 9, 2009 12:04 AM
"Suppose it turns out that his religious vision was due to an epileptic seizure in the area of the brain known to evoke such feelings?"
Bah, a brain dysfunction isn't the least bit necessary. Anyone here could have a religious vision if they wanted to badly enough.
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 9, 2009 12:10 AM
As awful a decision a this is, please someone call up Ben Stein and get him on camera explaining again how the Darwinofascist conspiracy expels xtians from academia and any mention of religiosity is a death knell for a career in science.
Posted by: Joel | July 9, 2009 12:26 AM
I work with several top genomics scientists who are atheists and who have interacted with Francis Collins on a personal and professional level. While they might personally disagree with his religious beliefs, each one of them has praise for Francis Collins' integrity and scientific achievement.
Once again Obama proves him self to be level-headed and pragmatic. Pick someone who has a great reputation among scientists, who knows how to manage a large scientific organization, and who can build a bridge with the American public to raise science awareness and hopefully NIH budgets. Unless you look at this through the lens of athesitic idealism, I'm failing to see the problem here.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 9, 2009 12:38 AM
As awful a decision a this is, please someone call up Ben Stein and get him on camera explaining again how the Darwinofascist conspiracy expels xtians from academia and any mention of religiosity is a death knell for a career in science.
I like the point you're making.
Posted by: syzygy | July 9, 2009 12:46 AM
I read in a Times article that Obama views himself as a bipartisan person so he's gonna make concessions.
It could be worse you know. At least Collins can think unlike some of the truly incompetent people that are being appointed/nominated into positions of power.
Posted by: factician | July 9, 2009 1:21 AM
Competent administrator? The guy doesn't believe in peer review! His agency is the only agency at the NIH that does most of its funding using white papers that are reviewed by the top administrators - i.e. him.
He's a disaster.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 9, 2009 2:58 AM
lol, no they hate him because he's a geneticist and might supervise work on stem cells. He's preparing the way for Obama's nefarious eugenic programs, doncha know...
Posted by: Sigmund | July 9, 2009 5:42 AM
I might joke about his supernaturalist beliefs but I think its important to treat his appointment in exactly the same way as we would expect an atheist appointed to the post.
In other words we should expect either of them to concentrate on the job at hand, using empirical science as the basis for their decisions and leaving metaphysics out of their public pronouncements. I agree with Jerry Coynes previous statement that if Collins is appointed to the post he should resign from his biologos foundation.
Posted by: Heraclides | July 9, 2009 6:51 AM
More relevant question (?): are there candidates available that could do the admin work equally as well, that don't carry the "baggage"? Surely there must be.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 9, 2009 8:32 AM
More relevant question (?): are there candidates available that could do the admin work equally as well, that don't carry the "baggage"? Surely there must be.
Maybe the other candidates had different "baggage". Or maybe Obama doesn't see belief as "baggage" the way that we do.
Perhaps he just wanted to send a message that is pro-science and not anti-religion, and Collins was his best choice.
And don't call me Shirley.
Posted by: ennui | July 9, 2009 8:35 AM
He's not going to go around wrecking the place--he's just going to give it a little fine tuning...
Posted by: Felix | July 9, 2009 8:51 AM
If this was a move to appease the anti-science religious crowd, it's a spectacular piece of fail. It would mean that Obama (and/or his advisors) have no idea what those people's mindset is.
a) they need an enemy, a bogeyman. It's essential to uphold their worldview. Any concession meant to alleviate that welcome fear will not be acknowledged.
b) they know that theistic evolution, however meaningless the idea may be, is false. They're even more certain about it than the most vocal atheists I've read.
c) Collins is to them a false convert, someone who pretends or imagines he knows Jesus, but 'really' doesn't KNOW Jesus the way they do. Their evidence tells them that Jesus was a descendant of the person Adam, who was not a metaphor but a single man, the first and only one exisiting at the time. Their evidence tells them that Jesus knew about Adam, and since Jesus can not have been wrong, there is no possibility at all that Collins could be right.
The fundies are closing in on science and education with a wrecking ball and explosives, and Collins is one of the people who try to protect it by strapping a few pillows to the edges.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | July 9, 2009 9:01 AM
PZ sayz:
Sadly, no, it isn't. Not yet. At least, not in this specific case.
This is a political appointment, not a job fill. There are all sorts of considerations and subsidiary qualifications that absolutely must be taken into account if the appointment is to be seen as both sensible from a qualifications standpoint, and legitimate from a political perspective.
Sadly, neutering certain idiotic objections from certain emotionally retarded (yet tragically influential and well regarded) loudmouths by appointing someone who is acceptable to both good scientists and religious-minded pols and potentates is probably more valuable in advancing our atheist agenda then making a point, even symbolically, about how religion and science don't mix. At least, not here, not now, not in this sphere.
I think that until we can actually elect public officials who are willing to put their nonbelief on the public record, pols are going to have to play the accommodation game, at least in the political sphere, in order to effectively govern. This emphatically does not mean, though, that we the unelected hoi polloi shouldn't fight and agitate and educate and (most importantly) insist on accountability from our elected officials, irrespective of their stated beliefs.
Posted by: Heraclides | July 9, 2009 9:04 AM
@50 - or maybe he preferred a name the general public knew, that he could wave around, to one only known within academic circles? I still think it's a valid question.
Part of the reason I asked what I did, is if the answer to the question my "yes", then what is the reason for preferring this candidate? (The reason I'm spelling this out is that your little biff at "surely" suggests you've read meaning into my final sentence I wasn't implying.)
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 9, 2009 9:09 AM
Competent administrator? The guy doesn't believe in peer review! His agency is the only agency at the NIH that does most of its funding using white papers that are reviewed by the top administrators - i.e. him.
Details of the NHGRI's review program, together with a list of the scientists who are on those review panels can be found at
www.genome.gov/10001180
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | July 9, 2009 9:31 AM
This is a lot better than the previous administration's often bizarre and ineffective appointments to public office.
I for one congratulate him.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 9, 2009 9:36 AM
If this was a move to appease the anti-science religious crowd, it's a spectacular piece of fail.
I don't see it as a move to appease the anti-science crowd. But since most of them won't admit that they are anti-science (and possibly don't even think that they are anti-science), this move could neutralize them somewhat. They can't (in this case) say "Ben Stein was right!"
Obama is not playing to the anti-science crowd. He's not playing to the anti-religion crowd, either.
Posted by: sinz54 | July 9, 2009 9:40 AM
A government that "promotes secular values" would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
A government shouldn't be promoting either religion or atheism. It should do its Constitutional role: National defense, passing laws, etc.
And I think Collins is a great pick. What you folks here on Pharyngula are demonstrating is you just don't approve of scientists who have any kind of religious faith, and don't want such persons to receive any honors or appointments or promotions. You're bigoted as hell--something that is unworthy of those with pretentions to science.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | July 9, 2009 10:10 AM
sinz54 @58:
Politically speaking, I think you are probably right. From a practical standpoint, though, we're gonna have to wait and see the results. As long as he keeps the woo out of the policy (and, as a pragmatic matter, given his outspoken history it really ought to be incumbent on him to prove that he is), then it seems to me that the vast majority of denizens here will agree that he's acceptable, if not ideal.
That's just stupid. First of all, while I'm not going to bother to count, it sure seems that there are more posts here supporting the appointment then objecting to it. Secondly, when one feels strongly that science and religion shouldn't mix, and that NOMA is at best a bit of wishful thinking and at worst a disingenuous dodge, it is perfectly reasonable to raise questions when someone who is overtly religious is appointed to an influential government post with ultimate oversight over how science is funded.
Was it "bigoted as hell" to raise objections to the appointment of John Bolton to the U.N., when he was on record several times as belittling not only the institution, but the very ideals on which it was founded? Of course not.
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 9, 2009 10:41 AM
I think that's an unfortunate example. Bolton clearly let his own beliefs dictate policy in his work life, whereas there is no evidence of which I am aware that Collins has done that.
Posted by: Lynna | July 9, 2009 10:47 AM
articulett @34: Thanks for saying what I've been thinking for some time:
Early Alzheimer's Disease? Collins seems coherent and intelligent most of the time, but then he slips -- and it's not just the subject matter, not just the religious blather. There's something amiss. Maybe I'm too sensitive to possible signs of Alzheimer's Disease. I took care of my mother when she was dying of it. I saw the progression from its onset to demise. The onset stage looks like, sounds like, Collins when he slips up.
I hope I'm wrong. Let's also hope that Collins drops his public pronouncements of religion as not appropriate in his new office.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 9, 2009 10:51 AM
A government that "promotes secular values" would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
I disagree with that.
My dictionary defines secular as "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis"
You can't "establish" religion by doing things that "have no religious or spiritual basis".
A government shouldn't be promoting either religion or atheism. It should do its Constitutional role: National defense, passing laws, etc.
I agree with that. That is what our secular government should be doing.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | July 9, 2009 11:06 AM
AG @60:
OK, you're not wrong, but I wasn't intending it as a comparison of Bolton to Collins, but rather as an illustration of how raising the obvious incongruity is hardly a matter of bigotry.
Bolton's appointment was rightly seen as a big middle finger to supporters of the U.N. and the notion that the U.S. should take an active good faith role in that institution in order to promote multilaterism and good standing in the international community. Objecting to this, irrespective of one's opinions about the U.N., is hardly the mark of a bigot.
Likewise, I think that the Collins' appointment is rightly seen, not as the Bird necessarily, but certainly as a clear symbolic offering to the mushy middle of U.S. theists; and Obama surely understands clearly that this comes in rather sharp conflict with the views of both those who want to see a strict boundary enforced between religion and science, and those who insist on no boundary at all. He's basically casting his lot, in this case, with the majority who might say to itself "Hey, wait - I believe in both God and science - why shouldn't someone just like me hold this post?".
It seems naive to believe that Collins' outspoken religiosity was not a germane issue to this particular appointment, and not just in the sense that it raises the spectre that his job performance might be influenced by his views.
That said, I'm already on record as saying that this is probably a good move, and I don't take it personally even if I'm in one of the camps that he is (I think) explicitly rejecting here.
Posted by: raven | July 9, 2009 11:10 AM
I don't have a problem with Collins and his god babble. It doesn't interfere with his work enough to be noticeable.
And he and it scares the hell out of the fundie cultists. Not all evangelicals and pentacostals are creationists these days. The brighter and saner among them have realized that making believing bronze age mythology a litmus test for a cult is silly. They lose the best minds they have while retaining the ignorant, dumb, and crazy, with predictable results.
There have been power struggles going on in some sects over science and evolution. When the real world people win, the hardcore splits off. When the bronze age fanatics win, they kick the 21st centurists out. Xians are equal opportunity haters. They hate each other too.
Collins and the younger, better educated, and saner might well be part of a spontaneous "Wedge Strategy". Splitting the kooks and haters off from the more normal people. I've heard some old fundies complaining bitterly that the younger people just aren't as interested in hating, lying, and generally being ignorant. They are all going to hell for it, of course.
Posted by: Prometheus | July 9, 2009 11:34 AM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release July 8, 2009
“Dr. Collins has a longstanding interest in the interface between science and faith, and has written about this in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006), which spent many weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.”
Translation:
Dear Religion,
Please accept this apology from the government on behalf of science.
Science is sorry it was mean to you.
Signed,
Mister President
Posted by: Robyn | July 9, 2009 11:38 AM
Could be worse I suppose, he could be an evangelical creationist rather than just an evangelical Christian.
Posted by: Quine | July 9, 2009 12:22 PM
Go back and read the piece PZ did about Collin's BioLogos back in April: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/biologos.php
Then, we should all write up some grant proposals to send to the INH to investigate the impact of general superstition and woo woo thinking on the quality and availability of public health services.
Posted by: Steve Mutzu | July 9, 2009 12:31 PM
They call him a "Rockstar" scientist, but he is more like a karaoke singer.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 9, 2009 12:57 PM
What Andy Groves said. Calm down, people.
I worked at two of the same institutes Collins did (U Mich and NIH) and he's always been considered a first-rate scientist (and a pretty cool guy -- sported black leather and rode a hog to work at UM). He did a great job running the Human Genome Project (and FWIW he's not 1/10th the a-hole Craig Venter is), and he's likely gonna get a Nobel for it some day. He doesn't mix his weird religious beliefs into his scientific work, and he doesn't want religion taught in science classes.
His now-well-known religious beliefs will sit well with much of the public whose taxes pay for big and small science. If we hear more religious talk from him as NIH head than we did when he ran the HGP, it'll be because of, ironically, the higher profile of the religion/science debate has these days, thanks to people like *us* (not that there's anything wrong with that). Reporters and interviewers will predictably bring the issue up, but I doubt Francis will do so without prompting.
The only place I'd worry about him is regarding stem cell research.
We'll see. Obama hasn't exactly covered himself with glory on that issue either.
Posted by: ganv | July 9, 2009 2:21 PM
"Isn't it about time our government promoted secular values... "
As long you keep attaching the prestige of science to blatantly discriminatory social values, you are going to keep being part of the problem with science education in America. "secular values" is not an objective neutral position for government to be promoting any more than "Judeo-Christian values" are. If the government promotes Christian values it discriminates against athiests. If the government promotes secular values it discriminates against Christians. (granted historically it has done mostly the former, but that doesn't justify switching to the latter) If Collin's Christian beliefs could disqualify him for a government position, then your athiesm could disqualify you for a government position. The only workable path forward is pluralism on religion. He believes essentially the same scientific conclusions you do, and he has a much better chance of teaching them to the public than you do.
Posted by: genecutter | July 9, 2009 2:28 PM
This appointment is a mistake. Those of you who feel that Collins' ridiculous beliefs about supernatural beings will not impact his NIH duties, take time to read his awful book, The Language of God, and then decide if you think this ignorant fool can actually distinguish fact from fiction. A minimum requirement for this position, and for any scientific appointment, should be an understanding of the value of basing conclusions on evidence rather than wishful thinking. Collin's has demonstrated his readiness to throw the rule of evidence out the window and embrace, as truth, fantasies for which there is not a shred of verifiable data. It is wrong to accommodate this decision.
Posted by: el cid | July 9, 2009 2:33 PM
I read what I could of the prior comments and nobody seems to have caught on to one of the big advantages of Collins. He has solid credentials as a scientist, solid credentials as a Christian and thinks ID and creationism are utter bunk. Not only thinks it, says it rather clearly. You gotta embrace him for his value in splintering the most vocal and obnoxious elements of theistic intrusion into science. He's a bloody firewall in that regard.
Posted by: skeptic prof | July 9, 2009 2:34 PM
Interesting take at NYT on his appointment, which I think gets to some of the ambivalence that folks who aren't in the "genetic determinism, technology before science" camp AND "general disarray at NIH" observation that many folks are greeting this appointment with. The woo is already in NIH's approach to science funding...big labs, centers without purpose, big gun technology with no discernable target...and small labs get the boot. Good luck NIH...where 15% of our research money is spent on studies whose citation impact has been spiraling down for 20 years. I understand the last ditch effort to save big pharma..but it is likely already dead..maybe we should move on to the frontier described by individual scientists in smaller labs. Maybe Francis will clean house?..nah. Dr. Collins has been a heavily resourced technophile...whose best work hit the books before 1992..it has been a long and costly coast home for the research community. Any of the positive comments in the blog from someone whose bread and butter isn't tied up in a high throughput/large center based project? Anyone? :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/health/policy/09nih.html?ref=health
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 9, 2009 2:44 PM
genecutter@71:
Collins has headed the NHGRI and its predecessor, the NCHGR since 1994. Can you point to a single example of how his religious beliefs have affected his duties as the director of that NIH Institute?
Do you have evidence to suggest that the any of the several hundred scientific papers that Collins has co-authored are based on wishful thinking rather than scientific evidence?
Let's be clear - I completely disagree with Collins' views on religion. I cringe when he talks about it in public, and although I have not read his book, I am sure I would dislike it intensely. But I'm really bothered that a number of people here seem to suggest that his religious beliefs disqualify him from being a serious scientist, a competent scientific administrator and a national scientific leader of distinction when accumulated years of evidence suggest otherwise.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2009 2:58 PM
I have to agree with Andy. I don't think his weird religious views will affect how he administers the NIH (I'm actually more concerned that his background in BIG science will bias his priorities), and I think he has the track record to show that he will run the place competently.
My concern is entirely political. He's going to use his position after the fact to propagandize for religion. I don't think that's good for the country, or the long term health of science.
Well, there is one other concern. The man doesn't have much comprehension of evolutionary biology. But then, no NIH director ever is the kind of renaissance man who knows all the branches of science, so I just have to expect that he'd delegate reasonably in that field.
Posted by: el cid | July 9, 2009 2:59 PM
Relax Andy, genecutter is actually being so transparently political in his attacks on Collins that he undercuts himself.
Here's the deal, yes, Collins compartmentalizes. He shares with many a deep need to believe that there is some higher purpose. He has channeled this need in a manner that does not impact his ability to do science and, in its own way, may help him just as many of us need something (beer, sex, fishing?) other than our work life to keep us going. Just as we all like to say to our bosses, if it doesn't affect my work, it ain't your business. That's mostly true with Collins if he work is science. Only those who think the head of the NIH is supposed to evangelize atheism need be concerned.
Posted by: genecutter | July 9, 2009 3:17 PM
Andy Groves #74:
See this link for examples of how Collin's religious views muddy his thoughts about science - http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/01/francis_collins_should_not_be.php
Rather than assume you would disagree with his book, how about actually reading it. If you are going to defend this guy, you really ought to learn for yourself what he thinks.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 9, 2009 3:32 PM
I know Andy. I am confident he'd hate the book as much as I did -- so I would urge him to not waste his time with it.
RPM's comments on Collins are pretty good, too, and note that he doesn't make a point about the fact that Collins is a freakish Christian.
Posted by: genecutter | July 9, 2009 4:52 PM
PZ and Andy,
Collins' book is indeed a horrible read, and I take back recommending that anyone should subject themselves to it. Sorry Andy. But his writings do reveal how religion can screw up your thought processes. And I think his freakish Christian views might indeed impact his decisions as NIH director. For example, here is Collins on the topic of junk DNA: "I've stopped using the term," Collins said. "Think about it the way you think about stuff you keep in your basement. Stuff you might need some time. Go down, rummage around, pull it out if you might need it." There is substantial evidence that introns, spacer DNA between gene segments, is evolutionary garbage left over from the process by which complex genes evolved, and that it has, with rare exceptions, no functional role. It's junk. Now consider a grant proposal with the goal of demonstrating that introns are in fact functional genetic elements with an important role in genome function. Are you certain that Francis would completely exclude his own unsubstantiated views about basement DNA and judge the proposal strictly on its scientific merit? Can you think irrationally about one topic and be certain it will not seep into other areas? My concern about Collins is not political - it's just business . . .
Posted by: Prometheus | July 9, 2009 5:02 PM
Quit kidding yourselves.
The single most pertinent thing that could be achieved by an NIH director is to strangle the NCCAM fiasco with it's purse strings.
NCCAM is not going to go away under the directorship of a man who learned about the holy trinity from a magic waterfall and who believes sperm contain immortal souls.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 9, 2009 5:08 PM
and a pretty cool guy -- sported black leather and rode a hog to work at UM
Where I come from we call those kinds of people 'redneck retards'. I guess you think that's pretty cool, though, huh?
So Collins appears to be a wannabe retard. I call that fraud.
Posted by: Prometheus | July 9, 2009 5:23 PM
A candy apple Honda Nighthawk is neither cool nor a hog.
Posted by: Heraclides | July 9, 2009 5:49 PM
genecutter,
Collin's description of junk DNA—for use by the lay public, not scientists—isn't all bad. There is even a recent paper showing how one gene might have arisen from a previous pseudo-gene (i.e. from a "junk" gene to a functioning one). Like the junk in your basement, 99+% of it you'll never use again, just cart it around so to speak.
Posted by: Heraclides | July 9, 2009 6:12 PM
Just to clarify my earlier posts, which I know aren't making my position clear. My posts were asking questions, not stating my position. I worry that some people seem to be reading them as stating a position. My intention was to ask fairly open-ended questions.
I have the overall impression that he'll run the NIH as any administrator might, given that each person has their leanings (e.g. he obviously as a "big science"/technology centre background; perhaps he'll counter this by hiring someone with "small science" leanings to run a portion of the budget?).
I was curious about the "whole person" perspective (partly as I'm not familiar with how the selection would work and what the relevant criteria are). If he is required to make public announcements as part of the position, then you have to factor in how well he does this in the past as part of the assessment. (The first question would really be if this is an element of the job at all.) Looked at harshly, if he did present his personal views as part of institutional announcements, you could argue he's mixing personal interests in a place it doesn't belong and also that in effect he'd be misrepresenting some (most?) of those under him. I think it's fair to say any leader of an institution should keep their personal views out of public announcements and represent the institution, not themselves. So, how well has he done with this in the past? (I'm getting a confused message: some say he only does if asked, others imply he does it too often.)
I was also hoping to get names, and the merits of, possible alternative candidates as a key point about objecting to his appointment would have to be that there are "obvious" alternative candidates that would be better.
I personally would have hoped there is an equally meritorious candidate, in terms of the admin work, who isn't as tempted to us the position to push personal views as Collins would likely do, but is there?
As for him being a "wedge", it's an interesting point, but my thoughts are that I'd prefer someone who wasn't so pro-active at pushing his position, but rather someone who only brought it up when asked. To me someone who doesn't make an issue of their religious position more clearly indicates to me—and others—that religion isn't an issue or "agenda".
Posted by: Carrie | July 9, 2009 6:29 PM
God Bless Mr. Collins! This is the answer to my prayers for more good Christian men to be in positions of power, so all of you neigh-sayers can take that (i.e., a prayer--my prayer--was answered!). My sister is a brilliant geneticist herself and tells me that the NIH is buzzing over this news (both good and bad, more good though). She assures me his mind is beautiful both spiritually and scientifically. What a wonderful era of greatness awaits us.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 9, 2009 6:47 PM
Hay! I resent that!
*stomps hoof*
Posted by: genecutter | July 9, 2009 6:49 PM
Anyone who is interested in a summary of Collins' book "The Language of God" should read this review:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,166,The-Language-of-Ignorance,Sam-Harris
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 6:54 PM
My concern would be that his magical human moral sense denies entire fields of science (animal behavior, neuroscience, and as you note evolutionary biology). Well, that, and because of the Catholic thing embryonic stem cells squick him out.
Posted by: Faith Interface | July 9, 2009 7:31 PM
Here we go - another bunch of intellectually arrogant secularists bagging religious belief.
Surely you guys must be the most judgmental and intolerant bunch around?
Did I mentioned biased and blinkered - indoctrinated with Darwinism to a fault.
Posted by: Michael X | July 9, 2009 7:59 PM
Here's another pompous windbag who waltzes in with no counter argument save to call everyone "arrogant" (now we're convinced we're wrong!) and spout some silliness about "Darwinism", whatever the hell that is. State your case or put a cork in it pal.
Posted by: cd | July 9, 2009 9:31 PM
Did I mentioned biased and blinkered - indoctrinated with Darwinism to a fault.
I plead guilty, Your Honor. I'm just not sure of what crime exactly.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 10, 2009 1:04 AM
Thomas Lee Elfritz wrote
"Where I come from we call those kinds of people 'redneck retards'. I guess you think that's pretty cool, though, huh?
So Collins appears to be a wannabe retard. I call that fraud."
What I think is that based on his career achievements Collins is anything but a 'wannabe retard', nor does his choice of commuting attire circa 1988 condemn him as a 'fraud', whereas from your 'work' on this thread, I'd say you have successfully attained the status of 'flaming asshole'.
Sheesh. I don't kid myself that being atheists automatically makes us globally rational, but posts like yours make me wonder how often PZ is embarrassed to host this place.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 10, 2009 1:11 AM
Yeah Faith... that sure changed my mind. Religion is a waste of time. And you're wasting ours.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 10, 2009 1:34 AM
Paul wrote:
"My concern would be that his magical human moral sense denies entire fields of science (animal behavior, neuroscience, and as you note evolutionary biology). "
Really? *That's* your concern?
There is absolutely zero evidence that Collins...who, again, has spent the last several decades working in totally mainstream scientific environments...where neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists roamed free...'denies' these fields. In fact, he was one of those videotaped for evo biologist Niles Eldritch's "Darwin: His Life and Times" exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC in 2006. His message (along with those of Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Eugenie Scott, to name some other 'accomodationists' who were also tapes) was pro-Darwin, pro-evolution, anti-ID...anything but a 'denial' of the field.
I think his stated Evangelical Christian beliefs are ridiculous tosh. Any decent debater could tear them apart logically in minutes. But if he thinks evolution occurs via natural forces yet is somehow part of a working out of Invisible Son-Sacrificing Sky Daddy's ancient plan, *so what*? He doesn't insist the science be taught as such, doesn't require his employees to believe it, nor does it infect his papers. He's a poster boy for NOMA. His scientific work and advocacy is solid, and kept well-separated from the other 'magisterium' . In fact some of the critique he's coming in for now is that he was TOO MUCH a cheerleader for....genomic medicine!
Evolutionary biology apparently doesn't conflict with Collins' personal woo. I seriously doubt neuroscience or ethology do either.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 10, 2009 1:43 AM
Posted by: Prometheus | July 9, 2009 5:23 PM
"A candy apple Honda Nighthawk is neither cool nor a hog."
Oh SNAP. Put in my place by a *bike snob*. (Where I come from we call people like you...actually, nothing, we don't give a shit.)
Posted by: Kevin B | July 10, 2009 2:02 AM
#89 Here we go - another bunch of intellectually arrogant secularists bagging religious belief.
No, it's certain atheists who bag religious beliefs.
Secularists don't care as long as government employees or entities don't promote religion as part of their official duties.
Lots of secularists are atheist, but lots are religious. Secularism in government is as much about protecting religion from government as is is about protecting government from religion.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 10, 2009 2:15 AM
Most of the arguments against Collins are analogous to the arguments against Sotomayor.
In each case it's not the work history or level of accomplishment that most critics object to, it's their extracurricular activities and statements.
Posted by: Prometheus | July 10, 2009 12:31 PM
Sotamayor is being sold with the representation that she saved baseball.
Collins is being sold with the representation that he will bridge the gap and heal the wounds science has inflicted on organized religion.
The first is meaningless Madison Avenue blather the second says something absolutely wretched about the perception of science and scientists in this country.
The fact that people who white knighting for Collins have to characterize opposition as coming from knuckle dragging talk radio enthusiasts is pretty telling.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 10, 2009 1:35 PM
I am among those who are unhappy with the choice of Collins as the head of the NIH. I'm a molecular biologist doing basic research in academia as well as a published author of popular science. It's true that it could have been far worse (and Zerhouni did precious little beyond being a political figurehead, as is the invariably the case with NIH heads who were MDs). Nevertheless, Obama had a veritable horde of over-qualified candidates to choose from, yet decided to sacrifice excellence to expedience instead.
I'm worried about Collins' tenure not only because of his connection to BioLogos, but also because of his liking for large-scale "machine" science. This approach is already yielding diminishing returns in research, yet the NIH tanker is sailing blithely onward into the iceberg-covered seas of gene chips and their ilk.
There are at least two thing that Collins did right, and they must be acknowledged. Making sure that the human genome sequence was complete, accurate and free did much to deflate Venter's ridiculous scientific and financial claims. Also Collins' metaphor of "junk" DNA is close to the truth -- in fact, far simpler than the truth. Junk DNA is anything but. It contains regulatory signals for replication, transcription and splicing, plus the numerous microRNAs that are also involved in regulation.
Posted by: Athena Andreadis | July 10, 2009 2:03 PM
I am among those who are unhappy with the choice of Collins as the head of the NIH. I'm a molecular biologist doing basic research in academia as well as a published author of popular science. It's true that it could have been far worse (and Zerhouni did precious little beyond being a political figurehead, as is the invariably the case with NIH heads who were MDs). Nevertheless, Obama had a veritable horde of over-qualified candidates to choose from, yet decided to sacrifice excellence to expedience instead.
I'm worried about Collins' tenure not only because of his connection to BioLogos, but also because of his liking for large-scale "machine" science. This approach is already yielding diminishing returns in research, yet the NIH tanker is sailing blithely onward into the iceberg-covered seas of gene chips and their ilk.
There are at least two thing that Collins did right, and they must be acknowledged. Making sure that the human genome sequence was complete, accurate and free did much to deflate Venter's ridiculous scientific and financial claims. Also Collins' metaphor of "junk" DNA is close to the truth -- in fact, far simpler than the truth. Junk DNA is anything but. It contains regulatory signals for replication, transcription and splicing, plus the numerous microRNAs that are also involved in regulation.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 10, 2009 3:03 PM
"The fact that people who white knighting for Collins have to characterize opposition as coming from knuckle dragging talk radio enthusiasts is pretty telling."
So let me see if I've got this right, Prometheus....you're saying people who aren't wringing their hands over the selection of Collins to run the NIH, are characterizing those who ARE upset about it as 'knuckle dragging talk radio enthusiasts'?
I know I haven't done that. Andy Groves hasn't done that. I don't see that as a prominent theme on this thread. So WTF are you talking about?
Meanwhile armchair neurologists here are diagnosing *Alzheimer's* in him because of his God-talk. Weird, wacky stuff.
Collins' main task is to get Congress to cough up more money for basic science funding in the middle of a recession. Let's see how well he does.
Posted by: Virgil | July 10, 2009 3:45 PM
Err... PZ - are you sure on this? I was under the impression he had been NOMINATED for the post, not APPOINTED - there's clearly a distinction here.
Following nomination, there's a congressional hearing on this. Everyone write your senators and congresspersons now, to lobby for some tough questioning during his hearing.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 10, 2009 6:15 PM
The fact that people who white knighting for Collins have to characterize opposition as coming from knuckle dragging talk radio enthusiasts is pretty telling.
Well, I'm only judging by the opposition I see in response to this post. Go back through the comments and you'll see plenty of knuckle dragging:
Goofy? Now that's putting it lightly.
Awww shit. Not that strumming hack.
I'm sorry, but that's wacky. It's embarrassingly wacky. I think there are actual sane people that are qualified for the job.
So Collins appears to be a wannabe retard. I call that fraud.
They call him a "Rockstar" scientist, but he is more like a karaoke singer.
We're going to be all over every fucking word that comes out of his retarded American ass, trust me.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 10, 2009 7:42 PM
Go back through the comments and you'll see plenty of knuckle dragging:
Tell us more about your delusional god fantasies, retard, and then explain to us rationalists why we should respect them.
Posted by: Kevin B | July 10, 2009 9:35 PM
Tell us more about your delusional god fantasies, retard, and then explain to us rationalists why we should respect them.
Thank you. Very good example of knuckle dragging.
But I hope you're not assuming I am a Christian or that I believe in gods, because I'm not and I don't.
Posted by: genecutter | July 11, 2009 10:16 AM
Steven Pinker has weighed in on the Collins appointment - a must read.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
Posted by: SmartLX | July 16, 2009 7:30 PM
Collins is quitting BioLogos.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/collins-to-resign-from-biologos-foundation/
I'd just like to say I totally called it in #7.
Thankyou.