I have long argued that Francis Collins would make a strong candidate to head the NIH, considering his scientific credentials, his past administrative experience, and his ability to communicate effectively. Unlike some critics, I see his work on the relationship between science and religion as a major bonus, offering an important middle ground voice on the topic.
Yet an opinion article appearing this week at The Scientist offers a valuable constructive critique: Collins, like many others in science, may be guilty at times of hyping and over-selling the promise of research. The general tendency towards hype, as we argue in a recent article at Nature Biotechnology, is perhaps the greatest threat to continued public trust in science.
From the conclusion to the opinion article at The Scientist, by Neil Greenspan, an immunologist and professor at Case Western Reserve University:
So, while Dr. Collins has many impressive credentials, talents, and skills relevant to directing the NIH, his tendency to make dubious claims for the future benefits of genomics is unsettling. The director of NIH should be a reliable and realistic source of medical information if the entire biomedical research enterprise is to remain credible. Therefore, in the future, Dr. Collins should harness his intellect to control his enthusiasm so that he is more realistic in his public pronouncements regarding improvements in medical care that will undoubtedly develop in part from new insights into human genetics and genomics.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The way you describe it, he sounds as if he has over-reaching idealism, in both his science and his religion. Zealous idealism might not be (that) bad in the leader of a project with a strongly set singular goal (e.g. the genome project), but it strikes me as not such a good thing in the leader of a much larger institute with wider, more nuanced agendas that interact with the public in a more sophisticated way.
Regards "I see his work on the relationship between science and religion as a major bonus", I strongly disagree and I have to say that "only in America" would someone even try say something like that. A true demonstration of no conflict between the two would be to be religious, do your science and make no mention about your religion whatsoever, e.g. demonstrate by doing that it has no conflict. That someone has to "highlight" a possible "resolution" tactically admits to the two conflicting. (Never mind that the proposed "resolution", to be polite, strains credibility.) As a purely political move, there may be some justification, but that's for politicians, surely. (i.e. it appeases a group of people, as politicians are wont to, rather than solving anything.)
You might want to consider that "the trend towards hype" is largely a consequence of the nature of the present-day main-stream media organisations, etc.
Thank you for the article and the comment.
I believe that Dr Greenspan has expressed his personal, well-balanced opinion on Dr Collinsâs nomination and has responsibly invited the scientific community to reflect on it. Now the âreflection periodâ is over and Dr Collins is confirmed NIH Director. It is time to move on and make sure that the NIH leadership serves the interests of science and medicine to the benefit of the nation and the world.
I agree that the best way to demonstrate â no conflictsâ is to prove it with facts. Dr Collins has initiated the path by publicly stating that âhe has no religious agenda for NIHâ.
I agree with the consideration that "the trend towards hype is largely a consequence of the nature of the present-day main-stream media organizations, etc.â. I hope that in our scientific endeavors we all encourage the mainstream media to act as a vehicle for education and transparent information on scientific and public health issues.