Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 15 July 2009 | Nature 460, 310-311 (2009) | doi:10.1038/460310a
News
NIH nominee draws scrutiny
Francis Collins is likely to face funding challenges — and criticism of his Christian evangelism.
As Francis Collins prepares to take the helm of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), opinions are divided about how the geneticist will steer the agency through its extraordinary funding boom.
Following President Barack Obama's long-anticipated nomination of Collins on 8 July, Harold Varmus, NIH director from 1993 to 1999, and now president and chief executive of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, described him as "a terrific scientist, inspirational leader, superb manager, and adept politician.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
test
Great choice! It's quite natural for Christian scientists to share their Faith and convictions regarding God and the origins of life. Perhaps Dr. Collins' appointment will provide an opportunity for some meaningful dialogue between those with Faith and the atheistic/agnostic worldviewers.
That Dr. Pinker would characterize Francis Collins as an "advocate of profoundly anti-science beliefs" suggests to me that he has not read any of Dr. Collins work, either in the scientific or the popular press. Fundamentalist, evangelical atheists are just as irrational as fundamentalist evangelical religious people. For the vast majority of scientists, some sense of wonder or faith is a part of who they are, and has no effect on their ability to understand and perform good science.
Regarding Dr. Pinker's questioning of the nomination and Clay's comments...surely you are not suggesting that having "some sense of wonder" at the natural world is comparable to believing in the full range of supernatural claims made by Christianity? What Collins believes is indeed "profoundly anti-science". If not, then he isn't a Christian in the sense that hundreds of millions of people understand that word. One cannot "have religion" and not view the world through its skewed lens. You can keep those views quiet, or hidden, but Collins (as an evangelical) is extremely vocal in his anti-science beliefs. That is what causes concern. Yes, he supports evolution. Yes, he believes the earth is older than 6,000 years. But to still cling to irrational beliefs about a personal god is very much "anti-science".
As long as we can all be respectful of one another's beliefs, it doesn't matter what Dr. Collins believes as far as whether or not he'll be a good director. More important to me is whether he will broaden the scope of the vision of NIH to not only cure diseases, but to spend the money to prevent them as well. A much better solution to diabetes, cancer, heart disease etc is to not have the disease in the first place, rather than spending ever more money on high tech expensive drugs to treat disease. Much of this is within our capabilities for much less money, pain and suffering. Congratulations, Dr. Collins on your nomination.
Justin, just because you have the inability to reconcile a faith of any sort with science doesn't mean that others cannot. To denigrate somebody simply based upon the fact that their belief system doesn't match yours to me goes against science and our quest to understand the physical laws of the universe. What would science be if we didn't question everything, including the possibility of a "creator?" Have we proven one doesn't exist? Can you show me the the ABSOLUTE proof? I don't think so. Many scientists throughout history have also been Christian, Muslim, etc. and this hasn't made their discoveries any less credible. I find it refreshing to see people with varying thoughts on the world interacting with one another and discussing theories without attacking one another simply based upon their beliefs. To me, this is just as irrational as believing somebody is not equal to you based purely upon their skin color. We all have a right to our opinion and just because you do or don't believe in God shouldn't make yours more or less important. Another interesting thing I find is how we in the science community easily attack Christianity but rarely do I hear negative connotations associated with any other sort of religion, but I digress...
My apologies for not being clearer. Certainly science cannot disprove the existence of a divine creator, but the god of the three major monotheisms is certainly "unlikely" from a scientific point of view (which makes myself and Dawkins and Harris et al agnostics, technically). I don't hold others to be less equal to me, I simply find their beliefs untenable...and often deserving of criticism if not outright mockery. This is not something based on their genetic makeup, or the potential as a human being, or their ability to feel...these are delusions that people have chosen to adopt and that have very real repercussions in society. Religion has remained free of critique for too long in our history. I certainly don't mean to single out Christianity, it is just that Collins is a Christian. If he believed that Joseph Smith spoke with angels, or that the world rested on the backs of turtles, or that he had been reincarnated, I think people would question those beliefs as anti-science as well. It isn't that good science hasn't been done by believers, but that those people have managed to do good science in spite of their belief system...their societal norms that told them not to question authority and yet they still managed to foster the curiosity that is the very heart of science (and the open-mindedness that makes science the only effective tool at discovering the natural world around us).
Really, I do not see the problem with Dr Collins being a Christian Evangelist and a scientist. I do not myself belief in God but I respect Dr Collins for his Science and his Beliefs. We should, in an open-minded way, recognise that believing in God does not necessarily prevent a good scientist to rationally investigates the mechanisms of life. Will Dr Collins's faith prevent him to do good job at the NIH? There are 300+ publications and a few textbooks with his name on that say he is fit for the job. I would say this is a better ground for judgment that whatever Church he goes to.
I wish to add this to my previous comment. Mr. Higinbotham says, in his comment made on the 15th of July: "I simply find their beliefs untenable...and often deserving of criticism if not outright mockery.". I do not thing people's belief will ever deserve outright mockery. Debate and discussion, yes, mockery, never.
The opposing side to the Truth is, inexorably, disparaging and full of ridicule. Christians are dutiful to pray for such people, even Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens who continue to futily debate the subject. Genesis 1-2 summarizes marvelously the major sciences we all seek to understand. I am reminded of Deuteronomy 29:29..."The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."
Nothing wrong in combining sincere private faith with excellent public science. Genomics will continue to drive progress in medicine for the next two decades, so this is an opportune choice. The criticism of the nominee seems to come primarily from celebrity-media types, not from true working scientists. Alexander B. Niculescu, III, MD, PhD
Justin, you should check the writings of Antony Flew before jumping on the Dawkins bandwagon. Flew has probably given this more thought, and more careful thought, than almost anyone on earth (being an 81 year old philosopher), and he concluded, based on evidence and reason, that there probably is a God. He did this after being an atheist most of his life. Christianity is not anti-scientific per se. Certainly, there have been some Christians who have been famously anti-science, but I believe they were wrong. Accepting the existence of God is not in conflict with my scientific life at all. It is simply a recognition that science is limited. Religion can address questions that science cannot. In most versions religion does require faith, but as Mr. Flew and many others have rigorously established, it does not have to be a blind or irrational faith. Finally, I would like to suggest that the reason the majority of Americans do not accept evolution has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the attitude of anti-religion scientists. Apparently many believe, as you, that religious people deserve ridicule, and the result is that anti-religion scientists have doomed public acceptance of the ideas they support. Beautifully ironic, isn't it?
What concerns me about Collins, who happens to be an excellent scientist, is more from what I've learned from Venter's book than from Dawkins'. I hope he realizes, as they mention in the above article, that genomics is not the be all, end all. Let's focus on how we can prevent some diseases, rather than sequence everything under the Sun. This is about science. Stop talking about religion.
I think it is exactly people like Antony Flew (mentioned in Stephen's post) who should be ignored by the scientific community. He has explicitly stated that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it". In fact, the argument has gotten dramatically weaker every day since Darwin's publication of The Origin. I think we're over that now. I would also strongly oppose the opinion that we should be respectful to each other's belief. What we should do, instead, is respect each other - but not our beliefs. So while I do not respect Collins' beliefs - and indeed found his book 'The language of God' to be spectacularly weak - I certainly do respect the man and his scientific work. It still bothers me to have someone at the top of NIH who sincerely beliefs in things that are not backed by any evidence.
Bear in mind that the Bible has a tremendous Impact Factor. Everyone who believes in this "religion of numbers", as many scientists do, should consider the Bible with respect. Alternatively, there might be something wrong with our current practice of science.
As director, I doubt that Dr. Collins would be practicing much science. The real question is whether his personal beliefs would affect his decisions about NIH policies, particularly regarding topics like stem cell therapies, which often find opposition from religious groups. By and large, his biggest mistake was to make his religious beliefs a public affair by writing a book about it.
When biological sciences are the bottom of the pack of all other much more advanced physical and chemical sciences, it is interesting to see many of us show such an egotistic view of the world and life. To remind us, the term science of Webster: "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science" Just to remind you that most of what evolution biology proposed hypotheses have not come to validate themselves through experiments. They are only hypotheses that sounds right and make sense to OUR CURRENT knowledge. Our current knowledge of biological science is extremely limited compared to what physicists or chemists know their world. Be humble and do good science.
Justin Higinbotham, it is difficult to discuss things respectfully after such mean spirited comments. Is Collins willfully doing harm? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Collins is foolish and that you are more intelligent, this would only provide incentive for you to be benevolently enlightening, rather than condescending antagonistically. Unlike Collins, you have behaved in one of the few ways that might actually warrant receiving disrespectful behaviour, by behaving "meanly". As to your assertions, Your premise is highly flawed - his belief in a deity is not anti-science. If he stated that the existence of his God was a *scientific theory* without evidence, that would be anti-science. There is a theory that the world was created by a deity - I use the word 'theory' intentionally. If people believe the theory without evidence, that is faith. If people start calling it a -scientific theory- without evidence, only then would there be a problem. As long as they don't tag the word 'scientific' onto theories which are non-scientific, then there is no problem. Faith is inherently based on belief without evidence, so it's not a conflict. Finoa says: "It still bothers me to have someone at the top of NIH who sincerely beliefs in things that are not backed by any evidence." I sincerely believe that humans are not naturally sadistic - but I have never checked for the evidence. There is no problem with a person who has beliefs that are not backed by evidence, as long as they decide policy based on the evidence. Since his responsibilities do not hinge on whether he believes in a creator or not, and since he seems to understand the difference between beliefs based on faith and beliefs based on evidence, there doesn't seem to be a problem.