Reply to Francis Collins for NIH head? - The Scientist Community - debate. relate. collaborate.

Reply to Francis Collins for NIH head? - The Scientist Francis Collins is a traditional choice. He has an MD, he is a proven administrator, a respected scientist, and politically palatable to the exttreme right.

Unfortunately, Francis also has liabilities.

1. Religion. Obviously as a gesture to the religious right, he offers great credentials while being respected by the scientists.

The problem is his appearance in religious right propaganda, may make him a lightening rod for the majority of Americans and esp. for scientists who want the NIH, above all, to be rational in tis decisions.

2. Science. As a scientist, FC is a compromise. Bioklogy nis an exponential or super exponential phase of growth that is not sustainable. Decisions, prioruities must be set and these must be set at the highest levels. Francis does not have the gravcitas that Varmus had.

3. MD So far all tghe directgors have been MDs. It would be innovative to use a non MD, to recognize the extent to which the NIH has become a basic science institute. Amking the candidates I can imagine: Ruedi Yaenisch, Richard Hynes, Eric Lander, Bob Horowits, Irv Weissman (an MD), David Biotstein (maybe too confrontational?), Bob, Bonb Waterston, Maynard Olsen (also an MD), Keith Yamamoto, .. UIn addition, there are a number of superb cnadates amongst bthe founders of Genetech, AMGEN, etc.


I would rather seem him as Surgeon General.