Many people in the scientific community are worried about the appointment of Francis Collins as head of the NIH.
Part of this reflects Collins' stature in the community. We live in an era of biology where a number of people, often those awarded the Nobel, are truly historic because of their level of innovation. Collins, however, is mainly known as a scientific administrator, a coordinator rather than an innovator. While these administrative skills will serve us all well, his ability to lead is less clear.
As one example, despite using a very large part of the NIH budget and having its own version of a tenure system, the intramural effort is not be ranked among the top five or ten US (or world) research efforts. Many, including myself, feel the NIH should either be spun off as an independent unit competing for grants the way we all do or reformed to serve needs research institutes on the outside can not support from grant funds.
As another example, there is an ongoing war in in science over publication. Most of the community wants all publications in the public domain. Publishers and scientific societies oppose this. We need legislation to make the work YOU pay for available to all. Similar issuers apply to patent reform. Under the Repricans, the US has given away an awesome amount of government funded IP.
Obama efforts on these first two issues may benefit from Collins' credibility with the religious right. Other issues are more worrisome. As an outspoken theist, Collins credibility with the scientific community may become an issue.
Robert Cook-Deegan, director of Duke University's Center for Genome Ethics, was quoted as saying:
This quote is itself very disturbing since it assumes that the only constituency Collins needs to assuage is the fundamentalists, the quote implies that Collins is backed by that community is issues where he may disagree with the scientific community.
"I suspect his religious beliefs cost him among some science groups," wrote Cook-Deegan in an email to The Scientist. But Cook-Deegan, continued that Collins's religious beliefs might actually improve his relations with Congress and the American public. "I believe it is good for NIH and good for the country to heal some of the ideological rifts that have opened up in biomedical research policy," Cook-Deegan wrote. "[Collins] has strong connections among both parties and across the ideological spectrum. His commitment to Christianity builds trust with many policy makers and constituencies who otherwise might distrust a molecular biologist of international stature."
Here are a few specific examples:
'
1. Stem Cells ... The stem cell wars are not at all over. The new regs, conveniently published before the announcement to minimize issues for Francis, are very controversial among scientists. Under these regs some lines that were legal under GWB are no longer legal. Many grants are now in suspension because of this issue.
2. "cloning" this is actually a different issue but it is one that has been intentionally obfuscated under Bush. The reality is we likely can no clone people, including adults. The NIH director's opinion in the limits of cloning will have a huge impact.
3. role of the pope. FC became a Catholic. The Pope claims to be able to legislate ethical laws that affect all people. While I assume FC will take the rational stand, his outspoken religious beliefs may well put him in an impossible position if the radical religious community makes HIM an issue as it has other RC public figures.
4. evolution. Collins' website specifically disses social evolution, apparently asserting that somehow behavior is exempt from the same rules that control all other biology. This is not a stand I would want any scientific authority taking. Moreover, there is a very real effort now to discover the biochemical/mechanistic basis for religion. However the NIH rule son this, Collins9 beliefs will become an issue.
5. resources. Biology is exploding to9 the point where we . that is the government .. is going to need to set priorities. Those priorities are the number one job of the NIH director but, his ability to carry them off depends on the confide3nce of the scientific community. Collins beliefs will (and should) affect his personal judgements but may taint the acceptance of those judgements by the scientific community. Here are a few examples:
a. genomic research into speciation of man from other apes. How much money should go to this end?
b. prevention of spontaneous abortion. About 1/3 of all zygotes fail to thrive. How much money should go to this end?
c. parthenogenesis. Human parthenogenesis is clearly possible. How much money should go to this end?
d. assisted suicide. If this is to become accepted practice, we need to know a lot more about the events surrounding voluntary death. How much money should go to this end? Would Collins oppose the Pope on this issue?
e. artificial life. Again this is clearly possible. How much money should go to this end?
1 comment:
Did not know about VADLO!
Post a Comment