Science-based bellyaching
Barack Obama's recent appointment of Francis Collins
to head the National Institutes of Health should be uncontroversial.
After all, Collins led the Human Genome Project, and he did it ahead of schedule and under budget.
His own landmark scientific research led to the discovery of genes for
cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease, among others. He is by all
accounts a likable guy. The trifecta he offers -- a great
administrator, a great scientist, a great personality -- is darn near
unheard of.
So why are there scattered grumblings from scientists about this new appointment, with one scientist fretting that we're seeing the continuation of George W. Bush's "theocracy"? Well, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. Although he believes in evolution and opposes intelligent design theory, he's an evangelical all the same. Perhaps most relevantly, he has been loud and proud about his belief that religious faith can be reconciled with science. He's the guy that evangelicals cite when they want to prove they are scientifically serious.
Now I, for one, am not an evangelical. I'm one of those heretical liberal Christians. And I can understand why atheist scientists might lift an eyebrow when a fellow scientist -- a renowned one at that -- goes around talking about God. But my appeal to them is this: get over it.
We have a White House that seems concerned with science. It just appointed one of the preeminent public scientists of our generation to a key post. And everything in Collins's background suggests he'll approach his work with intellectual honesty, without letting religious beliefs interfere with his scientific work. Can't we just call it a victory and leave it at that?
Crossposted at the What's the Matter with Kansas? film blog.
So why are there scattered grumblings from scientists about this new appointment, with one scientist fretting that we're seeing the continuation of George W. Bush's "theocracy"? Well, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. Although he believes in evolution and opposes intelligent design theory, he's an evangelical all the same. Perhaps most relevantly, he has been loud and proud about his belief that religious faith can be reconciled with science. He's the guy that evangelicals cite when they want to prove they are scientifically serious.
Now I, for one, am not an evangelical. I'm one of those heretical liberal Christians. And I can understand why atheist scientists might lift an eyebrow when a fellow scientist -- a renowned one at that -- goes around talking about God. But my appeal to them is this: get over it.
We have a White House that seems concerned with science. It just appointed one of the preeminent public scientists of our generation to a key post. And everything in Collins's background suggests he'll approach his work with intellectual honesty, without letting religious beliefs interfere with his scientific work. Can't we just call it a victory and leave it at that?
Crossposted at the What's the Matter with Kansas? film blog.
Advertisement
The fact that he was the tip of the spear on the Human Genome Project is enough to move him to the head of the line for this particular post. The set of skills required to head and administer that is perfect for the NIH. My spouse works in a lab focused on diabetes researcg, and the head doctor of that lab has his hands full on a project that is a hundredth as demanding and funded as the Human Genome Project. Not only that, but the Project itself was handled consummately. The release of ideas, discoveries and breakthroughs were enough to keep the Project fresh in the journals, and it never took on the appearance of a Big Dig. In other hands, this could have become a ridiculous SDI-type boondoggle.
So he could be a Rasta or Pastafarian for all I care. Religious affiliation has no bearing on scientific qualification as long as the two remain separate. In fact, his deeds and reputation could be such that many of the retrograde types that carry water for intelligent design mysticism would be nulled in comparison.
Excellent post.
July 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple answer to your question: yes, imo, we can just get over it. His creds, in all areas of scrutiny, bespeak a man who is not only principled but also "eternally" seeking more footnotes on whatever.
Thanks, Jesse.
July 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One's religion is really just one's worldview, anyway. Anyone who claims to not have a religion is one who is too shallow to ever to have wondered about the universe and our place in it. Either that, or they are a liar.
As long as a scientist's worldview doesn't affect their work or their grounding in reality, then who cares what he believes?
July 10, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto, ditto and ditto. His religious affiliation should have no bearing as long as his religion and his work do not collide...and there is no apparent reason why it should.
July 10, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many more scientists than you know are deeply religious men or women but I do not judge atheist or agnostic scientists, either.
I believe Collins's expediting of the Human Genome Project will carry the day. NIH directors attract more flak than flowers.
And by the way, if Bernadine Healy goes on the record praising your abilities, you ARE golden.
July 10, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jessie as long as they are not running around saying that the earth is 6000 years old, that the world was all flooded at once with an ark carrying 20 million different species times two...
Hey, fine with me.
July 11, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad thing about the HGP though is that it has been pretty short on cures. The primary benefit has been to identify risk profiles. Likely useful in the future but near term results are lacking.
Similar to the hype about supercomputers being used to design drugs to cure cancer. Major PR a few years ago, but pick out a new drug that was designed using a supercomputer.
It is definitely interesting science, and worth doing for the sake of increasing knowledge, but it just hasn't advanced treatment very much.
So, HGP has some elements of sky fairy belief.
Beware the hype.
July 11, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, most people buy the BS of "world's top scientist" when the people in charge of these large projects (including machines like those at CERN) are mostly skilled administrators by the time they get to that point.
Probably the biggest thing that came out of the HGP was the mined patents on basic human life codes -- filed by attorneys and drug companies to maintain a profit control for the future.
July 11, 2009 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but your logic about the HGP is flawed. It's like saying that mapping the nation's roadways, coast to coast, didn't reduce traffic accidents. You can't develop cures until you know some of the causes. Not all diseases are purely genetic. And sadly, few of today's biggest diseases and health conditions are curable. Treatable, perhaps, but not curable. The HGP was unbelievably successful in doing what it set out to do. Everyone knew it was just a stake in the ground for future developments.
July 11, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not taking a logical position. I was making an observation. HGP has not produced cures. It has told us some about association of certain genotypes with certain diseases, but it has not lead to cures for cancer or any other disease. I am not saying however that the information and effort are useless.
As I said about the supercomputers, the outcomes have been overplayed.
Take for example the diseases we call diabetes. The HGP has produced very little information about this extremely common and serious disease. We know that there are a few SNP's that can predispose some rare forms of the disease, but the HGP has contributed nothing to the understanding of the causes of the disease in the majority of patients.
Likewise for other diseases, certain rare cancers and metabolic disorders are now known to be associated with certain genetic variants, but there have been no cures.
I've seen this kind of game played many times. Invoke the word cancer and say that some project could lead to 'a cure' and you will get the assent of the ignorant masses and their ignorant leaders.
PR = funding, but proposing or promising that some project, no matter how worthy it may be, may lead to a cure for cancer is getting tiresome. This overhyping makes science and scientists look bad when they can not deliver the results promised by the PR people.
So no, HGP has not delivered a cure, and it has been pretty short on explanations too.
July 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you do not see flaws in your logic then you certainly are not going to see flaws in your argument.
You are acting like someone who was sold a false bill of goods. Scientific developments are not linear. HGP came in before its anticipated finish date. The finish date was for mapping the human genome, NOT curing diseases.
Barring unforeseen delays in embryonic or adult stem cell research, the scientific community is on course for revealing scientific breakthroughs that will amaze us.
That said, I have no hopes for a cure of my own genetic disease common in the Ashkenazi Jewish community. Not going to happen in my lifetime.
July 11, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, where are they cures? I am not making an argument. I am pointing out the lack of evidence for a real, quantifiable, impact on human health. The HGP information is in the realm of 'interesting and important', but it is not actionable information yet.
Research is the only way forward, but it often does not yield results that can immediately be put into practice.
HGP succeeded in its objectives, but it did not live up to the hype.
Consider this, it may be that some simple laboratory innovation, such as the laboratory pipettor, may be seen in the future as having contributed more to human health than HGP.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipette.
This one simple but pivotal technical innovation, allowing the accurate dispensing of volumes of liquids, may be one of the most important enabling technologies of the current era. I know that there are lots of other possible nominees for the prize of most important, but think of it - without this device there would be no HGP
July 12, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Are we there yet?" No, Adelfarb.
July 12, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are taking me the wrong way. I am not criticizing the outcome of the HGP. I am criticizing those who sell such programs by making false promises. See for instance http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Human_Genome_Project_Holds_Promise_But_Stirs_Ethical_Debates.asp
Scientists are plagued by the promises of sales people. Remember Richard Nixons' 'war' on cancer? Progress in science is incremental except in those rare instances where a true breakthrough is made.
I can extend my criticism of the hyping of HGP to its leaders, including those who believe in supernatural phenomena. Even if the leaders of these programs did not actively engage in the promulgation of false hopes, they at a minimum stood by while others did.
The principal characteristic of a true scientist is absolute honesty in science. Scientists, unlike any other field of human endeavor, are capable of knowing truth and thus they are obligated to be truthful in their work.
July 12, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supercomputer did not design any new drugs?
Seriously, were you looking for the computer to be creative? Computers are not yet that sophisticated, however, it is clear they had a very large part in enabling people to evaluate things. As clean and compact as computers are, they are the machines that do the heavy lifting, but it has always been humanity that decides what gets lifted and why. I believe there are countless things that these computers "lifted" that has enabled us to be where we are in the field of medicine.
July 11, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you think an MRI was just a camera?
July 11, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I said being used to design new drugs.
There have been no new drugs that have been derived from first principles computer structure modeling. Most of the noise making about super computers took place from the mid 80's to the late 90's. The only drug company that claims to have used a supercomputer to design a drug is Bionumerik. They were for a while claiming that their drug Tavocept (dimesna) was at least in part designed using their supercomputers. Sadly, Tavocept is simply the active metabolite of another drug that has been on the market since the mid 90's (mesna). I think that they were just claiming that the supercomputer was used to design it was simply used as a method to snow their investors.
This is not to say that supercomputer studies of biomedical issues such as three dimensional chemical structure studies have not yielded important insights. The work has however failed in its hyped promise to find a cure for cancer in general or any particular cancer.
Computer studies are limited by many factors, such as the modeling of water and its interaction with drugs and drug receptors.
July 11, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've missed the point. Collins' preference of boxers vs briefs also shouldn't matter in his nomination as head of NIH, however be he never talked about his boxers vs briefs preference in public.
One little tidbit missed in many of these stories: last year he quit his post so that he could campaign for Obama. The deal was probably cut then.
July 11, 2009 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe one genius recognized another?
We are free to speculate as wildly as we wish, dependent on the conclusions we wish to have.
July 11, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mistake 'effort' for 'genius'. The technologies that enabled the HGP existed for years before the beginning of the HGP effort. Many innovations were introduced along the way that accelerated the project, but there was really no 'genius moment'.
July 11, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying that not staying in the closet about your religious beliefs ought to be a prerequisite for taking a government position, at least one in the sciences?
July 11, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the Collins appointment as a non-issue. Occasional scientists allow their religious beliefs to intrude into their capacity to do science, but Collins isn't one of them. A few critics may raise some alarms, but as far as I can tell, his nomination was not seriously controversial, nor should it have been.
The HGT is best seen as part of a two-component strategy for addressing biomedical science. One component entails the efforts of creative scientists to discover or develop new approaches. The second involves the creation of massive databases that will aid the first. As long as both remain in proportion, science will thrive. In recent years, there has been some tendency to favor the database effort over individual creativity, but the pendulum appears now to be swinging back toward an equilibrium position.
July 11, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink