Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

The Experimental Man

David Ewing Duncan is a journalist and author, and the Director of the Center for Life Science Policy at UC Berkeley. This blog is a companion to his book, Experimental Man - www.experimentalman.com.

View Complete Bio
Advertisement
Friday, July 10, 2009

God, Science, and Francis Collins

The geneticist and Christian evangelical will bring a unique zeal to the National Institutes of Health.

In 2005, I wrote a profile of the geneticist Francis Collins that referred to him as an apostle of genetics. Then the director of the Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health, Collins was, and is, an evangelical Christian who also believes strongly in evidence-based science and evolution--and in spreading the word about the power of genetics and molecular biology to radically reshape medicine and society.

Whether talking to members of Congress, high-powered scientific leaders from around the world, one of his patients, or students in his lab, Collins's zeal and ambition for pushing his vision of science is palpable and intense--and often delivered with a rural Virginia drawl that puts listeners at ease even as he aggressively pushes his agenda.

He acquired his aw-shucks demeanor--and penchant for wearing flannel shirts and corduroy pants--growing up in the Shenandoah River Valley in Virginia. His parents came from New York City but checked out of urban life to run a back-to-nature farm, and to produce a professional summer Shakespeare theatrical company. Folk singers often showed up when he was a boy, and Bob Dylan spent his 18th birthday in the Collins farmhouse.

A man who loves to speak and to play his guitar--he was recently shown with his ax dressed like Bon Jovi in a GQ spread called "Rock Stars of Science"--Collins learned to be skilled at performing and persuading, he told me, by playing roles in his parents' plays. At the age of seven, he wrote a children's play version of The Wizard of Oz and played a role uncharacteristic for this firebrand of science: the Cowardly Lion.

He first trained as a chemist, then became a physician, discovering God while trying to sort out the mysteries of life and death at age 27 during his residency at the University of North Carolina. He later landed at the University of Michigan, where he drew attention for codiscovering the gene mutations for cystic fibrosis in 1989. In 1993, he received an unexpected invitation from then director of the NIH, Bernadine Healy, to succeed James Watson as the head of the Human Genome Project--which Collins first declined, but later accepted.

Collins has a preference for big ideas, and has continued to organize large-scale projects to map and organize the genomes of humans and other organisms. Lately, he has been pushing a stronger linkage between environmental factors, such as chemical pollutants and stress, that interact with genes, calling for a $400 million increase in the Gene Environment Initiative, which he helped get passed by Congress in 2006.

He is a savvy operator on Capitol Hill, where he succeeded in not only funding billions of dollars in genetics research, but also pushing the passage last year of legislation that protects Americans from being genetically discriminated against by insurers and employers.

We can expect much more in the way of big projects that link different disciplines and institutes at the NIH--and possibly a reorganization of an organization that has many overlapping institutes that have grown up ad hoc over the years.

His emphasis on big might explain why Collins loves big motorcycles, including a red Harley-Davidson that he wheeled out one day a couple of years ago when I visited him at the NIH. Looking a little incongruous with his lean, tall, slightly nerdy look riding high on his hog, he took me on a ride--and proceeded to roar up and down Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda like a big kid. Like a good scientist, he also meticulously obeyed every traffic rule, signaling turns and shoulder checking when he changed lanes. I'm sure he followed the speed limit, though I couldn't see his speedometer from the backseat.

Collins will be a fierce advocate for personalized medicine. Last year, he left the NIH after 15 years to write a book that he was unable to publish while still working for the government. He has been mum on the details, but in talking to him over the years, I suspect that it will describe the need to move more aggressively with validating genetic markers and other crucial elements of personalized medicine, while calling for a broad plan to move research and applications of medical discoveries toward a more individualized approach based on a person's own genetics and physiology.

The announcement of Collins's nomination has been long expected and was delayed in part because he has been finishing his book--his second endeavor as an author after the 2007 publication of the best-selling The Language of God, which argued in favor of theistic evolution--a process that Collins calls BioLogos. Recently, Collins cofounded the BioLogos Foundation to support the idea of fusing faith and science.

He has strong opinions about how to organize scientific endeavors, leaning toward an open exchange of data and information and less toward commercialization--a point that he has made repeatedly since fending off efforts to privatize the results of the Human Genome Project, which he headed up in the 1990s. Yet he has been careful in recent years to balance the need to promote accuracy and validation of genetic testing with a desire to promote commercial endeavors such as 23andMe and deCodeme--companies that offer the direct-to-consumer genetic testing for dozens of diseases and traits.

Though critical of the accuracy of some of these tests, Collins believes that they will be useful in the long run. Under a Collins directorate, we could see an accelerated effort to standardize and regulate these companies, either voluntarily or, if that fails, through mandatory rules.

Francis Collins has been known to make enemies. He still bristles when the rivalry between him and Craig Venter, his bitter adversary during the race to sequence the human genome in the 1990s, is brought up. Other rivals from his past also remember that the young Collins was willing to aggressively outmaneuver rivals to get ahead.

"I have to be honest about my own personality," Collins said. "I am competitive. I find it particularly exciting as a scientist to get at something that hasn't been done before. It's an incredible downer to get scooped. This is human nature."

When I sent Collins the profile that I wrote, with the allusion to St. Paul--which appears in my 2006 book Masterminds: Genius, DNA and the Quest to Rewrite Life--I was sure that he would be annoyed. But he wasn't. He found it amusing, signing an e-mail soon after as coming from "Francis, aka St. Paul."

Comments

  • personal opinion and professionalism
    He sounds too level headed and neutral to be an evangelist.  I like his non-commercialization slant on the human genome project.  He gets a pass for now.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lasertekk
    07/10/2009
    Posts:88
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: personal opinion and professionalism
      While he may indeed be a great scientist, his attempt to reoncile science and religion (presumably Christianity) also makes him a powerful tool for the ingorance of Creationism, a proven enemy of the very science he would surely support in our schoools.  Makes you wonder, in balance, which outweighs the other, doesn't it?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Raboo
      07/11/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Collins Is Not An Appropriate Choice As NIH Director
    NIH is perhaps the most important civilian U.S. science agency; it is certainly is the one with the largest Congressional budget. The NIH director is a public spokesperson for science and a role model. Would you support a person as NIH director who publicly announced her or his deep belief in unicorns? Well, Francis Collins is a religious fanatic. When he speaks about his religious beliefs he makes no sense. His religious fanaticism irreparably damages his credibility as a scientist. He is not an appropriate choice as NIH director.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Pentagron
    07/11/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: Collins Is Not An Appropriate Choice As NIH Director
      Collins is an excellent choice, based on his past record as a scientist. However, his religious fervor certainly creates some doubt as to how he is going to use his position. Perhaps though, it indicates that he is human like the rest of us and has fears about dying, and is willing to place on a shelf the requirements for vigorous scientific evidence to support any claim of fact; certainly, a claim as fantastic as religion makes. In the end, I am not sure what to make of his nomination. I wish that he had stuck to the science, and kept his faith personal, but, that is not the nature of Christianity nor of Christians.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      donsteven
      07/11/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • He's as eligible as anyone else
    Unless science is only allowed as a career for secular humanist atheists?

    Don't kid yourselves that atheism is NOT a religion- it just has different axioms.

    I think he'd be a great choice.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    coloradoengi...
    07/13/2009
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • evangelical as head of NIH
    hmmm... let's analyze this.  An evangelical Christian by definition holds as absolute truth that all of the earth's species fit on a 40 foot wooden boat as recently as 6000 years ago.  An aeitheist has no biblical beliefs and therefore only looks to science (genetics, evolution, etc) to explain the species.  Which is more capable of conducting objective science?

    Put another way, which would you rather have guarding your chicken coup; an omnivore or a vegetarian specie?  While I agree that aetheism is a belief system, it is certainly not a religion.  Further, Collins is no longer a scientist, in this position he is first and foremost a politician.  Just what we all need, another politician with an evangelical belief system influencing public funded science with his personal truths.  MHO is that anyone vested with the conflict of interest imposed by hard-line evangelical Christianity (literal biblical interpretation and belief system) is the wrong person for the job.  I also question the content value of an article that wastes so many lines describing a motorcycle rider, Harley-Davidson no less... oops that was my BMW GS belief system causing me a conflict of interest.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ranadrew
    07/14/2009
    Posts:20
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: evangelical as head of NIH
      "An evangelical Christian by definition holds as absolute truth that all of the earth's species fit on a 40 foot wooden boat as recently as 6000 years ago."

      Where did you get this definition?

      Evangelical (From Miriam-Webster):

      1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
      2: protestant
      3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
      4 a) capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany
      b) often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist
      c) often capitalized : low church
      5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic

      So, one reading of one possible definition reads as "fundamentalist". Let's hope Collins' intellectual rigor is better than yours.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Monsterboy
      07/14/2009
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • your research is hardly rigorous
    Oh, Monsterboy, where was the good book when you were making your follow-on post?

    Merriam-Webster on atheism:
    1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
    2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
      b: the doctrine that there is no deity

    Hmmm, your absolute reference says nothing about aethism being a religion, now does it? [See Matthew 26:52]

    While you may float through your life limiting your analysis of all things to only what one English language dictionary offers as a definition for a given term, most of the rest of the human population brings more to the intellectual table.  Like a common evangelical, you too have put all your stock in one primary reference.

    For the record, fundamentalist Christianity in all of my experiences has shown itself to be consistent with literal interpretation of the the bible as fact.  Debating with someone who limits their argument premise to one source, whether it be dictionary or Bible, is (in my experience) futile.  With that, I leave you to your Merriam-Websters and/or Bible, whichever the case may be with you.  And may you find all your answers therein.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ranadrew
    07/14/2009
    Posts:20
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: your research is hardly rigorous
      Well said ranadrew !!!!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tica
      07/14/2009
      Posts:1
    • Re: your research is hardly rigorous
      I would say that both religion and atheism are political choices. I realise my atheism is such, and I look back on my believer-ism as the same. Both are ways of navigating the social milieu in ways that we hope are helpful to ourselves and to our neighbours.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      robinottawa
      07/29/2009
      Posts:1
    • Re: your research is hardly rigorous
      "your absolute reference says nothing about aethism being a religion"

      When did I suggest anything was an "absolute reference"? I simply demonstrated that there are multiple definitions, where you make an assumption of one. Being an evangelical, you indicated, means that he believes in literal interpretation of the Bible "by definition" (your words). Only by one possible definition of many, was my point, which you have in no way disproved.

      "While you may float through your life limiting your analysis of all things to only what one English language dictionary offers as a definition for a given term"

      Um, no. Once again, my whole point was that there are several possible definitions. You were the one insisting that only yours was valid -- "authoritative", to use your word. So, given that, was it still a negative thing, or does that change depending on who you're saying did it?

      "Like a common evangelical, you too have put all your stock in one primary reference."

      Interesting that you find me to be like an evangelical, since I'm not one. My interest is reasoned debate, and I will take on any side that violates it with fallacies, as you did. I can point you to my comments on, for example, YouTube where I point out the irrationality of anti-evolutionists, or objections to, for instance, same-sex marriage. How much of your worldview consists of unfounded assumptions like that?

      "For the record, fundamentalist Christianity in all of my experiences has shown itself to be consistent with literal interpretation of the the bible as fact."

      So... your anecdotal experience == the way the world works? And yet you seem to want to paint me as some sort of narrow-minded nonthinker. Sorry. Logic fail, hypocrisy win.

      "Well said ranadrew !!!! "

      Not really. See above.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Monsterboy
      08/05/2009
      Posts:89
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Unbelievers are right in most of their thinking
    You might be one of those who are abandoning Christianity; one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right, at least to some extent. Some traditional beliefs are not true, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, and opt for the status quo, afraid of abandoning the “certainty” of their convictions. Most have become marginalized from the institutional Church, and try to find an environment in which they may fill a vacuum in their lives.

    An illuminating book gives hope to you! The author accepted the challenge of finding the One who is recognized, even by Gnostics and atheists—the Existence. “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” is perhaps a generation ahead of the current mentality, but you might find that there is something for you, too!

    Bishop John Shelby Spong says of this book that it “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I am attaching two reviews of the book by eminent philosophers and thinkers that might give you an idea if this book is an insightful reading for you. You might look also at excerpts of the book at this link of Amazon.com.

    Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
    Author - Retired Episcopal Priest
    Carmel Valley, California

    http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
    http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jairomejiago...
    07/22/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.