Well, if he Supports Stem Cell Research
Posted by Carl
You know how sometimes conservatives - and sometimes in the primaries my fellow Clintonistas - would see one thing that they assumed would bring down Obama. Thehim did a couple pieces last year on the theme. You know, everything from his reverend said crazy things, to his wife having written a paper that mentions that race exists in America, to the fact that he used a common cliche about lipstick on a pig. Bruce Chapman thinks Obama’s pick for NIH is going to be that thing. You see, he supports stem cell research.
The President’s nomination of former Human Genome Project head Francis Collins to lead the National Institutes of Health must have seemed like a felicitous decision at the White House. Collins lately has been a popular speaker on science and religion around the country, assuring Christians that there is no problems linking faith in God and faith in Darwinian evolution.
So he’s expanded the frontiers of human knowledge, and he doesn’t see a problem between his faith and his science. I think the first part is more important in our bureaucrats.
But when the confirmation hearings take place I would not be surprised to hear some sharp questions about Dr. Collins’ less known views on subjects that have not come out on his pulpit tours. He is, for example, a strong supporter of President Obama’s program on embryonic stem cell research. The head of NIH doesn’t have a lot to say about evolution, but he does have a lot to say about research matters in science on key social issues. Stem cells is only one of them.
My goodness, he supports something that’s incredibly popular? What’s next, he’s also for a public option on health care? He likes kitties?
To recap so far: Obama has nominated someone who has helped map out the human genetic code, believes in God, and supports at least one popular policy. So poison.
Conservatives also may want to know Dr. Collins’ views on the President’s decision to let the Council on Bioethics lapse.
So add to his scientific accomplishments, his religion, and his support for a popular policy: we don’t know what he thinks about changes to the bioethics bureaucracy that were made before he was even nominated.
At the same time, Collins is anything but popular on the Darwinian left because, while he affirms Darwin’s theory completely, he also works God into the picture, and that especially bothers scientists and pundits in New Atheist circles. It was also known to irritate staff at NIH when he was last there. So you are going to hear some interesting grumbles.
If you want to read some of that, I recommend PZ. I don’t have enough knowledge about him to weigh in really other than anything that pisses Bruce Chapman off this much is probably awesome.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Carl,
I am concerned about Collins. His views on “theistic evolution” and his willingness to allow God to be involved in scientific decisions is not trivial.
Among other worrisome signs, FC has appeared in creationist TV ads and Medved has claimed that Collinws supports the DI agenda.
Take a look at his website
http://biologos.org/
July 8th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
This issue riles the GOP’s science-denying base. Therefore, it must be political poison; otherwise, the GOP’s base would be irrelevant. And if you think evolution is the only reality Chapman opposes, well…
July 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Again, SJ, you’ve pretty much shown yourself to be a goddamned idiot. What exactly about a religious background would disqualify him from holding the post? And even if he “appears in creationist TV ads”, he’s maintained a perspective of theistic evolution, which wouldn’t seem to be a philosophy that would in practice conflict with the duties of his office…
July 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Isaac Newton was a religious nut (PDF file).
A couple of excerpts from the article:
July 9th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Deek
It seems to me to be infantile to dispute points by name calling .. especially while hiding behind a phony name. Anytime you want to meet in person, I am happy to pay for the beer.
Leaving aside your language many people in the scientific community are worried about this appointment because we had hoped for a more eminent scientist. Contrary to the hype, Francis Collins great success has been as an administrator rather than as an innovator. While his 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.
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?
e. artificial life. Again this is clearly possible. How much money should go to this end?
cross posted at SJ.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Tensor,
Collins’ beliefs go beyind evolution. He has specifically dissed a lot of behavioral biology, or at least argued fro the same sort of need to respect divine interventionb that the DI and their nilk use as an argument against a lot of important social policy.
Frankly his book is not very impre3ssive either. He seems to be a somehwta facile version fo CP Snow. He would be wlel served, and we would all be well served, if he left this part of his life private and closed the website.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
North in Seattle
Newtin was a religiou8s nut, but no one toadyt would hire him to runa physics institute.
Scientists, by an large, are an irreligous crew. Certainly very few posit a deity who intervesesin the physical world.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I guess that adds proof to my original assertion. I seriously wouldn’t be name-calling if it wasn’t completely appropriate here.
What you’ve pretty much done here is to praise him as an administrator (which would be desirable for such a job!), then try to tear him down because of his personal beliefs. All well and good, but you might want to actually have some substantive points before attempting to convince any rational person of such things. Pretty much the only thing that you’ve expressed here is that you’re bigoted against anyone that expresses any hint of religious belief.
And in terms of scientists and religion, some of the most religious people I’ve ever met have been scientists. Good scientists realize that there are some limits to what they can ever hope to understand, and that faith can actually provide many answers that science cannot.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I think I made my point clearly. There are many issues where Collins POV will be in conflict either with his church or with the scientific community. I listed some of these. Maybe these issues do not matter to you?
As for your comment about scientists, I have no idea what you mean by religious. The central principles of science pretty much rule out the sort of creator and giver of miracles most Americans would define as God.
This leaves room for religion as a practice. I know Orthodox Jewish scientists who are kosher, light candles or lay tefillin, etc. I also know some Roman Catholics who attend mass. One very smart friend is a Mahayana Buddhist and certainy does trie to decrease his karma. Other than Collins, I have known very few scientists who have any belief in miracles or in a deity who intervenes in this world.
Have you read Collins’ book?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Ugh. This is exactly why folks that are religious find Dawkins to be a massive dick, and why most of the folks around here find you to be a massive dick. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being a religious bigot.
And no, you didn’t make your point in the slightest. Your argument is that Collins is a poor choice because he’s “religious”, and happens to believe in “theistic evolution” (and NOT creationism). Nothing that you’ve said is based on anything that he’s said or done, only what religious beliefs he may have. Why don’t you actually link to proof that he himself wouldn’t be a good choice? Show decisions that he’s made that have been poor or biased by his religion. I’m waiting.
And yes, plenty of scientists are religious. Some people, at least, are smart enough to realize that science cannot answer all questions, and faith provides some understanding that you just cannot get from empirical facts. Assuming that science can provide all the answers is absolute hubris.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Why don’t you actually link to proof that he himself wouldn’t be a good choice? Show decisions that he’s made that have been poor or biased by his religion. I’m waiting.
You’ll be waiting for a very, very long time.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Lee and Deek
I listed several issues that Collins will need to be involved in. As to “evidence” I think the existance of his Biologos site is pretty good evidence.
For that matter, I do not think Collins is a disaster. He is a bright man and a very good scientist. His administrative skills are a real plus.
But yes he is not the best choice. I know of at leqast four other people who were considered but either turn4ed the job down or could not be chosen for political or financial reasons. Without being specific about name, some of the reasons these people could not serve were:
1. A past episode of scientific scandal. The scandal was very unfair but the person is now tainted for life.
2. Finances. Scientists as a community are not all that well paid. Moving to DC from-an academic job means maintaining two homes and a lot of travel on a salary that is not very good.
3. Mexican labor. One superb candidate had once employed an undocumented Mexican.
4. MD degree. One candidate did not have an MD, traditionally the Director has an MD even though the many PhDs are as qualified and one Director, Varmus, had spent his entire career at the bench.
I also can tell you a bit about why Collins was chosen.
1. As someone now at the NIH, he is already living on the NIH salary and will not take the huge financial hit other candidates would need to absorb.Even in an academic job, Collins would likely be earning two to three times what he is earning now.
2. Outcomes Research. Many scientists, including myself, are skeptical about the arguments Sibelius (and now Obama) make about the savings that can come form outcomes research and prevention. I know that Collins is close to Daschle ion this issue.
3. Politics. The biggest issue facing the HHS is passage of healthcare. Collins may well be worth a few votes from religious folks. Most of the stronger candidates are outspoken opponents of creationism.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Deek, the masked one.
Lee, Thehim
As for religious bigotry, I actually agree with Dawkins’ critics. There is nothing “scientific” about dissing mysticism, blaming all of the world’s woes on religion, or raionting all re3lgions with the tarred brush arising from the crimes of FChristianity and Islam.
I am, however, a strong supporter of PZ Meyers and recommend his web site. Have either of you read it? As shrill as Dawkins or Bill Maher are, there is the fact that no aetheist can run for President or … I suspect .. even be chosen as NIH Director.
The fact that Collins’ beliefs are a major factor in his benbg chosen for this job is sad. imagine the horror is the niminess were … horror of horrors .. an outspoken aetheist.
cross posted at SJ as “Why an Atheist Can Not be Selected to Head a US Science Agency”
July 10th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Deek, the MASKED oNE
As for scientific arrogance, no scientist proposes that our current knowledge can explain everything .. or even that we will ever be able to explain everything.
Not being able to explain something, however, does not mean accepting some religious dogma. Nor does it mean rejecting such “religious” forms of inquiry as prayer and introspection. Indeed a lot of modern science has emerged from that sort of internal exploration .. including the work of Freud and a lot of quantum mechanics.
Philosophers of science, moreover, DO postulate the very religious idea of an underlying reality. Moreover, the current view of that reality is that it lies at the level of the3 basic logic of reality.
If you want a super read on the subject I can recommend a great book by John Shipley on causality analysis in biology. The theories in that book underlay the discipline called “structural equation modelling” that is a good part of the new world of systems biology and neural nets.
Oh well …. I just heard that Michael Jackson’s tomb is empty.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Looks like you’re still waiting, DK.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
well … assuming you are able to read your own blog:
“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.”
A great deal of research is now on hold because of this decision which is ultimately an ethical/religious decision. What do you feel should be done? Do you think Francis’ religion should play a role in how these rules are rewritten?
July 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Link? (And not to your comment, to an actual decision that was made by Collings)
July 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Lee,
First, I want to avoid any sort of flame here. I respect and like Francis, my concern is that a deeply religious person should not have the responsibilities he will have for scientific judgements. I would feel exactly the same way if he were an orthodox Jew or Muslim and would extend that concern to other jobs where religion can conflict with objective decision making. I also worry that Francis appointment is a concession to the radical religious forces in Cingress at a time when every healthcare vote is essential.
As for a link, i can easily give you a link the new policy or you can not google it yourself under NIH Stem Cell Policy. However, most of what is relevant is more likely to be discussions amongst scientists that do not get posted on the web. My comments come from friends and colleagues concerned that their research is now being interrupted by Obama.
This is the nurture of the issue:
The Bush admin limited stem cell research by grandfathering in cell lines created before a certain date. Obama has lifted that limitation bit added new limitations intended to be sure that donors in the future will be informed if their cells are to be made available for research as opposed to being disposed of. This will require specifically wordiest consent forms. Again if you need help with google let me know.
The problem with the new policy is that there is uncertainty now about the existing cell lines and about whether they do or do not have that sort of documentation required as new lines are added. even though there are no legal contentions about these lines, the NIH is being cautious and has suspended future support for research already underway with those lines.
This policy was released just prior to Francis’ nomination, presumably to minimize the likely controversy. Undoubtedly he payed a role in the decision and the final policy will be made by him.
Similar issues closer to your interests may well arise because of conflicts between the scientific definition of “death” and the Roman Catholic definition. Because Francis is a good scientist, it is possible that his ability to explain science to Radical Religious folks will help, but I am not at all sure that he would not insert his morality into comments he may be asked to make in regard to the science underlying the right to die.
FWIW, I would also oppose a Dawkins type zealot.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Still no links. I’m shocked. :)
July 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
First of all, SJ, given how you’ve essentially stalked Lee, I have NO intention of telling you who I am in real life. Lee knows, Carl knows, and that’s good enough for me.
In terms of your arguments, you haven’t really made one. In his side career, he has tried to amalgamate religious faith with genuine science. In my opinion, that’s great. Instead of ceding the evangelicals to the creationists, he has made a case as to why evolution and accepted cosmology are compatible with religion. In my opinion, there should be more folks like Collins out there, actively trying to address these questions.
Your only real claim is that his religious beliefs will prevent him from doing his job. My take on that is simple: so what if he has religious beliefs? Any nominee you could propose will be biased in one way or another. But this isn’t even a case where the administration is nominating a Quaker to be Secretary of Defense, a Jehovah’s Witness to be Surgeon General, or a Satanist to head the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. His faith does NOT suggest that he wouldn’t be able to do his job, nor do the statements I’ve been able to find about him.
So put up or shut up. Either provide specific evidence that he would do a bad job, or admit that you’re a religious bigot. Don’t bother writing up a 500-word response unless it contains either (or both).
July 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Deek
July 11th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
As I said, the NIH policy is well published. If you are able to Google it, there are plenty of cites and I am sure you can find ones that amplify on what I have said.
FWIW, I certainly have not said that Francis Collins can not do the job, just that I had hoped for a much stronger candidate.
As for your other points ..
If you need anonymity, that is fine.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Sorry, but you said SPECIFICALLY:
and that definitely sounds like you’re saying that he can’t do the job. Mentioning that you hoped for a “much stronger candidate” is just a cop-out, too: very few positions in government are probably filled with the “best” person for the job. What is more relevant to this thread is that you say on one hand that he’s a worthwhile candidate, but then you list all of these issues where you think that his religious beliefs might interfere. Either pony up some ACTUAL proof that his faith will actually conflict with the way he does his job, or concede the fact that you’re a religious bigot.
I don’t know how many times I can say that before it’s clear. And hey, I’m not going to do the research to prove your point for you, either.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
LOL! STILL no links! What a complete waste of humanity.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
concede the fact that you’re a religious bigot
Good luck with that one too. LOL!
July 11th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I really assumed you knew how to use Google.
As for bigotry, I think that religious beliefs should be taken seriously. Some of those beliefs enhance competence for a job, some decrease it.
BTW, did you enjoy the new Sasha Cohen flick?
July 11th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Seriously, I have better things to do than to make your arguments for you.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Wow, still no links.
What’s funny is that he actually used the Marvin Stamn defense when he got caught on his own bullshit: “No, YOU Google the proof that I’m right, I don’t have time”
LOL!
July 12th, 2009 at 11:40 am
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NIH+stem+cell+policy&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGIC_en___US312&ie=UTF-8
July 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Or, you could just follow Carl’s advice and read the comments by PZ Meyers http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=nih+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fpharyngula%2F&sa=Search.
Of course, all this assumes, you actually care about issues like stem cells, right to suicide, health care, … you know all that stuff that dep4ends on science.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
No, I don’t think you understand. You were challenged to do the following:
Giving us a general Google search for the NIH is meaningless. Do you have specific evidence of any kind to back up your allegations? If not, it’s clear we’ve just caught you - AGAIN! - misrepresenting others.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I’m getting tired of repeating myself. Saying that I want proof isn’t the same as saying that I don’t care about these issues. “Proof” does not consist of a Google search, either. Show me exactly why you don’t think that he’s up for the job. And that doesn’t count spewing out the crap that PZ Myers is saying.
What you need to consider is that over one-quarter of Americans are evangelicals, and that they have just as much of a right to have a role in the government as anyone else. If you can put forth a specific case where Collins chose religious dogma over the demands of his job as a scientist, then DO IT.
Otherwise, you’re just preaching that Article VI of the Constitution be ignored because you’re a bigot.
July 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
FWIW, Myers has a number of links to scientists expressing specific cocnerns. If you are too lazy to follow them I see no reason to play Beatrice for you.
I also know Francis well enough that I suspect he would agree with my concerns, although obviously he feels it is appropriate for his religious views to be an important part of NIH policy. That is precisely where we (he) and I disagree. NIH is a science institute. The President has maple other osurces for advice on religion.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
LOL!!
I also know Francis well enough that I suspect he would agree with my concerns, although obviously he feels it is appropriate for his religious views to be an important part of NIH policy.
That may be the stupidest thing you’ve ever written - and that’s saying A LOT.
Still no links!!
July 12th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
If you are too lazy to follow them I see no reason to play Beatrice for you.
I’m wondering at this point why in college I wrote research papers when I could have just scribbled “find it your own damn self!” on a piece of paper and handed it in.
I also know Francis well enough that I suspect he would agree with my concerns, although obviously he feels it is appropriate for his religious views to be an important part of NIH policy.
And apparently you feel it is appropriate for your anti-religious bigotry to be an important part of NIH policy. Go back and read Article VI of the Constitution again… last time I checked, the head of the NIH was a government official, and a nominee doesn’t need to pass a religious test to be eligible for the office.
I’ll say it YET AGAIN. Prove that he’s unfit with specific evidence, or just admit you’re a bigot.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I have not said Francis was unfit.
You might want look at the current threadt at HA in re whether Hutchinson is fit to be County Executive.
I also suggest you read Article Six. The article talks aboutreligion, not belief. It would be bizr to claim that ones beliefs are immaterial to selection for jobs.
As for your college “rsearch” papers, I ’spect they were well typed and thoroufhly sourced.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I have not said Francis was unfit.
You wrote:
You were asked a very long time ago in this thread to provide a link to an example of this. You haven’t, and considering your long history of intentionally misrepresenting other people’s views (and even actions), anyone who’s reading this thread can very easily see that we caught you doing it again.
Do you want us to take you seriously around here? Stop making shit up.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
You say…
…after you said…
…and right before you say…
So on one hand, you say that he’s “not unfit”, but on the other you state that he may come into conflict with the scientific community on the basis of his religious beliefs. What’s it going to be? Either you believe that he’s fit for the job, or you believe that his religion disqualifies him from the office.
And even if you do believe the latter, where’s your proof? Still haven’t seen any from you. You’re just spewing bigotry, not making an argument.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Deek
Are yhou serious ? Surely you understand that qualifications for a job are not simply fit vs unfit.
Collins has several good traits. He is a proven administrator, he is a knowledgeable scientist, he is a compassionate person, and (I suspect more importantly) he will help Obama get votes to pass health care.
As an example of the latter, I suspect Seantors Brownback and Landrieu are more comfortable with Francis than they would be with a more assertive scientist.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Mermaids_Centaurs_and_Sam_Brownback.html
BTW, given your tone, i assume you think Goldy’s attack on Hutchinson is unfair? FWIW, I do think he is being unfair. Her beliefs tell me little abut her compatence for this administrative posts. However, I agree with David that as a voter I have as much right to know about anyone’s relgious views as I do about their other club memberships or marital fidelity. All of these fit into the category of “character.”
July 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Deek
A related discussion is whether having the great majority of the Supreme Court all Catholics is a good idea.
I posted something on this at SJ http://seattlejew.blogspot.com/search?q=sotomayor
July 14th, 2009 at 7:46 am
What?
Neither of those two links has anything to do with what what we’re talking about.
This isn’t about Goldy. This isn’t about Senator Brownback. This is about you making things up in our comment threads, long after we’ve asked you to stop doing it, long after I’ve tried to make it clear that I don’t appreciate your attempts to misrepresent my views and the views of others.
Yet you continue to do it. You continue to lie. And you continue to come here even though none of the writers of this blog like you, and none of the writers of this blog respects your opinion on any subject. Why are you still coming here and pretending that we don’t all think you’re a world-class buffoon? You’re a complete idiot. Go away.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Qualifications for a job are not simply “fit” or “unfit”, but the confirmation process isn’t a fucking Schroedinger’s Cat either. Either you believe that he can do the job to your satisfaction, or that he can’t. If you believe that he can’t because you’re a religious bigot, that’s great… but at least say it rather than pretend that it’s a decision based in fact.
Regarding health care policy, you’re off-base too. The NIH is a research and scientific arm of HHS, and while I’d expect all the members of the Obama Administration to try to drum up support for major initiatives, trying to run through health care reform isn’t his job. The only way that it might affect the results is if some evangelical Republicans in Congress believed that he would rule in ways they would like, and would consider healthcare concessions as quid pro quo. However, you haven’t established: a.) that this would amount to enough of a favor to get evangelical Republicans in hot water with the party leadership over what will amount to a mid-term election issue, and b.) that Collins would provide the concessions in health research that evangelicals would even want anyway (which it doesn’t seem he will).
The Brownback comment is irrelevant, and I won’t even dignify the Supreme Court with a response (although I think that posting a link that doesn’t even go to the story in question is a waste of my time). As far as Hutchison goes, she’s being asked a political question that’s relevant because King County does provide family planning services. Do I think that it should be a major centerpiece of the campaign? Absolutely not. However, asking the question alone is actually quite relevant, and would matter to folks that care about abortion rights and providing adequate services.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Deek
I f you look at the NIOH budget and especially the stimulus package you will find a very large amount allocated to support the research liberals claim will cut health ncare costs. Moreover, the NIH is under HHS, but its charge is very much to provide the information needed to make decisions.
Brownback’s comments are very relvant because many of the decisions Congress makes in re the NIH depend on the ability of my community to explain biology to people like Brownback. In fact, we are already creating animals that come pretty close to those yhe would like to see banned .. eg mice with human immune systems. A plus for Francis is that hge may be able to have rational discussions with Brownback on the subject, a negative is that his religous beliefs may color the NIH’s priorities.
Lee, I do come here because I think some of the posts are interesting. For example, this thread began because of a very good post Carl made on a topic I have not seem elsewhere. I would much ratherr have a good discussion of that topic, including its imnportnace for Sweattle, than the sort of thread this has become.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Again, ugh.
First, the NIH isn’t drafting the healthcare policy, nor wil Collins be off stumping for it. He certainly might make statements and testify to Congress, but he’s not in a position to do much on the substantive issues that Republicans are looking to fight over. He’s not going to make a lick of difference. (The Surgeon-General choice was much more illuminating for that.)
Second, the way you talk about Brownback and Collins, you make it seem like they have some kind of weird Jesus telepathy. (Conveniently ignoring that Brownback is Catholic, of course.) Honestly, though, I don’t think that it’s a problem of Brownback not getting it because he’s religious… he’s disagreeing with it because it is against stated Catholic doctrine. Even if you get someone up with the JC to tell him, it’s not going to change his mind.
Finally, will his beliefs impact his priorities? Sure… just like anyone else’s. Unless you can prove that he’s going to start a new research initiative into transubstantiation, though, you haven’t proven that it will affect how he does his job.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Lee, I do come here because I think some of the posts are interesting. For example, this thread began because of a very good post Carl made on a topic I have not seem elsewhere. I would much ratherr have a good discussion of that topic, including its imnportnace for Sweattle, than the sort of thread this has become.
This thread became what it became because you started throwing out some bullshit, were challenged on that bullshit, then were unable to back up your bullshit. How is that fun for us? Why is that fun for you?
I love to have intelligent discussions about the topics we post here. I even enjoy sparring with people who disagree with me. You make intelligent discussion here impossible because you refuse to acknowledge when you get caught saying things you can’t back up with evidence. That’s why we can’t stand you.
Again, we’re almost 50 comments into this thread, post a link that backs up the claims that Demo Kid has challenged or go away.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Lee,
Asking me to support a claim that Francis is unfit has no relevance since I have never said that. He is fit. he will be good at many parts of the job. He is a respectable scientist withg the unusual ability to talk to fundies.
FWIW, a former fellow of mine, John Medina, plays a somewhat similar role hwere in Seattle. It amy interest you to know about John’s role in some of the local school systems. His books on sciene for the religious community sell pretty well. He is at both the UW and SPU if you want to look him up.
Back at Francis, the concern about his role is pretty wide spread among scientists. i Perhaps you do not understand the extreme nature of the
His beliefs are pretty well spelled out in the refs I gave to his own web site.
While these may not concern you they do concern folks like me, you know ’scientists?” Carl gave you a good start on this issue … PZ Myers’ site. have you looked at it?
There are BTW, many other sites expressing similar concern about this appointment. Would that help you if I gave you those links too?
July 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
There are BTW, many other sites expressing similar concern about this appointment. Would that help you if I gave you those links too?
You made very specific claims about Collins willingness to allow his religion to interfere with scientific decisions, but haven’t backed those claims up with any evidence. Post links or go away.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Lee,
What interests me is that you are so passionate on some issues that most scientists support yet you do not understand why the scientific community has expressed concerns about Francis.
No one I know has claimed Francis is unfit. Asking me to support a claim that Francis is unfit has no relevance. He is fit. he will be good at many parts of the job. He is a respectable scientist withg the unusual ability to talk to fundies. His familiarity with NIH and with Congress and his experience as an admimistrator are pluses.
TGhe support he will get from the radical religious right may help too.
Back at Francis as a evangelical and fundamentalist, the concern about his role is pretty wide spread among scientists. Carl gave you a good start on this issue … PZ Myers’ site. have you looked at it? I also gave you a Google link to a search that gives many of these opinions. Did you read any of them? Does the Roman Catholic stand on DwD matter to you?
Are you aware of the ethical and moral issues he will need to deal with? The creation of life? The decoding of human evolutionary history? Pathenogenesis? And, yes, even the creation of human-animal hybrids. How much money should we spend on male contraception or AIDS? Should all genomes be in the public domain? Should we spend money on re-engineering the human genome? Is pre-natal genomics .. with the inherent implications for abortion .. a good thing to do? Does prayer save lives? Would you really rather have a believer in transubstantiation, the virgin birth than a person who treats science as an objective, factual agenda independent of religion?
Or .. you can just qvell.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you. Let me recap once again. In the very first comment of this post, you wrote (emphasis mine):
DK called bullshit on that statement and specifically challenged you to provide evidence for that assertion:
We are now roughly 40 comments later and you have yet to provide any evidence backing up something you stated as a fact - and which DK challenged you on. You haven’t provided any links to any scientific decisions that Collins has made that back up the accusation you made. He’s correctly concluded something that I’ve known about you for a while. You’re a unique form of religious bigot who automatically attributes a whole panoply of views to people based solely upon their religion and not what they’ve actually said or done. In fact, that’s precisely what you did here when you were caught accusing very specific people of doing very bad things when you had absolutely zero evidence.
This has nothing to do with my own views on Francis (frankly, I don’t know enough about him to have an opinion). All I know is that you came into this comment thread, after you’ve been warned numerous times about lying, and you very clearly made something up. DK caught you. Now you can be a man, admit your mistake and walk away. Or you can keep being an asshole and trying to change the subject. Which is it? Are you going to finally look in the mirror and take stock of the fat, obnoxious piece of shit you see there, or are you going to keep making a fool of yourself in the comment threads here, trying pathetically to have conversations with people who think you’re an irritating moron?
Go away.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Again, you say…
…and…
and then you say…
…and…
So there’s “concern”, but “he is fit”? You’re saying TWO THINGS AT ONCE. Pick one and stick by it.
As far as PZ Myers goes? I’ll break with Carl and say that he’s a fucking dick. He’s an atheist fundamentalist who fights the fight against folks that preach “Intelligent Design”, but has also decided to make a side career out of pissing off religious folks for no good purpose whatsoever. Kenneth Miller does a far better job about presenting a rational alternative that doesn’t attempt to step on the beliefs of others.
Now… with respect to all of the things you’ve listed:
Of all the arrogant, irrelevant things I’ve read, that pretty much takes the cake.
Amongst the things you’ve listed, most actually don’t quite apply to Collins. Theistic evolution doesn’t conflict with theories of the creation of life or evolutionary history. Evangelicals do not necessarily have a ban on male contraception or cast dispersions on AIDS research. His experiences with the Human Genome Project makes his positions on the genomic research questions relevant… and established in his public statements. And yes, he may have a position on pre-natal genomics and maybe even hybrids, but that is a pretty controversial topic in ethics even amongst the non-religious bioethicists in the crowd. So again, NO PROOF that his religion would influence his job, any more than another potential pick by a Democratic president would.
In terms of the talk about prayer, transubstantiation, virgin births, and so on… show me ONE example where he decided to support research on any of these topics, or took any other elements of his faith and asserted them as infallible in empirical scientific research. You would have a point if his faith would put him in direct conflict with his beliefs, such as if he were a Quaker in charge of national defense, a Christian Scientist as Surgeon General, and so forth, but NOTHING suggests that he would be a bad nominee.
Again… bigotry.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
There is a vast gap bewtween calling someone unfit and expressing concern about whether he or she is loess fit than others. Collins is fit .. as PZ says and I say. he is simply less fit than some others.
It seems to me that you are a victim of Orwellian New Speak. I am not sure who makes up YOUR definitions? Big brother?
FWIW, I agree with you about some atheists being militant but why is that wrong? Dawkins’ book, for example, is a diatribe that would throw John XXIII, MLK, and Newton into the same cess pool with Bush and Medved. OTOH, given the huge level of discrimination against atheists in this country, it is as easy to understand Dawkins as it is to understand Gay guys who dress up as nuns.
BTW,
if you go to Collins’ site, as I have suggested, you will see that he definityely does take theistic evolution to levels that conflict with science, esp. in regard to behavioral evolution.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:15 am
July 18th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“Now you can be a man, admit your mistake and walk away. Or you can keep being an asshole and trying to change the subject. Which is it? Are you going to finally look in the mirror and take stock of the fat, obnoxious piece of shit you see there, or are you going to keep making a fool of yourself in the comment threads here, trying pathetically to have conversations with people who think you’re an irritating moron?”
enough said!
Sorry, I did not know that EU was unable to use HTML.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Less fit, not fit… the key is that if you had an atheist Collins in the same room as an evangelical Collins, alike in every other way, you would gush over him. It’s his religious beliefs alone that make him unfit, and not because they matter to the way he does his job, but because you don’t like them.
And “discrimination” against atheists validates that kind of behavior? Please. Atheism may matter when it comes to elected officials or the Boy Scouts, but among all the forms of discrimination, I’m not necessarily crying because folks don’t invite you to their reindeer games.
I’m still waiting for that one example where his religious faith got in the way of his objectivity as an administrator…
July 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
EffU comments allow HTML
justfine.Still no links…just pathetic.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
if you go to Collins’ site, as I have suggested, you will see that he definityely does take theistic evolution to levels that conflict with science, esp. in regard to behavioral evolution.
One link, that’s all. And not to the front page. To a specific page that backs up the accusation you made earlier:
July 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Perhaps but not the blockquote operator. Try it.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Francis’ site is rather extensive. You may want to look at the somments on “social darwinism” as one example. Do you think he will be fair to that type of research?
I also gave you a google search link that brings up a number of reasonable discussions of scientists who are not enthusiastic about this choice. Like PZ Myers I see Collins as a sad statement of compromise, a bit of Obama’s idealism thrown to the wolves of the religious right.
Of course, at Obama’s pay grade he does need to worry about little things like votes for healtchcare.
There were, BTW. concerns of other sorts about some of the other candidates. One major issue was the concern that a PhD would be controversial because he or she was not a “doctor.”
The NIH has only had one first class scientist, Harold Varmus. as a director. Harold has an MD but does not practice medicine, He upset many people by questioning the way we spend NIH dollars on fuzzy clinical studies and the way we give government funded IP away at no charge. Harold also raised questions about the allocation of research dollars based on political popularity of diseases rather than objective basic science decisions.
I have no doubt that Francis will be less controversial.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
What I think is that he’ll do his job. Every single person has their own beliefs about what is important, what theories and schools of thought are valid, and so forth. His policies will be different than other potential candidates, and they’ll be informed by his entire background, pretty much just like everyone else’s would be. But AGAIN, you haven’t proved that his biases will affect the way he does his job. I’d expect that, unless proven otherwise, he would view funding research into evolutionary psychology in the same way that any other good administrator would view research into theories that they don’t agree with: impartially.
Other candidates? Sure, there are probably many, many other good people out there. Probably some that are better than Collins. But yet again… what exactly is the difference with any one of a number of different nominations? You don’t always nominate the absolute best person for the position… you nominate the ones you can pass through.
Finally, assuming that he’s red meat thrown to right-wing wolves is idiotic… what exactly do you think that Obama would be getting in return? Yet again you bring up votes for healthcare, and yet again, I think you have an entirely overblown perspective on the political importance of the NIH to religious conservatives. I mean, the Huntsman appointment was a pretty good bone to throw, but what’s the use of someone that pretty much unknown to anyone outside of the science policy cognoscenti?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Perhaps but not the blockquote operator. Try it.
The comment right above it had a blockquote. Are you completely retarded?
Still no links. Up to 60 comments now.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
My comment, further back, had a blockquote that did not work.
I may have mistyped?
As for the links .. they are there, you do not seem to want to follow them. so I will try a blockquote again:
from http://atheistbus.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=5754
July 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It worked! Kudoes.
Now try reading the link
July 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Finally! SJ backed up something he said with evidence! OMG!
This link (linked from that original thread):
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/01/francis_collins_should_not_be.php
has some evidence to back up the claim, although some people are defending Collins in the comments.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Lee,
The link was part of the google link I gave you before.
I am glad you are looking at it because it seems to me that this is very similar to many of your concerns. If you want other such disxcussions, there are many. Like PZ, few feel Frtancis is unfot, but there is a lot of concern.
If you want an example of how serious such discussion get, here in WASTATE we have an antiquated law that .. if read literally .. would ban any research with materials derived from (WASTATE) humans unless confidentiality was absolutely assured. I say “literally” because modern technology means, if we try hard enough, we can identify many kinds of human samples as coming from an individual .. including such commercial products as human blood proteins. OTOH, under current law, it is legal to use materials obtained from poltical prisoners in China, as long as we do not know where the companies got the material.
I have no real idea how you feel about such a law but it adds a large amount of cost to research in our state and, IMO, is immoral. Changing it will mean someone needs to have the skill and simple scientific honesty to explain the chemistry to the politicians. On the good side, it would be great if we had someone of the Collins type who could “speak science” to the religious. There actually is one such guy here .. a former fellow of mine, John Medina, a fundamentalist and a molecular biologist, teaches science at SPU.
Unfortunately, John Medina’s religion makes most of my community skeptical or even antagonistic toward him. Moreover, unlike Francis, John has never actually workled as a scientist (though he did direct a successful neurobiology effort using radical relgion funds here in Seatttle) so I doubt anyone will put John in a position where he could be effective in this way. Francis may be similarly limited, even if he means well, by his limited cred in the scientific community.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Steve Pinker’s comments may help you as well:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/07/13/the-francis-collins-controversy/
Chris Wilson also wrote a useful editorial
http://www.slate.com/id/2222562/
Aren’t you concerned about the effect Francis’ religion could have on such issues as DwD and abortion? While he certainly will know the facts of science, much of that debate relates to such unprovable entities as the soul.
Again, I do not know this will be a problem, I would just rather have had someone of more scientific credibility in this critical scientific job.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
I read the Slate article well before you opened your mouth… and not too much of it actually supports your position. With respect to a lot of the issues that evangelicals are passionate about, I’m not certain that he’s the champion you think he is.
For example, two major concepts that many evangelicals like to champion are out:
…and with respect to the scientific method, he’s pretty solid:
In fact, in this article, there are only two parts where the author has particular concerns: his belief that moral law is explained by the divine, and his desire to amalgamate religion with scientific observation.
In both cases, I just have to say: so what?
If Collins based his philosophy about social altruism on some other kind of minority opinion, would it really matter? Doubtful. Can administrators function in environments where they may not agree on a basic philosophical (and NOT moral) level with some of the activities that are going on? Sure. He’ll set policy, but to expect that he’ll put a big red “REJECTED” stamp on any research project that he doesn’t personally agree with is very unlikely.
With regards to the other arguments, I’m actually pretty struck with the fact that these folks are anti-religious bigots too. :) Most of this crap doesn’t really deserve much more of a response, except for this pesky little idea about human evolution.
I do find it interesting that Collins suggests that humans are not “evolving”. However, he does not suggest that MICROevolution is not occuring with humans. Even evangelicals that are committed to creationism cannot get away from population genetics, genetic drift, and so forth. You can still be a Discovery Institute fellow and understand why white moths turned black around English coal plants, or grasp why mutations for Tay-Sachs and sickle-cell anemia would spread in a population.
If he doesn’t believe that MACROevolution is occurring with humans… again, so what? We are essentially the same species now as we were 50,000 years ago, and we have far fewer environmental drivers to promote evolution and speciation in humans today than we did back then. Many popular ideas about human evolution tend to be associated more with Lamarckian concepts of evolution than anything else, and if evolution does turn humanity into a new species, you and I aren’t really going to be around to see it. Furthermore, I’d be very fascinated to see any example of realistic research that could predict human evolution into a separate species.
Therefore, you’re left at square one: he’ll sign on to research projects in evolutionary biology, but he might not agree with a science fiction story you write. Regardless, I STILL don’t see how these opinions are substantively different than opinions of any other scientist that may stray away from firm orthodoxy.
Finally, who cares how he explains the gaps? Everyone has their own personal philosophy. Unless you demonstrate how it affects his job, you don’t have a leg to stand on here.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Oh, and…
assumes that religious folks are retarded simply because they’re religious. “Speaking science” has less to do with religious belief, and more to do with accessibility of concepts. You can be a fundamentalist doctor, know exactly how to do an abortion, and choose not to do one purely on religious grounds. Likewise, you can be fully qualified to work on stem cells, and decide on ethical grounds to work only with adult stem cells.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Chill people! LOL can’t we all just get along?