Francis Collins’ reputation precedes him: A scientist, he received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry before attending medical school and later becoming a molecular biologist. He led the Human Genome Project, then directed the National Institutes of Health for 12 years. When he stepped down in 2021, he became President Biden’s science advisor.
But Collins is also one of the most outspoken Christians in today’s intellectual circles, having become one at the age of 27 after a two-year journey through the world’s religions. yes, he convinced him that it was the only thing that could be understood from the great questions of life. Big Bang.
“A lot of people were saying, ‘Your head is going to explode because you’re a scientist who studied DNA. This is not going to work,'” he told reporters at an event in Wellesley, Mass., in early September. I’m not guilty of the fact that when it comes to science, you better show me your facts or I won’t accept your conclusions, but I’m also a person of faith who sees that foundation as a very important part of education. who I am, and who I think is in a position, perhaps, to try to reach those people of faith and say, ‘I am one of you,’ science is not your enemy, what can we do . these things together.”
In a new book from last Tuesday, Collins tries to solve a problem that he has seen increasing due to the Covid-19 epidemic: “We are not only a society with exceptions, but we are very critical, we do not trust sources of culture. knowledge and wisdom,” he said. genome, I have to do something.”
Collins talked about everything from how he got his video in the science education section, to how the NIH might survive under another Trump administration.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
On why he decided to bring religion into the scientific discussion in America:
I did not grow up with any religious views. But in medical school, you encounter some of the deeper questions like “Why am I here? And what happens after you die? And does God exist?” and watching people struggle with the progression of their disease and not being able to live, I realized that I didn’t think about this much.
So, I joined the effort to try to strengthen my atheism, which I was at the time, and was surprised to find that it was an option. the weakest…I’ve never found a conflict that wasn’t easily resolved by making sure what kind of question you’re asking and what tools you’re using to answer it. If it’s natural, hey, use science tools. If it’s about things that go beyond the point, like “Why is there something as opposed to nothing? Why am I here?” — science doesn’t help me much.
Now the fact that 60 to 70% of Americans really believe in God cannot be ignored because many foundations of faith lead us to the solution of the current division. To love your neighbor – my virtue. Read the Sermon on the Mount. He continues to “love your enemies.” We’re not very good at that. If we could put aside the political messages, which are often full of poison and return to those fundamentals of faith that have a lot to do with meeting and understanding each other – “Come, let’s reason with each other” – we would have a great chance of a solution. .
As for whether you’ve been able to convince anyone who uses faith against science:
There was an interesting study published in PNAS – but I didn’t even know they were doing this – where they had a video made to show people trying to decide with or without vaccination. And a video with a variety of people explaining the science and why this was safe and effective. And they divided the group into two, randomly, and one of them, they showed that video and another clip of mine and said, “Yes, I think this is something safe and good for you. As such, I am a man of faith. If that’s something you’re worried about, trust me, I’m right there with you. But I think this is something that fits your faith tradition. ”
When they looked to see what the difference was in who decided to go ahead with the vaccine, the group that saw a clip confirming that this was compatible with the Christian faith, had the opportunity to vaccine age. I didn’t know about that study, I didn’t know that it was actually used that way, but it’s interesting information based on what you’re saying about what you need for people to trust the information.
On what her cancer diagnosis and treatment revealed to her about the health care system:
Yes, it’s different when you’re on the other side. The other cancer I had was prostate cancer, and it was a very aggressive type. But I have been followed for five years [for] what appeared to be a type of prostate cancer that needed nothing more than surveillance. But then it changed and needed more.
I learned from that experience that we have come a long way in how to detect and respond to this cancer in the last decade. But our health care system doesn’t think so. My focus was the NIH. I was part of the clinical protocol so that we could learn as much as possible. There is a more advanced thinking ability now than a decade ago, and that gives you a better idea of whether it is something that needs intervention or not. And most of the health care system has not understood that.
On how the NIH might work under the new Trump administration:
No, I’m very worried about the way forward. We were really fortunate that the NIH, between 2015 and 2022, had a stable, predictable year-to-year budget increase of a few percent, which is which made it possible to try new things and gave more comfort to people who were worried about whether they would be able to continue or not. And that was a testimony to Congress. It’s certainly important for the administration to support science, but Congress really decides what the budget is.
The issue is who ends up leading this effort in the House and Senate. Interestingly, when you look back over time, even though people tend to think, “Oh, the Democrats are more scientic than the Republicans,” that’s not how it’s worked out financially. Overall at NIH we have done better with Republicans in control of the Senate. Now if you’re worried about the election, it’s not just the president, folks. It’s about what happens in Congress that will have a big impact on how NIH works.
I am concerned that there have been many attacks levied against the NIH, many of them based on political opinions about what happened with Covid and especially the attacks on Tony Fauci. And this is very unfortunate that somehow this can get to the point where it results in this kind of hatred. And certainly Congress for decades has been a big supporter of medical research as an unsustainable thing. I believe we can go back to the same place where it is considered one of the great things that the government does and it has been amazingly successful. And let’s turn it into a political football.
About how we pay for the increasingly expensive drugs that the NIH — and taxpayers — helped develop:
We’ve been talking about this for decades – what’s the point of making government investment in basic science, then handing it over to the private sector because the government isn’t going to make the pill, and that’s it will benefit the community. The most reasonable cost?
I don’t have any easy solutions to this, but I don’t think the solution is to try to get the NIH to step in to try to control the bottom line. We tried that; about 30 years ago, there was an effort, with contracts that would be placed between the intramural program NIH companies called CRADAs. [Cooperative Research and Development Agreements]setting a reasonable pricing clause. Remember that?
So basically, the company would have to admit that if that CRADA really led to something that was on the way [to being a] product, that they were restricted at that time in terms of the kind of price they could pay. Those interactions ended immediately. I mean it was amazing. Everything fell apart – no company was interested in participating in such a complex, joint effort. And obviously that was not a good result.
Clearly, the Affordable Care Act wanted a way to try to control expensive drugs that way. [was] it has been accepted as very scary by the industry. But in terms of making the NIH part of the solution, I have doubts about whether that would work and I certainly think that the Bayh-Dole Act, unless you want to continue to change it, he does many things that people produce easily. non-legal based on the fact that intellectual property rights go to the grantee, and NIH no longer owns them.
#NIH #Director #Francis #Collins #Trump #administration #science #God