Francis Collins’ reputation precedes him: as a scientist he obtained a Ph.D. in physical chemistry before attending medical school and then becoming a molecular biologist. He led the Human Genome Project and then headed the National Institutes of Health for twelve years. When he resigned in 2021, he became President Biden’s science advisor.
But Collins is also one of the most outspoken Christians in modern intellectual circles. He became one at the age of 27 after a two-year journey through the world’s religions, convincing him that it was the only thing that could give meaning to both life’s great questions and the world’s religions. the big bang.
“A lot of people said, ‘Your head is going to explode because you’re a scientist who has studied DNA. This is just not going to work,” he told reporters at an event in Wellesley, Massachusetts, in early September. “I’m unapologetic about the fact that when it comes to science you better show me your data or I won’t accept your conclusions, but I’m also a person of faith who sees that foundation as a very crucial part of who I am , and who I think is in a position to maybe try to reach those people of faith and say, ‘I’m one of you too,’ that science is not your enemy, that we can do these things together.”
In one new book published last TuesdayCollins is trying to address a problem he saw increasing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic: “Not only are we a deeply partisan society, but we are deeply cynical and distrustful of traditional sources of knowledge and wisdom,” he said. “I felt like if I have any credibility as a scientist, as someone who has had the opportunity to be at the helm of the NIH, and previously at the genome project, I just have to do something.”
Collins talked about everything from how he found a video of himself in the methods section of a scientific study to how the NIH would do under a different Trump administration.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
On why he decided to bring religion into the discussion about science in America:
I didn’t grow up with any kind of religious perspective. But in medical school I encounter some of those deeper questions, like, “Why am I here?” And what happens after you die? And is there a God?” As I watched people struggle with the progression of the disease and their likely inability to survive, I realized I hadn’t thought much about this.
I therefore made an attempt to strengthen my atheism, which was what I was at that moment, and surprised myself by discovering that it was the least rational of the options… I have never found a conflict that was not could be resolved fairly easily. solvable by considering what type of question you ask and what tools you use to answer it. When it comes to nature, use the tools of science. When it comes to more transcendental issues, such as “Why is there something instead of nothing? Why am I here?” — science doesn’t help me much.
The fact that 60 to 70% of Americans actually believe in God cannot be ignored, because many of the foundations of faith point us toward solutions to today’s divisions. Loving your neighbor – my goodness. Read the Sermon on the Mount. He does everything he can to ‘love your enemies’. We are not doing very well with that. If we could step away from the political messages, which are often full of vitriol, and instead return to the foundations of faith that are much more about coming together and understanding each other – “Come, let us reason together” – we might a greater chance of solutions.
On the question of whether he was able to convince everyone who pitted faith against science:
There was an interesting one study published in PNAS – but I didn’t even know they were doing this – where they had a video that was made to show people trying to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. And the video and the variety of individuals explaining the science and why this was something that was safe and effective. And they randomly divided the group into two, and one of them showed that video plus an additional clip of me saying, “Yes, I think this is something that is safe and good for you. By the way, I’m a religious person. If that’s something you’re concerned about, believe me, I agree with you. But I do think this is something that fits with your faith tradition.”
And when they looked at the difference in who decided to go ahead with vaccination, the group who saw the additional clip with the claim that this is actually in line with the Christian faith were significantly more likely to get vaccinated. I didn’t know about that research, I didn’t know that I was actually being used in that way, but it’s an interesting piece of data in terms of what it tells you about what it takes for people to trust information.
On whether his cancer diagnosis and treatment revealed anything new to him about the healthcare system:
Yes, it’s different when you’re on the other side. One thing was the cancer I have prostate cancerand it was quite an aggressive form. But I’ve been followed for five years [for] which seemed to be the kind of prostate cancer that doesn’t require much other than monitoring. But then things took a turn and it took more than that.
From that experience, I learned that we have come a long way in the past decade in detecting and responding to this cancer. But our healthcare system doesn’t necessarily realize that. My concern was with NIH. I was part of a clinical protocol so we could learn as much as possible. There are imaging options now that are so much more advanced than they were ten years ago, and they give you the opportunity to know very precisely whether this is something that needs intervention or not. And a large part of healthcare has not yet realized this.
On how the NIH might fare under a potential new Trump administration:
Well, I’m quite concerned about the next path. We were really fortunate that the NIH had a stable, predictable trajectory of inflation plus a few percent year after year from 2015 to 2022, which allowed us to try new things and provide more comfort to people who were worried about whether they would can continue or not. And that was really a testimony to Congress. It is very important that the government supports science, but it is Congress that really decides the budget.
What matters is who will ultimately lead this effort in the House of Representatives and the Senate. And interestingly enough, if you look back in time, even though people tend to think, “Oh well, the Democrats are more pro-science than the Republicans,” that’s not the way it has worked in terms of funding. At NIH, we have generally done better with Republicans in control of the Senate. So if you’re worried about the election, it’s not just about the president, folks. It’s about what happens in Congress that will have a major impact on how the NIH fares.
I’m afraid there have been many attacks against the NIH, many of which are based on political views about what happened with Covid and in particular attacks on Tony Fauci. And this is just a shame that this somehow leads to this kind of hostility. And Congress has certainly been a strong supporter of medical research as a nonpartisan thing for decades. I hope we can get back to the same place where this is considered one of the great things the government is doing and has been incredibly successful. And let’s not turn that into a political football.
On how we pay for increasingly expensive drugs that the NIH – and therefore taxpayers – had a hand in developing:
We’ve been talking about this for decades – what’s the right balance between making public investments in basic science and then turning it over to the private sector because the government isn’t going to make pills, and somehow benefiting the public comes? most reasonable cost?
I don’t have any easy solutions for this, but I don’t think the solution is really to try to get the NIH more involved in controlling downstream costs. We tried that; there was an attempt about 30 years ago, with contracts that would be placed between the intramural program at NIH companies, called CRADAs [Cooperative Research and Development Agreements]to include a reasonable price clause. Do you remember that?
So basically the company would have to agree that if that CRADA actually led to something that was coming [to being a] product, that at that time they were limited in the price they could charge. Those collaborations stopped immediately. I mean, it was breathtaking. Everything collapsed; no company was interested in participating in that kind of limited, collaborative effort. And that was clearly not a good result.
It is clear that the Inflation Reduction Act sought an approach to try to tax expensive drugs in such a way [was] received by the industry as quite threatening. But as far as getting NIH to become part of the solution, I’m skeptical that that can work and I certainly think the Bayh-Dole Actunless you want to go ahead and change it, that simply doesn’t make many of the things people propose legal, based on the fact that the intellectual property rights go to the beneficiary institution and NIH no longer owns them.