When the White House announced that President Obama had named Dr. Francis Collins to head the NIH, many applauded the choice. “But praise for Dr. Collins was not universal or entirely enthusiastic,” declared The New York Times.  “Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, called Dr. Collins’s selection a ‘reasonable choice.’ Others privately expressed unease.”

In what seemed a strained effort to find a second side to the story, the Times zeroed in on the

“two basic objections to Dr. Collins. The first is his very public embrace of religion.” While in medical school, Collins converted to Christianity.  “Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins’s evangelism,” the Times commented. But in fact, Collins religious belief did not stand in his way when leading the Human Genome Project. And no one has pointed to a single instance when religion has in any way interfered with Collins work as scientist. Was the Times suggesting the the only suitable candidate to head the NIH would be an agnostic? This seems to me just as discriminatory as the bias against agnostics so common in other corners of the mainstream media.

 The other objection, according to the Times, is that “Although Dr. Collins was widely praised in 2003 when the [Human Genome Project] succeeded, the hopes that this discovery would yield an array of promising medical interventions have greatly dimmed, discouraging many.

Anyone who believed that the Project would lead to sudden cures was exceedingly naïve.

Indeed even the Times acknowledges that Collins “cannot be blamed for the unexpected scientific hurdles facing genetic research, but he played an important role in raising expectations impossibly high. In interviews, he called the effort ‘the most important and the most significant project that humankind has ever mounted’ and predicted it would quickly allow everyone to know the genetic risks for many diseases.”

In fact, the quotes the Times picked reveal that Collins was not talking about  hoped-for “interventions”; he  was predicting that the research would help gauge risks. The difference between knowing that a patient is at risk,and discovering a treatment is enormous.  Long-term, the Project is extraordinarily important; but that does not mean that promising treatments are around the corner.

Finally, the Times observed, “Some scientists and advocates for people suffering from diseases criticized the extraordinary amount of money and attention the sequencing effort garnered, saying it distracted from more fruitful areas of research. Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, raised questions about the appointment. ‘The N.I.H. needs visionary leadership willing to challenge the present stagnation at the institute,’ Ms. Visco said. ‘It may be difficult for Francis, since he has been a part of the system.  We look forward to working with him,” she added, “to help him move beyond a focus on technology and to push N.I.H. to foster innovation and regain the sense of urgency to save lives.”

No doubt Visco feels that the N.I.H has not been aggressive enough in investing in expensive, long-shot research that might save breast cancer victims. But others would say that breast cancer itself has drawn “an extraordinary amount of money and attention” over the years—dollars and time that might have been spent on basic research—or improving public health–or investigating diseases that are less of a worry to New York Times readers.

I found the slant of the newspaper’s report on Collins appointment peculiar. I wonder, was this just an overly-zealous effort to produce a “balanced story”? (Sometimes there just aren’t two sides to a story). Or is this another example of the mainstream press second-guessing virtually everything that President Obama does—particularly when it involves healthcare. Another attempt at “balance”?

( Reporters and editors really should just focus on truth-telling and getting the facts right. Too often, an editor asks: “Can’t you find someone who will say this isn’t a good idea?” Trawling for a source who will answer an editor’s query the way he wants it answered isn’t journalism. Journalism involves talking to many people, listening to what they say, asking questions, writing down their answers and asking more questions.)

                                       Nortin Hadler on Francis Collins

The same day that I read the Times’ story, I received an e-mail from Dr. Nortin M. Hadler,  the author of Worried Sick: A Prescription for Health in an Overtreated America and The Last Well Person, two books that  I strongly recommend.  Hadler, who is a professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an attending rheumatologist at University of North Carolina e-mailed me to say: “This is a brilliant appointment.”

 I have the greatest respect for Hadler’s opinion. Moreover, such high praise from someone who is best known as an extremely intelligent skeptic piqued my curiosity. I asked him if would expand. Below, a guest post from Hadler that reveals more than any newspaper account ever could about who Francis Collins actually is.

I Applaud the Appointment of Francis Collins to Direct the NIH

Some 35 years ago I was a newly minted Assistant Professor of Medicine invested in the education of the 3^rd year UNC medical students who were assigned to my general medicine service. Francis Collins, was one of the first to teach me the joy of mentoring and the reward of watching a student flourish. There have been many others over the years, including Francis Collins’ daughter a generation later. There have been many more who, like Francis, were medical residents at Chapel Hill where we learned how to make post-graduate education a lifetime pleasure. There is a fabric to professional education, tightly woven by the generations who pass to the next their commitment to the care of the patient.

Francis brought his particular genius to this exercise. His contributions to our understanding of human genetics speak for themselves. But that is the least of his genius. Francis understood and explained the fashion in which “advances” are incremental rather than revelatory. Francis understood and explained the fashion in which “advances” can have ramifications that are harmful if not recognized and discussed openly. Francis understood and explained why science is an exercise in refutation; no one should presume the result of the experiment yet to be done. In a society which has been taught that money can purchase a cure for every physical and emotional disorder, Francis is a beacon of enlightenment.

Francis also understands how little we really know. He is not the first scientist to come to that realization; to the contrary, it is an inescapable conclusion. Some, including myself, live comfortably with uncertainty. Others, including Francis, need an explanation even if the explanation is beyond testing. As a geneticist, Francis argues that the common goodness of man is evidence for a higher power. I respect this argument, and I value the fact that he can readily countenance my doubts about the robustness of the evidence for common goodness and my lack of comfort with a metaphysical explanation. I also value the fact that the Director of the National Institutes of Health has the depth of intellect that can encompass a soul.

I was a Clinical Associate on the staff of the National Institutes of Health in the early 1970s and had funding for my research from the NIH into the 1980s. Then my research took a direction that no longer required such funding, and does not to this day. I have no conflict of interest in applauding this appointment. As a physician, as a citizen, I have a vested interest in the excellence of the NIH and can’t imagine its direction in finer hands than those of Francis Collins.