Some people have suggested that E.O. Wilson or Neil deGrasse Tyson might be good candidates for the next Presidential science advisor. Matt Nisbet doesn't agree [An Endorsement for Francis Collins as Pres. Science Advisor].Just one problem: Most science popularizers such as Wilson or Tyson don't have the years of government experience to understand the machinations of Federal science policy. Moreover, they have a paper trail of strong opinions on issues that might make appointment politically tough.Just one problem. Francis Collins may be an evangelical Christian and a good framer of science but does he understand science well enough to be a good science advisor? RPM says "no" and I agree with him [Francis Collins Should not be Pres. Science Advisor].
Yet there is one person that scores high on all of these dimensions, plus one other major attribute. And that person is Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project. Not only does Collins have top government experience but he is also a successful popularizer. And perhaps even more importantly, based on his background and writings, he would make a perfect science ambassador to religious America.
Not being a scientist, Nisbet thinks it's more important to be a science ambassador to the religious American public than to have the respect of the scientific community. That's "inside the beltway" thinking. Collins does not have strong support from fellow scientists because of his flawed views about biology, as RPM points out, and because of his silly attempt to make science compatible with his evangelical Christianity [Theistic Evolution According to Francis Collins] [A Deluded Scientist].
The last thing we want is a science advisor who doesn't speak for scientists.
[Photo Credit: Francis Collins discusses “The Language of God”]
I'm never quite be sure about whether Matthew Nisbet is serious in his blog postings. I honestly get the feeling that he is often simply trying to stir up controversy so that his blog gets a lot of hits and his name gets talked about.
ReplyDeleteNisbet is a moron. In other news, dog bites man.
ReplyDeleteNot being a scientist, Nisbet thinks it's more important to be a science ambassador to the religious American public than to have the respect of the scientific community.
ReplyDelete? The post under discussion is not science ambassador but presidential science advisor. This person would be responsible for presenting science to one person, the president of the USA (along with his cabinet and advisors), not to the general public. A broad knowledge of all areas of science would be far more important than diplomatic skills. Collins has not shown that he understands areas of science other than his own, e.g. with his "moral law" nonsense.
In other news, dog bites man.
ReplyDeleteIn other other news, Dog shoots man
In Chris Mooney's original essay, he concludes with the following observation, to which I add an emphasis:
ReplyDeleteAny successful science adviser must also be a skilled communicator on behalf of science, to the president but also to the media and the general public. That's why we need a "First Scientist" who can walk out of the Oval Office, ride over to address Congress, and then appear before the television cameras, all in a day's work. At a time of contentious politicization and deep uncertainty, we need a credible science advocate in the Oval Office who can inspire not only good decision making, but public trust as well.
Broadly speaking, I agree, although I reserve the right to disagree with Mooney's estimates of who can inspire trust in which portions of the public.
That said, I think Collins would be a terrible choice, for all the reasons enumerated above — I just don't think the job description really stops with explaining science to one person or a select few. Even if the SA doesn't appear on TV, write Op-Eds or maintain a blog, wouldn't we expect that his statements about science be the ones regurgitated by the Presidential speechwriters?
ReplyDeleteOh, noooooo (I am doomed, and so is Varmus)... ;-)
ReplyDeleteSomehow, Dr Collins' science background isn't enough for him to speak in the name of science. And why? Well, he belives in God,and that is anathema for the materialists.
ReplyDelete"Just one problem. Francis Collins may be an evangelical Christian and a good framer of science but does he understand science well enough to be a good science advisor?"
Oh, the fact that he is the head of the Genome Project somehow is not enough for someone to see that he knows his bussness?
"Not being a scientist, Nisbet thinks it's more important to be a science ambassador to the religious American public than to have the respect of the scientific community."
Nisbet didn't say that "it's more important to be a science ambassador to the religious American public than to have the respect of the scientific community".
That's a strawman, Larry.
What I believe Nisbet is saying is that Dr Collins not only knows how to be ahead of a large scientific program, but also he could be the man to ease the suposed conflict existing between Christianity and science. Why? Because he claims to be a Christian and he obviously is a top scientist.
"That's "inside the beltway" thinking. Collins does not have strong support from fellow scientists because of his flawed views about biology,"
Yeah, I mean, what does Collins know about biology? He is only the director of the National Human Genome Project. Anyone could have that job.
"as RPM points out, and because of his silly attempt to make science compatible with his evangelical Christianity"
Oh, so THAT'S the problem then? Why didn't you say so, Larry?
Why don't you just say that, as an atheist, it doens't go well with your religious worldview to have a Born Again Christian ahead of such a prestigious place.
I guess that way the cannard "Christianity is against science" would be harder to use, would't it?
"The last thing we want is a science advisor who doesn't speak for scientists."
TRANSLATION:
"Last thing we want is a scientist who doesn't believe that naturalism is king, and nothing else exists besides matter and energy."
(With this reply I am not in anyway endorsing Dr Collins.)