Latest news with #FrancisCollins
CBS News
27-04-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Scientists fear Trump administration cuts to NIH could impact the health of Americans for generations
Earlier this month, a Trump administration plan to cut the National Institutes of Health budget by more than 40% was leaked to the press. The preliminary budget sent shockwaves through the nation's health agency but also, the wider scientific community that relies on the NIH to fund research. Since January, 1,300 NIH employees have been fired and more than $2 billion in research grants cancelled. It's all part of the administration's effort to shrink the federal government, an effort led by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Tonight, you will hear from an NIH insider about the immediate impact of the cuts on research and patients. But we begin with Dr. Francis Collins, the longtime director of the agency. He told us why he abruptly left the NIH and why he fears aggressive downsizing could impact the health of Americans for generations. Dr. Francis Collins: When you're talking about medical research, when you're talking about people's lives, when you're talking about clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease or cancer that may take 3 or 4 years, you can't just go in and decide, 'I'm going to shut those down and maybe I'll try something else.' Those are people's lives at risk. Dr. Francis Collins spent 32 years at the National Institutes of Health, serving as the agency's director for 12 years under three presidential administrations. But he says even he was unprepared for the speed and severity of budget cuts at the NIH. 60 Minutes Sharyn Alfonsi: Give me a sense of what it was like inside the NIH, as these cuts started rolling out. Dr. Francis Collins: Almost immediately, after Inauguration. There were statements made that you were not allowed, for instance, to start any new projects. The ability to order supplies-- was cut off. Eventually, it was started back up again. But then, they put a $1 limit on what you could order. There's not much you can order for $1. Collins joined the NIH in 1993 to lead the Human Genome Project and, later, directed the agency's development of new tests, therapeutics and vaccines during the pandemic. Still, he says, even after COVID, most people don't know what the NIH does. Dr. Francis Collins: The National Institutes of Health, NIH, is the largest supporter of biomedical research in the world. Sharyn Alfonsi: What are some of the medical breakthroughs that people might not be aware of that came through the NIH? Dr. Francis Collins: Deaths from heart disease are down by 75% in the last 40 years. That's NIH. Deaths from stroke are down about 75%. That's NIH. HIV, AIDS. Where that was a death sentence, now if you have access to those antiretrovirals, NIH and drug companies came up with that, you have a normal lifespan. The NIH is headquartered on this sprawling 300-acre campus in Bethesda, Maryland. It's home to the largest clinical research hospital in the world, and 27 research institutes and centers. The "leaked" budget draft includes a plan to consolidate those 27 institutes and centers into eight and eliminate four, including the institutes on nursing research and minority health. If approved by Congress, it would be the largest budget cut by an administration to the health agency, but not the first. Most recently, Presidents Bush and Obama made smaller cuts to the NIH, which currently has a $47 billion budget. But Collins says the bulk of that budget, more than 80%, goes to researchers off campus. Dr. Francis Collins: Most of that goes out to the universities and institutes all over the country. They're the ones that do the work, but they get the funds from NIH by writing very compelling grant applications that go through the most rigorous peer review system in the world. Some of those researchers' work lines America's medicine cabinets, such as statins, antidepressants, and new forms of insulin. A Journal of the American Medical Association study found that between 2010 and 2019, 99% of FDA-approved drugs had ties to research funded by the NIH. Dr. Francis Collins: Every dollar that NIH gave out in 2024 to a grant is estimated to have returned $2.46 just in a year. That's a pretty darn good return on investment. But not good enough to escape the crosshairs of the Trump administration's sweeping budget cuts. In February, Dr. Collins decided to leave the NIH. Dr. Francis Collins: It just became untenable. I was-- as every other scientist in that circumstance--not allowed to speak-- in any kind of scientific meeting or public setting Sharyn Alfonsi: You don't think if you woulda stayed there you would've been in a better position to fight for the scientists and the work? Dr. Francis Collins: I don't think it would've helped. I would've been pretty much in a circumstance of not being able to speak about it. Dr. Francis Collins and Sharyn Alfonsi 60 Minutes With the exception of a series of rallies, most scientists connected to the NIH have remained quiet. Some, like this physician-scientist, who still works at the agency, fear their jobs or research may be targeted for speaking up. He asked us to conceal his identity. NIH insider: I've never seen the morale of an institution or any place change so abruptly to where we feel fear. It began, he says, in February, when more than a thousand probationary employees were placed on leave. Sharyn Alfonsi: When that happened, that first hit, what was the reaction, like immediately and in the office the next Monday? NIH insider: Tears. Everybody trying to assess damage, who's been fired, who hasn't been fired, what do we do? And then an immediate sort of assessment-- in the clinical center: "Okay, can we still take care of patients and our research participants? Is it still safe?" Sharyn Alfonsi: No one thought before they fired the people that dealt with the patients that maybe they shouldn't be fired? NIH insider: This didn't come from within NIH, it came from outside, they don't know what these people do. As DOGE dismantled parts of the agency, employees told us work on child cancer therapies, dementia, and stroke slowed or stopped because critical lab and support staff were let go. NIH employees shared these photos. They say even after a six-week spending freeze at the agency was lifted, some shelves and refrigerators that held supplies for trials and patients remained empty because much of the staff that procured those supplies was fired. NIH insider: You can't run an organization as complicated as NIH without a support system. Doctors and nurses and scientists can't function without a lot of other resources. They need an entire support infrastructure. And that has now been decimated. Some of the fired employees have been brought back. Others are still being paid but not allowed to work. NIH insider: This doesn't feel like a strategic plan to reorganize and make the NIH better and more efficient. It feels like a wrecking ball. Sharyn Alfonsi: Typically, when a company has layoffs they talk about restructuring. There'll be a new structure and this is how it's gonna work. Is there a structure in place right now for the NIH? NIH insider: Not that anybody's shared. We have no idea. You know making the organization better, everybody is for that . There is no question. But again-- this is not more efficient. It is infinitely less efficient right now because you can't get anything done. The confusion in Bethesda has also paralyzed many of the 2,500 universities and institutes that rely on the NIH to help fund their research. So far, nearly 800 grants have been terminated- some on HIV and AIDS, trans health and COVID-19 after researchers were told their work was no longer an agency priority. And last week, the NIH signaled that more cuts could be coming. It announced that any university with a DEI program or that boycotts an Israeli company might not be awarded new NIH grants for medical research and that existing grants could be terminated. Kristin Weinstein: Without NIH funding I would not be where I am today. Kristin Weinstein and Sharyn Alfonsi 60 Minutes Kristin Weinstein is a wife, mother, and PhD candidate at the University of Washington. She hoped to continue her research on cancer and autoimmunity after graduation. Sharyn Alfonsi: And now what are you thinking about your future? Kristin Weinstein: Yeah. It's in some ways bleak. Nationwide, there is a hiring freeze at virtually every major-- academic university. And even if I did happen to secure a position, now the funding is so uncertain, I don't know if I would have funding to actually do the research that I was hired on to do in whatever lab I join. We're very seriously considering, at this point, leaving the United States. Weinstein has met with faculty at universities in Europe and spoken to labs in Canada. She's not alone. A survey of 1,600 scientists and graduate students reported 75% are considering leaving the U.S. to work. Australia, Europe, and China have already boosted recruitment efforts hoping to capitalize on the potential "brain drain." Kristin Weinstein: I grew up with this notion that if I studied hard I would be able to pursue whatever my interest was. How can I believe in the American Dream when I would have to leave my own country to pursue my career? The uncertainty has also created concern for Beth Humphrey - and her daughter Laura. Beth was diagnosed with Alzheimer's last year. Laura Broom and Beth Humphrey 60 Minutes Beth Humphrey: It was devastating. There's no successful treatment. And it-- it is ultimately terminal. The 68-year-old grandmother joined an NIH-funded Alzheimer's study run by Duke University and the University of North Carolina. Now, the Trump administration wants to restrict how much universities are reimbursed for overhead costs, which critics argue act as a "slush fund" for schools. Twenty-two states, including North Carolina, are suing. Universities warn that policy could lead to billions in losses and would have a "dire impact" on "life-saving" trials and research. Sharyn Alfonsi: If the funding is cut, what does that mean to you? What's next? Beth Humphrey: That would be very disappointing to me. Laura Broom: This is not a partisan issue. Disease doesn't know your party affiliation or your socioeconomic status. And everyone in America knows someone who has been affected by Alzheimer's. Earlier, this month, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya took office as the new director of the NIH. Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor whose research focused on the economics of health care, has said he was "smeared" by other academics after he argued against broad mask mandates and lockdowns during the pandemic. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (during Senate Confirmation Hearing): I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives Dr. Bhattacharya declined our request for an interview. But at his senate confirmation hearing, he outlined his plan for the agency. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (during Senate hearing): If confirmed, I will carry out President Trump and Secretary Kennedy's agenda of committing the NIH to address the dire chronic health needs of the country with gold standard science and innovation. One way the NIH will carry out that agenda, Bhattacharya says, is by creating a new database to study chronic disease. The NIH will also invest $50 million to study autism, in response to a request by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has clashed with scientists on the topic for years. This past week, Dr. Bhattacharya told agency advisors he is working hard to undo some of the recent -quote "disruptions" at the NIH, and called that draft proposal to cut its budget by 40% 'the beginning of a negotiation.' Produced by Ashley Velie. Associate producer, Eliza Costas. Broadcast associate, Erin DuCharme. Edited by Matthew Lev.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Dr. Francis Collins Led the NIH. Now, He Fears for the Future of Science
Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, at the Stand Up for Science 2025 rally at the Lincoln Memorial on March 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Alex Wong—Getty Images Dr. Francis Collins led the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest funder of biomedical research, under three presidents—including Trump during his first term. He left that post in 2021 and retired from his career in government in March 2025. Collins shared with TIME why actions taken by the Trump Administration have made him deeply concerned about the future of scientific research in the U.S., and what he hopes new leadership and the public will do to combat it. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. It's hard to answer that question in a simple way in the midst of everything that's going on now. Here I am as a private citizen trying to figure out what my next calling should be. I had served by then three different presidents—Obama, Trump, and Biden—over the course of 12 years, which was a new record for a presidentially appointed NIH director. It always seemed to me that it's good to have leadership refreshed on a regular basis for organizations that have a very complex and important mission [like NIH}. So, it did seem to me that it would be a good thing for me to step away and let the president pick another leader going forward. I stayed on longer than I probably otherwise would have because of COVID and the desire to have continuity during the worst pandemic in more than a century, with all the things that needed to happen with medical research. But by late 2021, while COVID was far from over, the organization of the response efforts for vaccines and therapeutics and diagnostics were in a stable place, and I thought it would be fair to step away and let a new person arrive. I've been increasingly concerned about the polarization of our society, and that goes back even before COVID. But COVID brought it out in a particularly troubling way, where information that might have been lifesaving, such as the use of the vaccines, did not always land with people who had already been influenced by lots of other misinformation, or even disinformation, coming from social media, cable news, and sometimes politicians. So when I stepped down as NIH director, I began the effort to try to put together a book called The Road to Wisdom. It focuses particularly on the topic of truth: that there really is such a thing as objective truth. A society that decides truth is just how you feel about it, and that alternative facts are okay, is heading into a very dangerous place. And it feels like that's sort of where we are. Read More: A Pill to Prevent COVID-19 Shows Promise Now, we see that kind of attitude spilling over into people's response in general to institutions, and certainly to science. It worries me greatly now, seeing how that has played out in the last couple of months, in terms of drastic actions that are being taken against the federal support of science, with cuts in the [research support NIH provides], with firings of thousands of scientists including more than a thousand at NIH without really much consideration of what the consequences would be. I felt I needed to be part of speaking out about why this is, for the average American, not a good idea. I was particularly compelled by the Stand Up for Science effort since it was organized by students. They had the courage, and also the deep concern about whether their futures are now in jeopardy. They are deeply troubled about whether that opportunity might be slipping away on the basis of all the changes that are being put forward. And some of those students are even wondering if they need to leave this country to go to another place to be able to live out their dreams. That's just an unprecedented kind of circumstance that seemed to require some reaction. The idea that NIH's funding of research on bat viruses in China led directly to COVID is simply not supported by the facts. Yes, NIH was interested in whether there might be viruses emerging in Chinese bats, because that's how MERS and SARS got started. But the bat coronaviruses that were studied by NIH contract research were far away from SARS-CoV-2 in their genome sequences—about the same level of similarity as a cow and a human. The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 might have been created from scratch in a lab was initially considered quite seriously by the virus experts, but they ultimately concluded this is simply not consistent with its genome sequence. Read More: What Leaving the WHO Means for the U.S. and the World There continues to be speculation, however, that the naturally occurring virus might have been secretly under study in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and somehow escaped. There is no concrete evidence to support this, but the Chinese government has stonewalled efforts to examine lab notebooks or other materials that might shed light on what really happened. So this 'lab leak' possibility has to be considered—but the simplest synthesis of the current data is that a naturally occurring virus spread from bats to an intermediate host, possibly a raccoon dog, and then infected humans in the west corner of the Huanan market, where wild animals were being butchered. Unfortunately this topic of COVID origins has become a contentious and hyperpartisan issue, leading to further polarization of our divided country and to scapegoating and threatening of scientists. I would urge interested people to look closely at the actual facts. The second administration arrived with a very detailed plan already in hand, and they proceeded to implement that plan in a breathtakingly rapid series of policies and Executive Orders. In just two months, more dramatic changes have been made in science and medical research than anybody can remember. The first Trump administration had some of these same ideas, but there was more time for discussion, and more time to consider what the consequences might be. This time, the policies, including cutting funding and firing scientists, are being implemented very quickly, unfortunately without sufficient consideration of the harms that are being done. Medical research institutions across the country are in crisis. I am quite concerned. If you're an American who cares about health for yourself and for your family, and if you also care about our chances to give young people an opportunity to do amazing things in their scientific careers, and if you care about giving young people a chance at a scientific career, and if you care about how science and technology have been the main support of the U.S. economy since World War II, then taking a hammer to this amazing life-saving enterprise should concern you. [The pace of scientific progress] has profoundly slowed down already. Will it be recoverable with some adjustments, and maybe some rollbacks of the worst of the sledgehammer blows that have been struck so far? The approach to cure rare diseases with gene therapies is something that I have been very involved in. We're talking about 7,000 diseases that are now potentially on the pathway toward a genetic cure, especially using the CRISPR [gene editing] approach. My own lab is working on this approach for progeria [a rare genetic condition that causes children to age prematurely]. It is interesting and troubling to look at the reaction to what's happened in just the last two months; a lot of the young scientists who were potentially interested in that field now aren't quite so sure. Read More: The Power and Potential of Gene Tuning In China, the approach of CRISPR-based gene editing therapy for rare diseases has been identified as one of their highest priorities, and they are now already at the point of starting to run more clinical trials than the U.S. For those people who maybe are less impressed by the human impact of a slowdown in medical research, we also ought to think about what this means economically for the future of our nation, particularly with our most important competitor, China. Are we handing them leadership in an area, namely medical research, where the U.S. has led the world for decades? Is that really a good idea? Students don't have a lot of power and they're aware of that. What they can do, and what they did in organizing Stand Up for Science, is to try to communicate their perspective, their sense of alarm, their recognition that something serious is happening to the their willingness to identify voices that maybe can be even more powerful than their own, like those of patients. I've been calling for a "science communication core," where we enlist all of the science majors in colleges and universities, all of the high-school science teachers, all of the members of scientific societies, and give them the assignment to be communicators of what science is and what it can accomplish in a realistic, community-based way. We have a long way to go to actually convince a lot of Americans about just how important science is for our future. I'm very worried about that. Every survey that's been done shows a significant drop in public trust of scientists. Some of that, I have to admit, relates to the circumstances that happened during COVID. I've been very public about my concerns that our communication strategy had flaws in terms of trying to share information with people about what to do to protect yourself against the virus. I wish every time those recommendations had been made, there would have been a preamble saying, "There's a lot we don't know about the virus—we are trying to learn as fast as we can, but we're missing pieces—big ones. That means what we tell you today about a mask or about social distancing or vaccines or therapeutics might turn out to be wrong in another month or two when we have more data. Don't be surprised if that's the case. But please don't imagine that we're trying to jerk you around. We are doing the best we can with very imperfect data at a time of crisis." Read More: The Pandemic Turns 5. We Are Still Not Prepared for the Next One We didn't say that often enough. So when recommendations were made, people assumed that those were rock-solid, and then, when they had to change those a month or two later—when you found out, for instance, that asymptomatic people were likely to be spreaders of the virus—then people thought, "These people don't know what they're talking about." And so we lost confidence along the way. I will apologize for some of the things that we as scientists didn't do. I wish some of the people on the side, who were distributing malevolent information that was known not to be true about the pandemic, would apologize for their role. Where are the apologies for that behavior? The Great Barrington Declaration was released in October 2020, before we had vaccines or even knew that they would work. The document suggested that it would be better to let people who were not senior citizens go about their daily life without restrictions. That would help the economy and the educational system. Many more people would get infected, but this would assist the development of herd immunity. This would have been an interesting topic for a scientific discussion, but it was put forward as a policy document and presented to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the day after it was released. Any opportunity for scientific discussion was skipped, and the proposal seemed to be on the path toward a potential major policy change as the pandemic was raging. That was alarming to many of us. Almost every single public health organization published highly critical statements—the Secretary General of the World Health Organization and the scientific leadership in the U.K. also strongly objected. We know that about 30% of the people who died of COVID were under 65, so there would likely have been significantly increased casualties. Furthermore, it was never clear how you would sequester the older people so that somehow they were not exposed to the virus; people tend to live in families, after all. So the proposed plan seemed both impractical and dangerous. Pull NIH out of any kind of partisan situation. Traditionally, over all these decades, [NIH] has been supported by both parties in both chambers with enthusiasm for what it can do for health and for saving lives. Right now, almost everything seems to be partisan. So if Dr. Bhattacharya can help return to that non-political status, that would be a really good thing. Mix politics and science, you get politics. You kind of lose everything else. And that's unfortunately a little bit where things are right now. And then surround yourself with people who are as smart as they can be, and who are fearless in their willingness to tell you their opinions even if it might not be something you want to hear. The best thing a leader can do is to give permission to the people around them to say, "You're about to do the wrong thing." It wasn't always easy to hear that, but it was important to have that permission granted. And take advantage of the brain trust that you have access to as the NIH director. Use that connectivity. As somebody once said, "My own brain is limited, so I have to borrow all the brains I can from other people in order to make the boldest decision." You do feel like you've got to watch around yourself a little more carefully. Because it's not incredibly unusual to have someone—as happened right before the beginning of the Stand Up for Science event—come forward very aggressively with statements that were quite threatening and quite wrong in terms of their assumptions about COVID and whatever role I played. Read More: What to Know About Dr. Mehmet Oz, Trump's Pick to Lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services It does make you feel unsafe. I haven't yet reached the point…of having 24-hour security guards. And I hope I don't have to. That's incredibly disruptive of one's life and I couldn't possibly afford it anyway. But it does give me concern. I can't let that be a reason to go hide under my desk. That's just not an appropriate response. But some of the messages are frightening and certainly very hurtful. Actually, the [messages] that I find hardest to read are written to me by fellow Christians. I'm very open about my Christian faith. It's the rock I stand on. It's who I am. It's who I have been since I converted to Christianity at age 27. If I'm lost in a circumstance and don't know what to do, I'm likely to go to prayer or to the Bible to try to seek out some kind of insight or some path towards wisdom. And yet I will get emails from people who say, "You are a fake Christian. You can't possibly be really a follower of Jesus if you have done the following. If you had any Christian credibility at all, you would confess your sins and tell everybody that you repent of your evilness.' And some of them say I should just basically be in jail and maybe executed. These are coming from Christians who have been caught up in our terribly divided, polarized society where you mix politics and Christianity, and you get politics. It's been really helpful to have that anchor [of faith]. I don't have to explain to God what it's like to go through a difficult time. I don't need to explain to Jesus what suffering feels like. If you look at the wall [next to my desk], there are various printouts of scriptures or quotes that have been particularly encouraging to me when I needed to be reminded. So Psalm 46—God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Okay, we got trouble. So thank you, God, for being my refuge and strength. Read More: Foreign Aid Is Retreating. The Church Must Not You can get your context a little upside-down without having that anchor to faith and to what is good and holy and true, what we're all called to do. And that reassures you that even though it feels like there's a lot of headwinds, you're doing what you're supposed to do to try to stand up for principles that are long-lasting about faith and family and freedom and goodness and love and beauty and truth. Especially truth. I hope they will see this as a period where big, bold ideas got surfaced, deeply discussed by experts in multiple venues, and then formulated into actual initiatives that could benefit not just the people doing the work, but lots of other people. The genome project was like that. Maybe that's how I learned how important that could be. But the BRAIN initiative certainly followed that, and the All of Us project, which is now up to 800,000 Americans who are our partners in this effort to really figure out how genetics and environment and health behaviors all work together to see whether somebody is going to stay healthy or develop a chronic illness, and what we could do to prevent that. Its benefits are going to be significant because the data is accessible to all researchers who can begin to sift through and make those discoveries. I'm deeply troubled that both of those projects have had severe budget cuts, including just in the last week. The All of Us project's budget is down now to less than 30% of what it had been two years ago. It makes it almost untenable for the project to keep doing much more than just caretaking. And this is just at the time where this was going great and having so many new ideas emerging. I hope that's another thing a new NIH director will look at and figure out a way to assist with, because the promise of that still mostly lies ahead. I started to try to write a new anthem for Stand Up for Science. I figured that every protest group needs a song so that people can gather together and sing it. It didn't quite come together. So instead, I rewrote the words to a familiar folk song, "All the Good People," and that's what I sang at the Lincoln Memorial. I do believe strongly that music has the potential to bring people together when all else has failed. My wife and I are planning a music party in another couple of months where we will invite to our house as many people as we can fit, which might be about 50, and we'll try to carefully choose people on opposite sides of political issues and then see if by singing together over an evening something might happen. Contact us at letters@
USA Today
09-03-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Science supporters rally across US to protest Trump research cuts: See photos
Hear this story Thousands rallied Friday against the Trump administration's sweeping cuts to research funding and federal agencies tasked with advancing science. Dubbed "Stand Up for Science," rallies brought together leading researchers, former administrators and people who benefitted from medical advances. The main rally occurred on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C., with an estimated 30 events held from Seattle to Tallahassee, Florida, and even in France. "I'm a patriot, I love my country," Dr. Francis Collins, a longtime former director of the National Institutes of Health who abruptly resigned from the agency in February, told attendees on the National Mall. "And I'm worried about my country right now." Collins, a physician-scientist, served in multiple Democratic and Republican administrations over three decades, including pioneering work on the Human Genome Project, which has led to advances in medicine and furthered understanding of human biology. At the end of his speech, he grabbed his trademark guitar, with double helix strands of DNA on its neck. He then played a singalong for "all the good people," from students to doctors, he said. "We're joined together by this noble dream," he sang. See photos from the rallies across the nation.
New York Times
08-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Science, Politics and Anxiety Mix at Rally Under Lincoln Memorial
Shortly before noon on Friday, Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, stood on the steps below the Lincoln Memorial tuning his acoustic guitar — a 'very sweet' Huss & Dalton, he said, with a double-helix of DNA winding down the neck in pearl inlay. The nation's anxious scientists could use a song. Dr. Collins, a biomedical researcher renowned for leading the Human Genome Project in the 1990s, had steered the N.I.H. through three presidencies, into 2021, and continued working at the agency until his abrupt retirement a week ago. Now he was a headline speaker for Stand Up for Science, a rally to protest the Trump administration's drastic cuts to the federal work force and to federally funded science. The organizers weren't sure how many people would show up — they later estimated that the crowd had peaked at 5,000 — nor quite what to expect. In 2017, tens of thousands gathered on the Washington Mall for the March for Science. The collective mood then was as much perplexity as defiance at Mr. Trump's suggestions that America could be made greater by greatly reducing the Environmental Protection Agency and perhaps never mentioning climate change ever again. This year's crowd was met by Lincoln, over-large and stone-faced in his chair. The organizers had chosen the site for its postcard view of Capitol Hill, perhaps less aware that the 16th president was a champion of science. He established the National Academy of Sciences in 1863 and, an avid astronomer, often visited the Naval Observatory. Early in his career, Lincoln often carried a volume of Euclid under his arm; he studied the mathematician's argumentative logic to hone his own as a lawyer. Image Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, invoked the Gettysburg Address — 'of the people, by the people, for the people' — and noted that it applied to taxpayer-funded science, too. 'We have to sing about this,' he said. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times A scientific S.O.S. Credit... Jason Andrew for The New York Times Beaker, the Muppet lab assistant. Credit... Jason Andrew for The New York Times Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Axios
03-03-2025
- Health
- Axios
Former NIH director Francis Collins retires
Former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins unexpectedly retired on Friday, writing in a statement that employees of the government's biomedical research institution "deserve the utmost respect and support of all Americans." Why it matters: The noted geneticist's departure comes amid research funding cuts and terminations of probationary workers that have raised concern about an exodus of scientific and technical talent at federal agencies. Details: Collins didn't give a reason for his retirement and has declined requests for interviews. But his statement referenced a time when "investment in medical research was seen as a high priority and a nonpolitical bipartisan effort." "When you hear about patients surviving stage 4 cancer because of immunotherapy, that was based on NIH research over many decades. When you hear about sickle-cell disease being cured because of CRISPR gene editing, that was built on many years of research supported by NIH," he wrote. Collins stepped down as NIH director at the end of 2021 after serving in the role for 12 years under three presidents and being at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response. He returned to his lab to pursue projects that included understanding the causes and prevention of Type 2 diabetes. Collins made landmark discoveries of disease genes and previously served as director of NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute until 2008. He led the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book. But Collins became embroiled in controversies during and after the pandemic over the agency's funding of gain-of-function research and what critics saw as a heavy handed COVID response. Emails showed he ordered then-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci to devise a "take down" of the so-called Great Barrington Declaration, a petition authored by a group of scientists that backed allowing COVID to spread among young, healthy people to reach herd immunity faster, per Stat. Collins later expressed some remorse for not considering the full effects of the government's pandemic policies, saying he and his colleagues had a "very narrow view of what the right decision is." What they're saying:"Haters will find some email or two of his from the pandemic to smear him. But history will judge him as a legend who helped transform American medicine," Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University's School of Public Health and the Biden administration's COVID-19 response coordinator, wrote on X. President Trump's nominee for NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
