And that of others like him:
Collins was able to work for three Presidential Administrations in part because he could inhabit multiple identities—scientist, physician, Christian, musician, communicator, advocate—and speak to the concerns of the people in front of him. He might have talked genomic discoveries with one lawmaker and the overlap between science and religion with another. “I probably met a thousand times one-on-one with congressional members,” he told me. “I always tried to come across as someone who doesn’t just want to talk but who wants to listen. I tried to understand what’s important to them—what are they interested in?”
Speaking to Collins, I felt that his openness was more than a strategy. It seemed sincere. I wondered whether his sincerity flowed from the fact that he is genuinely part of the two tribes that he hopes to connect. He speaks both languages, understands both cultures, and feels acutely the rift between them. He must know that his insistence on bringing them together could make him less welcome in either. But, for Collins, this pursuit is not an abstract ideal or a political goal. It is, in some sense, a higher calling. For our nation and our species, the future depends on its success.Dhruv Khullar, “Faith, Science, and Francis Collins” at New Yorker (April 7, 2022)
If the “future depends” on Francis Collins’s success, the future must then cope with this:
At Evolution News And Science Today: The appalling moral failure of Francis Collins. John West provides a, er, surprising and enlightening picture of the theistic evolution great. Not for the faint of heart.
Collins’s role in an experiment on premature babies: “Medical ethicists were appalled. “The word ‘unethical’ doesn’t even begin to describe the egregious and shocking deficiencies in the informed-consent process for this study,” said Michael Carome, MD, the director of the Health Research Group at the nonprofit (and politically liberal) group Public Citizen. “Parents of the infants who were enrolled in this study were misled about its purpose. … They were misled to believe everything being done was in the ‘standard of care’ and therefore posed no predictable risk to the babies.”
One way of looking at it: In light of the appalling treatment of infants under Collins’s regime, he is just the sort of individual that the New Yorker would want to represent evangelical Christians — or any other group that its staff despise.