It is worth noting that although other federal scientific institutions such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been criticized by partisans, the reputation of the National Institutes of Health has remained basically unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It can be republished for free.

Julie Rovner, KHN's chief correspondent in Washington, has covered healthcare for more than 30 years, and she provides policy and political insights and analysis in her regular HealthBent column. Send questions to jrovner@kff.org.

This is largely due to Dr. Francis Collins, NIH’s mild-spoken but politically savvy director. Collins, who rides a motorcycle and plays guitar, announced on Tuesday that he will resign as the head of the research institute before the end of the year. He had previously worked under three presidents for more than a decade.

Collins said in a statement: “No one should be in this position for too long. It’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead NIH into the future.” Collins, 71, said that he plans to return to his country. The laboratory of the Genome Institute, where he led the institute for 15 years from 1993 to 2008. Under his leadership, the institute successfully mapped the human genome, and Collins helped the shepherds pass legislation protecting the privacy of personal genetic information in Congress.

The big question now is not just who will fill Collins' important position in the NIH, but whether the institution can maintain its status as the political darling of the two parties. Under Collins' leadership, during the period when the federal health budget was basically flat, the NIH budget increased by more than one-third, and political intervention in biomedical research, if not nonexistent, was at least mostly off the front page. This is in stark contrast to the CDC. The CDC’s handling of the pandemic has attracted a lot of criticism under the leadership of Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, as well as the FDA. Nearly 10 months after taking office, no commissioner has been appointed.

Although the image of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has always been much higher than that of Collins and has caused controversy, most of the criticisms have not affected the entire NIH.

President Joe Biden praised Collins, calling him "one of the most important scientists of our time." Biden pointed out that Collins’ work on the human genome and his help to start the Obama administration’s work on precision medicine, the brain program, and the national cancer moon landing program, he said: “Millions of people will never know that Dr. Collins saved it. Their lives."

Subscribe to KHN's free morning newsletter.

As soon as the news of Collins's departure was announced, the scientific community applauded him. "For more than ten years, Dr. Collins has provided exemplary leadership and management as the head of NIH," said the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The praise of politicians is obviously bipartisan. Senator Richard Burr (RN.C.) said in a statement that Collins “led the NIH in a capable and admirable manner, making it better prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. The House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was equally enthusiastic, calling Collins "one of the greatest civil servants in our country. His career is dedicated to improving the health of all Americans and promoting cutting-edge research." To expand our understanding of the human body and how to heal it."

It is worth noting that the relative lack of controversy during Collins' tenure has been an exception to the NIH over the past half century, rather than a rule. Since the 1970s, every advance in biomedicine, from in vitro fertilization to fetal tissue and stem cell research, to the cloning of Dolly the sheep, has led to fierce political struggles and eye-catching headlines.

In the late 1990s, the Republicans, led by the then Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (Newt Gingrich), decided to make science funding a priority and were the first to double the NIH budget. The Democrats happily joined the group. One effort. But after the doubling, the stagnant NIH budget led to the reduction of university research and caused its own controversy, and Collins had to manage these controversies.

Disputes accompany the territories. "As long as there is controversy in the scientific field, NIH will be involved," said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research! America, a scientific funding advocacy organization.

Woolley said that what makes Collins unique is his ability to communicate beyond controversy, "both unexpected ways, such as singing and riding a motorcycle, but also more traditional ways," such as dealing with legislators.

Dr. Ross McKinney, chief scientific officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, agrees. "He has done a very good job of communicating effectively with both sides," he said. "He gets along well with scientists. He is a Christian and a religious person, so he can talk to that side too."

Both Woolley and McKinney stated that they believe there are many good candidates to lead NIH, although neither of them will name anyone. But McKinney said that he hopes that NIH will not have vacancies at the top like the FDA. "I think the FDA's precedent is worrying," he said.

Nonetheless, Woolley said that Collins was in good shape when he left NIH. "The next leader will benefit from what he does," she said.

HealthBent is a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, providing KHN Washington Chief Correspondent Julie Rovner with insights and analysis on policy and politics. She has been reporting on health care for more than 30 years.

Julie Lovner: jrovner@kff.org, @jrovner

We hope to hear from you: contact us

It is worth noting that although other federal scientific institutions such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been criticized by partisans, the reputation of the National Institutes of Health has remained basically unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is largely due to Dr. Francis Collins, NIH’s mild-spoken but politically savvy director. Collins, who rides a motorcycle and plays guitar, announced on Tuesday that he will resign as the head of the research institute before the end of the year. He had previously worked under three presidents for more than a decade.

Collins said in a statement: “No one should be in this position for too long. It’s time to bring in a new scientist to lead NIH into the future.” Collins, 71, said that he plans to return to his country. The laboratory of the Genome Institute, where he led the institute for 15 years from 1993 to 2008. Under his leadership, the institute successfully mapped the human genome, and Collins helped the shepherds pass legislation protecting the privacy of personal genetic information in Congress.

The big question now is not just who will fill Collins' important position in the NIH, but whether the institution can maintain its status as the political darling of the two parties. Under Collins' leadership, during the period when the federal health budget was basically flat, the NIH budget increased by more than one-third, and political intervention in biomedical research, if not nonexistent, was at least mostly off the front page. This is in stark contrast to the CDC. The CDC’s handling of the pandemic has attracted a lot of criticism under the leadership of Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, as well as the FDA. Nearly 10 months after taking office, no commissioner has been appointed.

Although the image of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has always been much higher than that of Collins and has caused controversy, most of the criticisms have not affected the entire NIH.

President Joe Biden praised Collins, calling him "one of the most important scientists of our time." Biden pointed out that Collins’ work on the human genome and his help to start the Obama administration’s work on precision medicine, the brain program, and the national cancer moon landing program, he said: “Millions of people will never know that Dr. Collins saved it. Their lives."

As soon as the news of Collins's departure was announced, the scientific community applauded him. "For more than ten years, Dr. Collins has provided exemplary leadership and management as the head of NIH," said the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The praise of politicians is obviously bipartisan. Senator Richard Burr (RN.C.) said in a statement that Collins “led the NIH in a capable and admirable manner, making it better prepared for the challenges of the 21st century. The House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was equally enthusiastic, calling Collins "one of the greatest civil servants in our country. His career is dedicated to improving the health of all Americans and promoting cutting-edge research." To expand our understanding of the human body and how to heal it."

It is worth noting that the relative lack of controversy during Collins' tenure has been an exception to the NIH over the past half century, rather than a rule. Since the 1970s, every advance in biomedicine, from in vitro fertilization to fetal tissue and stem cell research, to the cloning of Dolly the sheep, has led to fierce political struggles and eye-catching headlines.

In the late 1990s, the Republicans, led by the then Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich (Newt Gingrich), decided to make science funding a priority and were the first to double the NIH budget. The Democrats happily joined the group. One effort. But after the doubling, the stagnant NIH budget led to the reduction of university research and caused its own controversy, and Collins had to manage these controversies.

Disputes accompany the territories. "As long as there is controversy in the scientific field, NIH will be involved," said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research! America, a scientific funding advocacy organization.

Woolley said that what makes Collins unique is his ability to communicate beyond controversy, "both unexpected ways, such as singing and riding a motorcycle, but also more traditional ways," such as dealing with legislators.

Dr. Ross McKinney, chief scientific officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, agrees. "He has done a very good job of communicating effectively with both sides," he said. "He gets along well with scientists. He is a Christian and a religious person, so he can talk to that side too."

Both Woolley and McKinney stated that they believe there are many good candidates to lead NIH, although neither of them will name anyone. But McKinney said that he hopes that NIH will not have vacancies at the top like the FDA. "I think the FDA's precedent is worrying," he said.

Nonetheless, Woolley said that Collins was in good shape when he left NIH. "The next leader will benefit from what he does," she said.

HealthBent is a regular feature of Kaiser Health News, providing KHN Washington Chief Correspondent Julie Rovner with insights and analysis on policy and politics. She has been reporting on health care for more than 30 years.

We encourage organizations to republish our content for free. The following are our requirements:

You must treat us as the original publisher and provide a hyperlink to our khn.org website. If possible, please include the original author and "Kaiser Health News" in your signature. Please keep the hyperlink in the story.

It should be noted that not all content on khn.org can be republished. If a story is marked as "all rights reserved", we cannot grant permission to republish the item.

Is there a problem? Please let us know via KHNHelp@kff.org

New faces, fewer tools: meet new bosses fighting Covid

3 states limit nursing home profits to improve care

In Maine, EMT’s vaccine authorization puts pressure on small town’s ambulance staff

"Until my last diaper": the anxiety of raising children in poverty

© 2021 Caesars Family Foundation. all rights reserved.

Thank you for your interest in supporting Kaiser Health News (KHN), the leading non-profit newsroom in the United States focusing on health and health policies. We distribute our news for free through media partners of all sizes and communities of all sizes, without ads. We thank the readers and listeners for all forms of participation, and welcome your support.

KHN is an independent editing project of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). You can support KHN by donating to KFF, a non-profit charitable organization not related to Kaiser Permanente.

Click the button below to go to KFF's donation page, which will provide more information and answers to frequently asked questions. Thanks!