I do not think a scientist of Francis Collins's stature would mix science with religion. He, I believe, would continue to do and promote A grade science and at the same time provide leadership. Some scientists are worried that the fileld of genetics, genomics and personal genomics might get too much limelight at the cost of basic science. However everyone would be watching.

Why is it that some in the news media, as well as the general public feel the need to resort to hyperbole when a public figure admits to being a Christian? According to your article, PZ Myers claims that "we can also trust him (Collins) to drape Jesus over every major announcement..." Really? Has Dr. Collins done this in previous positions of authority he has held? Has he done this in his scholarly publications? Is there some law that says you can't be a good scientist and go to church? synagogue? mosque? meeting hall? Doesn't that constitutional guarantee of freedom of religon also extend to scientists and public figures? Or do we have to accept the dumbed-down, one-dimensional cartoon of a scientist, scrubbed clean of all of his/her sense of wonder at the unsolved, unalgorithmed, uncoded mysteries of life, so that a narrow point of view can be upheld as the only acceptable viewpoint?

Whatever beliefs someone has (secular, non-secular or other) should have no bearing on their professional life; providing they don't use their professional life to promote their private agenda. Francis has not done this in the past...at least not to my knowledge. He is guilty of writing a book about his private beliefs and how he reconciled them with his science knowledge - as many of us must reconcile our science backgrounds and religious beliefs.
If science wants to help humanity (which I believe we do), then we must find a way to communicate with society from the same level. If we try to address society (as scientists) from a framework of "science is anti-religion", then we are doomed to fail. Science is a fact-based system where as religion is a faith based system. They are separate entities and Francis knows this and has kept them separate in his past roles. There is no reason to think that will change going forward.

It makes me feel uneasy if someone at the top of a science agency "believes" things for which there is not the slightest evidence. While Collins is certainly orders of magnitude smarter than George Bush, the latter showed where this can lead to...

I think you have raised excellent questions that PZ Myers and those who share his "trust" should take time to answer. In doing so, he (they) should provide thoughtful evidence on which they base their trust that Dr. Collins can be expected to drape Jesus over every major announcement. If such evidence does not exist, can such statements be taken as a reflection of a visceral negative (not objective and therefore not consistent with good science) reaction to anyone who expressed a religious viewpoint different from that of agnosticism and atheism? Or is there a complete failure to understand that these (and other such isms) are just as much religious positions as that which is expresesd by Dr. Collins?

Well said. I totally agree. Faith and spirituality can and should coexist with science.

Well put indeed!

I don't think there's much to worry over Collins heading NIH. The suggestion that he will mix religion and science is a wild speculation based on bias rather than reason. Such hyperbole as Collins will drape Jesus over major announcements may sound good literature but has no factual basis. Collins reverted to Christinity at a very young age and has earned his reputation notwithstanding his religious belief. What we should guard against are our biases -regardless of whether we are atheists or not.

Faith and science don't mix well. Science is the pursuit of proof/evidence that a theory is fact. Faith is the belief that theory is fact without the esistence of evidence. Dr. Collins has shown that he can separate church and science, let's hope that he continues to do so.