Some good ideas here. I am strongly against Ezekiel Emanuel becoming NIH director. We need someone who recognizing aging as the leading cause of health problems in old age and who will direct large amounts of resources towards understanding and reversing aging processes. We need someone enthusiastic about reversing aging and helping people live longer - Emaneul seems to think the desire to live longer is selfish and that people after age 65 should just consign themselves to an early death.
Anyway, I have a very radical proposal for NIH director - Martine Rothblatt. She is very against aging / pro longevity and was founder of the very successful pharma company United Therapeutics, which has now branched off into growing lung tissue among other things. I made the case for her being offered the job in October 2021: http://www.moreisdifferent.com/2021/10/08/Appoint-Dr-Martine-Rothblatt-to-Lead-the-NIH
In my dream world, Balaji Srinivasan would be FDA Director, Martine Rothblatt NIH Director, and Jim O'Neil would be head of HHS.
Hard to know what to look like in an NIH director when it is not quite clear what the mission of the NIH is today. I was a bit surprised by the individuals you selected for the first list -- all distinguished research scientists and all old hands at academia and science policy unlikely to introduce novelty into NIH decision-making. I also thought you didn't quite give an accurate description of some of the individuals on the second list (who, I must note, are predominantly male). Goroff is a regular at NASEM and other DC-centric meetings and so no stranger to the world in which the NIH is imbedded. I found it odd that you did not mention that Geoff Ling is an MD/PhD. I do thank you for drawing attention to the career of the ever fascinating Warren Weaver for those who might not know of him. Sadly, the NIH Director must now be, primarily, a consummate politician charged with continually garnering a larger slice of the financial pie. You can't be both a defender of the status quo and the agent of change. And it does appear that we change -- as the budget of our national institute of health and the health of our nation seem inversely correlated.
Thanks for your comment Susan! Just quickly---Goroff is well-known in these circles, as you point out, but I put him in the Weaver bucket because his background was as a mathematician; Ling has the right degrees, as you say, but he seems more untraditional because of his Army and DARPA work, as well as entrepreneurship. But it's a subjective judgment.
Some good ideas here. I am strongly against Ezekiel Emanuel becoming NIH director. We need someone who recognizing aging as the leading cause of health problems in old age and who will direct large amounts of resources towards understanding and reversing aging processes. We need someone enthusiastic about reversing aging and helping people live longer - Emaneul seems to think the desire to live longer is selfish and that people after age 65 should just consign themselves to an early death.
Anyway, I have a very radical proposal for NIH director - Martine Rothblatt. She is very against aging / pro longevity and was founder of the very successful pharma company United Therapeutics, which has now branched off into growing lung tissue among other things. I made the case for her being offered the job in October 2021: http://www.moreisdifferent.com/2021/10/08/Appoint-Dr-Martine-Rothblatt-to-Lead-the-NIH
In my dream world, Balaji Srinivasan would be FDA Director, Martine Rothblatt NIH Director, and Jim O'Neil would be head of HHS.
Regardless of who we choose, we will get the same outcome as we got under Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., rapidly falling life expectancy.
That's the bottom line, and it suggests that 90% of NIH money is wasted.
Hard to know what to look like in an NIH director when it is not quite clear what the mission of the NIH is today. I was a bit surprised by the individuals you selected for the first list -- all distinguished research scientists and all old hands at academia and science policy unlikely to introduce novelty into NIH decision-making. I also thought you didn't quite give an accurate description of some of the individuals on the second list (who, I must note, are predominantly male). Goroff is a regular at NASEM and other DC-centric meetings and so no stranger to the world in which the NIH is imbedded. I found it odd that you did not mention that Geoff Ling is an MD/PhD. I do thank you for drawing attention to the career of the ever fascinating Warren Weaver for those who might not know of him. Sadly, the NIH Director must now be, primarily, a consummate politician charged with continually garnering a larger slice of the financial pie. You can't be both a defender of the status quo and the agent of change. And it does appear that we change -- as the budget of our national institute of health and the health of our nation seem inversely correlated.
Thanks for your comment Susan! Just quickly---Goroff is well-known in these circles, as you point out, but I put him in the Weaver bucket because his background was as a mathematician; Ling has the right degrees, as you say, but he seems more untraditional because of his Army and DARPA work, as well as entrepreneurship. But it's a subjective judgment.