Collins: I don't think I had any concept that we would get to this point in 2025 in the most technologically advanced country in the world where trust in science would be at almost a historic low, given all the things that science has been able to achieve. Torjesen: We can have science and do nothing good with it. We can have faith and have it be kind of theoretical, but science and faith together can be applied to actually do exactly what Jesus outlined, providing clothing for the naked, food for the hungry, medicine for the sick, and compassion for those in prison. Stump: Welcome to Language of God. I'm Jim Stump. We live in a time of both remarkable scientific advancement, but also a concerning rise in the distrust of science. Because of that, BioLogos has embarked on a new initiative, something we're calling Science is Good. It's more than a slogan, something more like a conviction which hopes to remind people of faith that when guided by wisdom and ethical considerations, science can be a powerful force for human flourishing, even for contributing to the advancement of the kingdom of God. We heard the voices of our two guests already. You probably know one of them, the person who has appeared the most times on this podcast, the founder of BioLogos, Francis Collins. And the second was probably a new voice for most of you, Kristine Torjesen. She's the new president of BioLogos, my new boss, and she's making her debut on the podcast. Francis and Kristine have both had successful careers in science and medicine, and they both understand that science has the potential to reflect some of the deepest values we hold as people of faith. In fact, as we'll explore in this episode, the virtues upheld in the parables of Matthew 25, wisdom, stewardship, and mercy, can and should inspire the compassionate pursuit of scientific knowledge. Let's get to the conversation. Interview Stump: Well, welcome Francis and Kristine to the podcast. It's very good to have you here again. Francis, I think this will be the 13th episode that we've had you on. Lucky number 13 maybe. And Kristine, this is your very first episode of Language of God, but also your very first podcast episode ever? Torjesen: Ever. Stump: How do you feel? Torjesen: A little anxious. Also excited. Stump: It's going to be fine. Torjesen: Yes. Stump: We're very excited to introduce you to the Language of God audience, and both of you, I guess in some sense, are in new positions over the last few months. Francis, you are now retired and I wonder what you feel comfortable sharing about that and how you're spending your time now. Collins: Well, thanks and great to join you, Jim and Kristine. And especially Kristine, welcome to your first podcast. It's great to do this together. And now that you've been in charge as the president and CEO of BioLogos for what, all of a month, I'm sure— Torjesen: One month. Collins: —you have a full gathering of all possible things to talk about and there's a lot to talk about, which we're going to be discussing, because it's a unique time for our country in terms of what's happening, particularly with science and with some distrust for science, which is something that troubles us as people who think science is a gift from God that we can utilize to alleviate suffering and save lives. So yeah, I am currently retired as of February 28th of 2025. That was not entirely my plan. It became untenable for me to continue in my job running a research lab at NIH because so many restrictions, not being allowed to speak in public settings or attend scientific meetings or start any new projects. All of those were part of what is right now a very significant set of restrictions on science that NIH supports either in its own laboratories in Bethesda, which is where I was, or in all the grants that go out to institutions all over the country, which is the main way that biomedical breakthroughs happen. This is a tough time for people engaged in those efforts because of the many things that have been done to greatly reduce budgets and staff and apply a lot of other restrictions. So it seemed like it was a time to be in a different zone where I could try to help with the public understanding of this, and particularly like we're going to talk about today, people of faith have a role here I think that's particularly important, especially those who maybe have followed BioLogos and agree with much of what BioLogos stands for, that faith and science are actually wonderfully compatible and harmonious, and here's a chance to make that case in a very compelling way at a time where our nation is struggling. Stump: Good. Well, we will attempt to make that case here in a bit, but before we do that, we need to introduce Kristine more to our audience here so we know what you're doing now in that you're the president and CEO of BioLogos, but tell us a little bit about the work that you came from, what you were doing and perhaps how you were trained and a little bit of autobiography and your background, but take us then up to why you decided to take on this new role. Torjesen: Thank you, Jim. I'm glad to share that. I trained as a pediatrician and I did see patients for about 10 years, but for the last 20 years or so, I've been doing primarily research related to HIV prevention for women in Africa. That started with clinical trial work and then extended to be about new product introduction. So as the clinical trials were successful, we developed new drugs that could prevent HIV, and then I started to work with USAID funding that would help us make those products available for women in Africa. So I was actually running a project called Mosaic that was funded by the United States Agency for International Development, that's USAID, and that was shut down just weeks before I began my job at BioLogos unexpectedly with the changes in federal funding, in which there were stop work orders issued for most of foreign assistance. Stump: So to be clear, that wasn't why you took the job with BioLogos, though. Torjesen: No. Stump: So let's rewind a little bit there of why were you interested in leaving something like that and coming to a place like BioLogos? Torjesen: So I've been a Christian for most of my life, and as I've grown in my faith and gone farther in my faith journey, I have felt an increasing call to work in a Christian organization. I didn't know what that would look like, and I wasn't in any particular hurry. I was just kind of waiting for God to reveal what that opportunity might be. I attended the BioLogos Conference a year ago in Raleigh and really was very inspired by it, including by a podcast that you led with Francis. Stump: Francis and Kizzmekia Corbett, right? Torjesen: Yes, about the development of the COVID vaccines. So that was a very, very inspiring meeting. I didn't have any expectation of there being an opportunity at that point with BioLogos. But then lo and behold, the position became open and I started to explore it. I talked with friends and family, I talked with people affiliated with BioLogos and felt called to join. So it happened quite quickly. I went through a kind of whirlwind interview process at the end of the year and accepted the job at the beginning of the year, and then about two weeks later after I accepted the job, that's when my work- Stump: The executive orders started coming in. Torjesen: The executive orders started coming and my existing work was shut down. Stump: So you had a fairly, I think the word traumatic might be fair to use, transition during the time after you had accepted this position at BioLogos and the work that you needed to wrap up there. And Francis also, the last couple of months has been fairly traumatic in terms of what has happened to biomedical funding in particular, but other more general kinds of aid issues, and that has contributed to us talking about here at BioLogos, this new program we're calling Science is Good, and maybe we introduce this just by asking both of you on a more personal level maybe even, what's a moment in your life when you felt most deeply that science is good, when you saw the power that science has to do good? Kristine, you want to go first here? Torjesen: Sure. Well, my first reaction is there are so many experiences in which science is good that I have had in my personal and professional life, but one of the ones that is most powerful to me was when I was working in Malawi. I worked in Malawi starting at the end of 2004 up until about 2007. And during that time, prior to 2004, AIDS was ravaging the African continent and there were no treatment options available. And in 2004, President Bush, George W. Bush, established the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, also called PEPFAR. And that allowed antiretroviral therapy to be provided at a low enough cost that many of these countries, very resource poor countries, could actually start to provide treatment. So I was in Malawi during this time that ART, antiretroviral treatment, entered the marketplace, and there was this one street in Le Longue that was called Coffin Row. So when I first arrived in 2004, that road was filled with carpenters who were making coffins because there were so many people dying. Every single person had people in their families who had passed away from AIDS. And by the time I left in 2007, Coffin Row had turned into Furniture Row and they were now making furniture, because the ART had actually changed a death sentence into a disease that you could have a normal lifespan as long as you were treated and virally suppressed. So that was quite an extraordinary visual example to me of how science is good. Stump: Nice. How about you, Francis? Collins: Oh, I love Christine's example. And again, one of the reasons I think we need to talk today is that some of those wonderful things that were possible because of PEPFAR are now not happening. The course of events is going to be very different if that can't get turned around. For me, I guess, I mean, there are a lot of things I could point to. Maybe I'll think first though about one that was a 30-year process of science is good, which is the disease cystic fibrosis, a disease which I first encountered as a physician in training. At that point, children with this condition went through really difficult treatments with chest percussion and all kinds of antibiotics, but ultimately lost their lives generally sometime during adolescence. And it was a part of my first effort as an assistant professor to try to find the gene that was misspelled in this condition because we didn't know that. And yes, there was that night in May of 1989 where the data became clear that we had found just three letters that were misspelled out of the three billion-letter human genome instruction book that were the common cause of cystic fibrosis. That, for me as a relatively new Christian at that point, was a moment of feeling like an answer to prayer. But the real answer to prayer took another 30 years of building on that knowledge about the gene to come up with a drug therapy called Trikafta, which now allows 90% of individuals with cystic fibrosis to plan for retirement instead of planning an early funeral. That feels like such a gift from God that science, which is a gift that we've been given to be able to pursue how God's creation works, provides this wonderful answer to otherwise tragic human suffering and early death, and now it's all different. Stump: Well, those are beautiful stories. Kristine, you have another thing to add? Torjesen: Yeah, I was thinking about that story you just shared, Francis, about cystic fibrosis and thinking about my own experience as pediatric resident in training in the 1990s and how many patients I had who had cystic fibrosis and were hospitalized for long periods of time over and over and over again with basically their lungs filling with infection and mucus to the point that they couldn't breathe. And so they would be on very strong antibiotics because so many of the organisms that cause these infections at this point were resistant. They would have special physical therapy pounding on their back, lying on their back, lying down and getting their backs pounded so that they could cough out the mucus. And these were young people. These were just young teenagers. The idea that we have now gotten to the point that they can live a full life and not have their adolescence be spent in a hospital— Stump: Being pounded on. Torjesen: —basically drowning in their own infection is extraordinary. And it also really illustrates that we need to have a long view. I could not really imagine at that point in the 1990s that there would be a different outcome for these patients. And yet now there is, and that is because of that long-term investment over decades in the science, in the research that allowed those new technologies and innovations to be developed. Stump: I'm afraid our media cycle doesn't take 30-year timeframes into consideration very often when they're thinking about what is good or what is important in this sense, right? And that's some of what we're hoping to tell some of these stories, to illuminate how science works even in some of these situations. So over the next few weeks and months, BioLogos is going to be rolling out some resources that try to make this case that science is good, that science has been misunderstood, and maybe that our society has come to undervalue the contribution of science and scientists. And I wonder, Francis, looking back on your founding vision of BioLogos, is this the way you thought that the organization would be going? Are these the questions and the problems you founded BioLogos to address? Collins: I don't think I had any concept that we would get to this point in 2025 in the most technologically advanced country in the world where trust in science would be at almost a historic low given all the things that science has been able to achieve. And we've talked about HIV/AIDS, and cystic fibrosis, but we could talk about advances in cancer and heart disease and diabetes and how survival has gone up and health span has gone up, the better chance for people to remain healthy. It's pretty darn dramatic. But again, it's over the course of years, not over weeks, and our tendency to ignore anything that didn't happen in the last month is getting perhaps in the way. And because our country has become so divided and so polarized about almost everything, even science has gotten caught up in that. And for Christians, who I hoped BioLogos would be in a good place to provide a chance to talk about science as a gift from God and science as an insight into God's creation and how science and faith really do have a lot of harmony and ability to inform each other, I did not think when BioLogos was started that this is where we would be. But maybe for such a time as this, BioLogos is an important place to try to address what I think has been a bit of running off the road into the ditch here for our country in terms of what we have been pulled into as far as a distrust of almost everything, including science itself. Stump: So Kristine, looking forward then, how does this align with where BioLogos can go? This is your chance to give the vision that you're going to bring to the organization and what we might be able to accomplish in this space. Torjesen: Well, ultimately, my long-term vision for BioLogos is really that this organization would help contribute to advance the kingdom of God on earth. And so I think right now, the distrust that we're seeing in science is an area that BioLogos can very much step in and try to help rebuild that trust as kind of a neutral voice in this space that is committed to both biblical truth and scientific truth. We can come into this space and help illuminate how science is good and how science actually does contribute to human flourishing and does advance the kingdom of God. So that's my hope. Stump: Well, good. That's an exciting thing to be part of. So I'm looking forward to that. Let's unpack a little bit some of the virtues that contribute to science being good. And we've used Matthew chapter 25 as a way to frame this initiative, Science is Good, and we need to acknowledge upfront that we're not claiming that Jesus was telling parables about 21st century science. These are parables about the kingdom of God, but the church is called to work toward the kingdom being more and more realized on earth as it is in heaven, right? And BioLogos identifies with that part of the body of Christ that engages science. So our question for each of the three parables will be, how does each of these inspire a better understanding of what science should be doing? So the first is the Parable of the Bridesmaids. So we have 10 bridesmaids who are waiting for a bridegroom to appear, and five are called foolish because they didn't bring any extra oil. And the five wise bridesmaids did prepare for this possible scenario that wasn't what they hoped would happen, but might reasonably be expected that the bridegroom was late. So the foolish bridesmaids ran out of oil, had to leave to find some and missed the party when the bridegroom did arrive. What's the moral to take from this story and how might we apply that to science today? Torjesen: Well, I think that really relates to what we were talking about earlier about having a long view with science and how it takes time to see the full fruits of our labor in the scientific field in terms of the benefits to human life here on earth. And so just as the bridesmaids were prepared, wise enough to prepare for a contingency, I think that we also can be wise and prepared for contingencies, and part of that means investing in scientific exploration and infrastructure to allow us to prepare for a future where we actually can treat diseases that right now are untreatable or respond to a new pandemic that we might not see on the horizon now. Stump: Yeah. Francis, you were certainly involved in the preparedness of pandemic planning or maybe the lack of preparedness. How do you think about that time now, particularly through this lens of what we as a society need to be doing with science in order to prepare for other such future pandemics or other crises? Collins: Yeah. Well, I do think this parable has a lot to say about preparedness for public health events. And of course, on my mind very much because of having lived through it was the COVID pandemic, but we have no assurances that there won't be another such pandemic out there. It could be soon, could be later, could be influenza, it could be a coronavirus. We don't know, but it's unlikely that we've seen the last. So are we being the wise or the foolish bridesmaids? I think if we were really wise, we would have not moved from what was a crisis to what now feels like sort of complacency in terms of really being prepared for what might be out ahead. Unfortunately, I think a lot of public trust in public health has turned downward, and that's not going to be what we need if we face another one of these outbreaks. So yeah, this parable has a lot to say about how we want to build upon what science can teach us about what's true and just use good judgment and wisdom to try to plan for what may be lurking out there. Even though we don't like to think about it, that isn't going to stop it from happening. So we could follow this recommendation and be a lot wiser than we were the first time, and we don't seem to be much better prepared for whatever's next. Stump: Can we expand this a little bit, the conversation, we're talking primarily about public health, which is appropriate given the backgrounds of the two of you, but science more broadly in preparing for the future beyond public health or even as we bring in the role of the research, either of you have anything, any further reflections on how science in general or maybe other specific branches of science, but science in general ought to be preparing for future crises, or is this primarily just public health we're talking about? Collins: Oh no, I think it's more than that. And we should talk about climate change and the need for Christians to be tracking what the science is teaching us there about the future of our planet and our responsibilities as stewards of God's creation to be involved in creation care. So one could adopt the attitude of, "Well, there's not much we could do about it. Maybe it's not a big deal. Let's assume we have enough oil in our lamps." But the problem may not happen the way we think it will, and we need a better preparation. So I would say it's another example where we can depend on science to provide us with that kind of preparation, but we have to make the effort, invest in it and trust in it to teach us what we need to do. Torjesen: I might even suggest we could think even farther down to an eternal perspective on this in that how we approach science, how wise we are and how we approach science is a form of Christian witness and that we're in an environment right now where in many respects, it's the Christian community that is expressing distrust in science and is supporting the dismantling of scientific infrastructure, while at the same time, there are many other Christians or people interested in faith who see the benefits of science and the fact that science is part of our everyday life everywhere we turn. And so if we as Christians can also elevate and be wise about science, that actually can encourage those who may be seeking or struggling with their faith because they aren't sure how to live that out if the Christian community is rejecting science. I think we as a Christian community need to embrace science, and in that way, be a Christian witness to other believers. Stump: Yeah, for sure. Well, that kind of leads into parable number two in Matthew chapter 25, which is called the Parable of the Talents. And here, the master of the manor is leaving and entrusting various servants with what then were huge sums of money to take care of while he's away. So a talent was equivalent to about 20 years worth of wages for a typical worker, and two of the servants invested theirs. They got five talents and 10 talents and invested theirs and got a good return. One merely buried the talent in the ground, which didn't please the master. So this story, this parable was originally about economics, but reflection on it over the years has expanded to include talents in the sense of gifts that God gives. So my first question about this is, is science a talent in that sense, a gift that God gives? And I want to make sure we're not somehow thinking that among the parts of the body of Christ, the scientists are the brains. There are lots of ways to serve God. There are lots of gifts that are given. But is it legitimate to see the scientific practice, the ability or the talents that you have as a gift from God? Torjesen: He has given me certain gifts and one of those gifts is to have an affinity for science. I would actually say there might be a difference in the affinity that Francis and I have towards science. Stump: Talk about that. Let's hear it. Torjesen: I think Francis is an example of a person who really can understand the details of science at a very granular level, down to the DNA code. I'm a scientist who's much more interested in how that DNA manifests in human life and how it can be applied. So how do we apply the evidence that has come out of the scientific endeavor in our everyday life? And so that has led me to be more on the medical service end of things or humanitarian service end of things in terms of applying evidence in a way that improves lives. Stump: So science is not just one thing in that sense, right? So there may be different kinds of scientific gifts, but you see these two, Francis, as gifts that ought to be stewarded in the sense of this parable we're drawing from? Collins: Absolutely. Maybe I'll tell you a quick story that both taps into the gifts that I feel I've been given not through my own doing, but it also even has an economic twist to it, which was also part of the parable. This would be about the Human Genome Project, which when it was first being proposed, a lot of people were against it because they thought it was technologically unfeasible. It was going to just be a big sink for a lot of money and nothing good would come from it. And I was asked to come and lead that in 1992, and I was first the guy with the one talent who was like, "I don't think so. This sounds like a pretty risky thing. I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing in my university position in Ann Arbor and somebody else can take care of this." So I said no, and then I struggled with it and various other people helped me struggle with it, and eventually I realized, "Okay, this is a chance God has put in your pathway to have a leadership role in what might be pretty transformative and have a lot of insights about who we are and especially about why we can do a better job of treating disease, so okay." With a great deal of trepidation, I said yes to that. And so maybe I was trying to take a leap from the one talent to at least the five talent version of this. And then just to finish the analogy, the cost of the Human Genome Project over 13 years was about $3 billion. A recent analysis of the economic advances that have happened as a result of that is over $1 trillion. So the talents of those 2,400 people that I got to work with over those 13 years who devoted themselves to this selflessly, just determined to get it done, not worrying about who got the credit, has had an enormous impact, not just on the economy of course, but also on the way in which we understand and much better prevent and treat disease. Stump: That's a really remarkable example of a society stewarding some talents. Any kinds of examples that come to mind that might land home with more run-of-the-mill scientists, with the person who just puts on the lab coat every day and goes to the bench and performs these experiments that might not ever get the sort of headlines of completing the Human Genome Project, so answer this at a couple of different levels, the stewarding of this scientific talent from the level of the individual and what they can be doing from the level of the church. How does the church steward scientific talent that's within the body, and then even at the societal level, and as we're thinking again of this science is good and trying to rebrand science in some way that the people in society that have maybe bought into these messages that, "Oh, those scientists, they're just wasting money," or, "They're promoting a false agenda," or something. Talk a little bit about the stewarding of scientific talent from those three different levels, individual from the church and from our society as a whole. How do we do that better? Torjesen: Well, I'm not sure I'm going to hit all your three levels, but as you were talking, Jim, what came to my mind was that you don't actually have to be a scientist to be a steward of science. And I just think of breast cancer as an example where many of us have someone in our life who has experienced breast cancer and we've seen tremendous scientific advancement over the last few decades in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, but many others have participated. Every time you see a pink ribbon, when you fly on an airplane and see the flight attendant wearing a pink outfit, when you run in a 5K or do a 5K walk, you're supporting the raising of funds to contribute to further research for breast cancer. You are actually being a steward and you are actually then contributing to a future where a young child is not going to lose their mother to that disease. And so that's not only being a good steward of science generically, but it's actually being a good steward of science in community, that the benefit of that might come to me. And this I think does get at your level of what is the church? So it's not just the individual benefit, but then there's the community benefit, which is the church is a community, how are we stewarding resources and investing in things that will benefit the broader community? And I care about the widow and the orphan in the sense of if I invest and support scientific advancement that ultimately will allow the effective treatment of a cancer that would have otherwise cut short a parent's life and left that child an orphan or left a spouse widowed, that's an investment in my community. That's an investment in my church. Stump: Do either of you have examples that come to mind of the church... maybe we'll ask this two ways... doing a particularly good job of stewarding the scientific talent that's within its congregation or within its denomination, or maybe examples even of here's a way that's not very helpful, and, "Come on church, we could do better in this"? Any of those? Do you have any examples of that, Francis? Collins: Yeah, I'll give you a positive one. We've learned through advances in science a lot about how individual health is not one size fits all. We are all different in terms of our inheritance, our environmental exposures, our health behaviors, but we need to understand that really well in order to help people use that information to stay healthy. That led to the founding of a bold project called All of Us, which aims to enroll a million Americans across race and ethnicity, across geography, across socioeconomic status. When we launched that project in 2017, I was there for the launch at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, New York City, a rather famous African-American church, and it was full of people celebrating this moment where this kind of science could be applied to everybody, to all of us, and all signed up to be part of what is now 840,000 Americans who are taking part in this. That was such a wonderful day of feeling the bonding of the scientific and the church communities around something that everybody felt is not just an occasional gift to a person here and there, but it might be a gift to the whole world because we'll finally figure some of these things out. Stump: Nice. Well, BioLogos was founded, at least in part, to try to encourage the church to support science in this way, and that suggests at least that there were some examples where that hasn't always happened as well. We don't need to name names maybe, but the kinds of situations, the kinds of maybe some of the default attitudes that some congregations have towards science that are examples of not stewarding science very well. Can you speak in general terms at least about that that might give those who are listening ideas of, "Oh yeah. That's maybe not very helpful when we as a congregation do that or say that"? Torjesen: Well, I think oftentimes the not helpful parts come out of fear of the unknown. So we've been having some conversations here in the office. We're in person this week, and one of the discussions was a feeling of some people thinking, "Well, there are those science people and then there are the non-science people, and if I'm not a science person, I'm in a different category." And there's a lot then that's unknown about the science and then there can be a lot of fear around it. I think HIV/AIDS is an example that propagated a lot of fear, and I think that there were some, again, there is a divide in how churches responded, but in some cases churches responded with fear or the Christian community responded with fear when that disease was first emerging back in the '80s, but there were also Christian communities that decided to sort of overcome that fear and to try to learn about it and embrace and walk alongside. So I think when we see the Christian community reacting with fear, it's often in my mind related to not fully understanding, Stump: Yeah, not knowing. And I've been parts of conversations before with some scientists in churches that felt just so overwhelmingly validated just by the church asking them to come and speak to the youth group and tell us what you do in your scientific work just to break down some of those walls of ignorance and to welcome them in and say, "Yes, you're normal people too," right? Collins: Exactly. I would love it if more people listening to this would take advantage of that kind of moment. I spoke at the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Gaithersburg this past weekend and they basically invited the whole church into what was sort of an adult Sunday school, but all of the middle school and all the high school kids came too. Stump: Nice. Collins: And it was fantastically positive. And I got to tell my own story about how I became a Christian as a 27-year-old, but also about the marvels of science that we're uncovering, by God's grace, being able to appreciate the creation, magic that we are unfolding every day with the way in which science is able to discover those things. And it was initially a little uneasy, like, "Is there going to be tension here?" Boy, there wasn't that at all. So yeah, I'm suggesting every church that has a scientist in their community, maybe even a member, give them a chance to tell a story like that. It will be inspiring. I think we're working against what is a very long-term, I don't know if I would say skepticism, but maybe discomfort about whether science is fully on the side of faith or is there some agenda here, at least from some scientists, and some of them have pretty outspoken that it is their agenda to undercut faith, but that's not how most scientists feel at all. It is, after all, the hundredth anniversary of the Scopes Trial where a lot of trouble started with what appeared to be a complete incompatibility of belief in the Bible and belief in science, and we at BioLogos have been arguing now for quite a few years, that is not a conflict that is at all necessary, and I think we've made some real progress there, but it's still out there and still requires attention to see that science is just another way of worshiping God by uncovering and admiring God's creation. Stump: Good. All right. Churches, invite some scientists to come and talk. Torjesen: But could I riff on that a little bit in that again, just that idea that actually, science is a part of all of our lives and everyday lives and making people more aware of that. So even in terms of science allowing us to worship, we turn on a light to read our Bible that's printed on a press or even more extraordinarily, in this little electronic box called a phone or a tablet or a computer. All of that was created by the scientific effort. We also watch our children and our grandchildren learn to walk and to not touch hot stoves. And basically our children as they're going through development are applying the scientific method. "I have a hypothesis. I think it would be interesting to eat this piece of dirt," for example, "this handful of dirt. I put it in my mouth. It's not very tasty. I spit it out. I've learned I don't eat dirt." So I feel like that actually the scientific method is actually part of even just our human development and the benefits of science are in our everyday lives, and the more that we can understand and appreciate that, then the more we are actually just worshiping God giving us with all of these gifts and blessings. Stump: You've used a phrase as we've been talking about this Science is Good initiative of making the invisible visible in terms of the scientific process as a whole. So there you're talking about kind of science as common sense even and of how that might ramp up to a bigger thing. But in the scientific process as a whole, there's another aspect of making what is largely invisible to us in our everyday lives, but it's there, right? It's behind the scenes. Any further unpacking of maybe this is how big time science is in the background working all of the time to enable the sorts of lives we lead? Torjesen: Well, yeah. I didn't realize, even in drug development, I did not realize until I was part of clinical trial drug development how much goes into one particular medicine or test that we are able to use, how much has gone into that, how there were actually probably 500 different prototype molecules that were tested and then didn't work or did work or had a little problem and were adjusted and adapted, and over many years and a lot of investment, we end up with that one particular medication or drug that works. But for the everyday person, all we see is that. All we know is that if I have a cold, I can go and buy this medicine. I don't see all of the research and development investment, and so then I undervalue it. If I don't understand what goes into that, I undervalue that infrastructure. I think that's actually one of my concerns right now as we see the infrastructure of scientific advancement being decimated is that the everyday person doesn't realize what the long-term consequences of that are, that every year we are laying the foundation in that research and development space that results in that treatment or test or technological innovation that makes life better 10 years from now. And if we have a year or two years or three or four years where we are not making that investment, we are going to have that long of a gap or longer down the road in terms of the benefits that we would have seen. Stump: Francis, can you talk any more about some of that, just again, from the perspective of medical research cuts that are happening right now and what the knock-on effect of that is in terms of future? This feels like both stewarding and wisdom of preparedness, both of our first two parables wrapped together. Collins: You're right about that and it does put them together. The breakthroughs that happened in the last year in terms of medical advances, let's say cancer immunotherapy saving lives or the cure of sickle cell disease, the work that that started goes back 15 or 20 years at the basic science level, and then bit by bit, chipping away at our ignorance and filling it in with knowledge, you got to the point where you could see a possible application to a human life that ends up being truly lifesaving and dramatic. But if we at the present time slow down or even stop a lot of that foundational work, which is mostly supported by NIH, then the consequences might not be apparent tomorrow, but they will be in 10 years and it'll be particularly apparent if we demoralized the young scientists who have dreams about how they're going to be part of one of those breakthroughs and who are now worrying about whether that dream is still possible for them. So this is a very serious moment here to try to get this engine of discovery, the most amazing one the world has ever seen, back on track because it's been a pretty tough few months here. Stump: Okay. Well, finally in Matthew 25 we get to the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where people were rewarded for what we're calling their acts of mercy toward the down and out, what Jesus called the least of these. And he said, "When you do this for them, you're doing it for him." And this was really the parable that got us started thinking in this direction about how science should be used for the good of the kingdom of God. There are people who are thirsty, they need wells that can be drilled and water that can be found. For people who are sick, they need medicine, et cetera, et cetera. This seems to be a pretty straightforward application of the healing mission of Christ, right? And both of you have been directly involved in this kind of work, and I wonder if you each might describe not just a little bit of the work that you did, but how you understood yourselves as scientists ministering to the least of these. Kristine? Torjesen: Well, this has very much been the calling for most of my life of really thinking about how to translate the evidence of the best practices into service for the least of these. I have always wanted to do global public health, and that's what I've spent the majority of my life doing, working in very poor settings where they don't have access to the same kind of medical care that we have in the United States and thinking about how we can kind of optimize what we can do with what we have, but also bring to bear new innovation that may be more affordable and transformative in that environment. So I've always felt that that was actually a missional calling. Even though I did that work in the secular space, I felt that was part of my calling as a Christian to serve others. And I think I did that even though it wasn't through a Christian organization, but I think that that is part of what my work was. I was involved in a project that was funded by the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, that was trying to make new HIV prevention products available for women in Africa. And that project was shut down just before I came to BioLogos, and I just felt so much grief about that shutdown of that work. I felt that so much of my identity as an individual, as a Christian, my identity as a professional in terms of my professional career, my identity as a community member, I felt connected to the communities we served, and my identity as an American, we're all really tied up in the idea that we serve. We are very fortunate this country to have the resources to develop a lot of wonderful scientific innovation and that we also care enough about the poor that we want to help apply and make that innovation accessible to others. And then I was part of that story and then that story was shut down and I hope and pray that it will be embraced again, but at the moment I just have a lot of grief about what has happened. Stump: Francis, as we try to maybe understand at least those who are taking the opposite view that we do, maybe even in projects specifically like what Kristine just stated here, we're using government funds to help women in Africa who have AIDS. Torjesen: No, who don't have AIDS. We're trying to help prevent them. Stump: We're trying to prevent women in Africa from getting AIDS. There are maybe legitimate economic kinds of questions that are asked. You've been involved in a lot of conversations with lawmakers who are doling out the public funds. What are the tensions there, or again, I'm not trying to defend them, but I'm trying to understand a little bit, and how we can respond particularly as Christians to these sorts of concerns and the kinds of things that science could accomplish that seem to fit so well with our Christian faith, right? Collins: Yes. Well, I'm glad we're talking about this and I think this is the most sobering part of Matthew 25. If you read Matthew 24 and 25, they're all red letters in my Bible because these are the words of Jesus. And this particular example is talking about the judgment and how he will basically remember each of us in terms of what we did to try to help those who were hungry or naked or sick or in jail and we're called as Christians to take that very seriously. This is sort of the opposite of the prosperity gospel, but it's what we are called to be as servants to be Christ-like, to try to do what we can to help those less fortunate. What Kristine was talking about in terms of outreach to lower income countries to help women avoid infections from HIV, that's smack in the middle of what we are called to do by these scriptures. And I too have had a great deal of interest and concern about how we could as Americans with all of our many resources live up to this expectation of sharing some of that with those less fortunate. And it's also, frankly, it's also a bit self-promoting because we learn things about the rest of the world that we can apply here and certainly for infections that start somewhere, they can get to us within hours, so it's good that we're invested in learning about that. Certainly one of the things that I'm troubled about now after we've seen what happened to USAID and to PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Program for AIDS relief, we're now seeing the grants that NIH has given to Africa and other low income countries are under threat and potentially going to be stopped. And NIH has been the largest supporter of global health research in the world, even more than the Gates Foundation, and that may now be under risk of being shut down. That doesn't feel like a good fit for what this scripture is asking us to do. For people listening to this, if you've never been to a lower middle income country, go to a place in Africa. You got to do that. It will change your life. You will appreciate so much the wonderful abundance that we take for granted, and you will also find wonderful, courageous, dedicated, hardworking, spiritually mature people who are making the best of a tough time and you just want to help. That's our calling. So I do hope that as we look at this theme of Science is Good, it's good for all of us, we're all one family. Genomics has taught us that. We're all related. If you care about your family, you got to care about the whole thing. And this scripture is calling us to keep that in mind. That person in prison, that person who's sick or hungry, that's part of your family. Stump: Kristine, I remember one of our very early conversations about science and faith and as some of these situations in our society started unfolding, you made a comment that science and faith together ought to look like Matthew 25, ought to look like the parable of the sheep and the goats. Do you remember that? Torjesen: Yes. Stump: Do you remember your thinking behind that? Torjesen: Yes. I think science and faith together are a humanitarian response. We can have science and do nothing good with it. We can have faith and have it be kind of theoretical, but science and faith together can be applied to actually do exactly what Jesus outlined in that parable of providing clothing for the naked, food for the hungry, medicine for the sick, and compassion for those in prison. Stump: Well, we're drawing to the end of our time here. Let me ask just a couple of closing questions to each of you. I'm wondering about the role of BioLogos in this. So we're starting this initiative of Science is Good and trying to do some public messaging around that, but I wonder what is it that an organization like BioLogos can uniquely do? What role can we play that other things like universities or laboratories or even churches can't? How is BioLogos positioned to address this in a unique way? Francis, do you have any thoughts on that? Collins: I think it's right in the sweet spot of what BioLogos has been aiming to achieve ever since its founding, to bring people together who love Jesus and who believe that science is a reliable and remarkably exciting way to make discoveries about creation and then apply them for the betterment of humanity. This partnership between those worldviews has been something that has appealed to millions of people through a connection with the BioLogos website and with conferences and with such things as a curriculum. So I think we have a critical mass of people who are very much in this space, but the world right now seems to have slipped into this mindset of distrust of lots of things, and amongst them, of science, and I think that's to the detriment of our future. And people of faith have fallen into that same trap in many instances because of a lot of misinformation, maybe a lot of anger and fear, everything being so polarized and so divided. BioLogos has always stood for thoughtful, gracious dialogue. We need a lot of that right now and we need the church to step forward and say, "No, science has over the course of time been a remarkable source of healing. Answers to prayer come through science. We want that to continue. We want to be part of that." And so I think this is a perfect place for BioLogos to step out there and make this a major theme in the coming months of what we are trying to convey to people that science is something you shouldn't be distrustful or fearful of and is another way of getting insight into God's creation, and we need to use it wisely and ethically and make sure that the fruits of science are reaching everybody who needs it. But this is one of our best tools to live up to what is being asked for in Matthew 25. Stump: Kristine, if our Science is Good campaign is successful a year from now, five years from now, what do you think would be the evidence of that? What would we see that we're not seeing now if this campaign is successful in reaching the people that we hope that it does? Torjesen: Well, I hope that what we will see is that Christians feel comfortable talking about science, embracing science, applying science in their everyday lives. I hope that we will have the ability to promote gracious dialogue around this topic. One of the things I think about BioLogos is that we are a neutral body. We are not a university or pharmaceutical company trying to pursue a specific scientific agenda. We are not a denomination trying to build a specific Christian community. We are lovers of both faith and science and can provide kind of a safe space where we can explore issues related to both in a rigorous way and allow for there to be dialogue around these areas. But also what I really hope through Science is Good is that we start to celebrate this gift that God has given us, that we see that celebrated more openly and joyfully in Christian communities, and that serves as a witness that will help draw people to Jesus. Stump: Good. Francis, any final thoughts, final comments, your hopes for the future related to science? Collins: Well, we are in a difficult chapter right now, but I believe that the contributions of science will be pretty hard to ignore. And so ultimately, we will get through this period of deeper skepticism and attacks on the foundation and come back to a recognition that science can be a noble enterprise that is part of finding answers to prevent human suffering. I'm glad that BioLogos is taking this on. I'm glad that Kristine, as our new president and CEO, is so well positioned to make this case from her own experience as a physician and somebody who's done a lot to try to help those less fortunate to avoid a terrible disease. So I'm hoping this can be an opportunity for BioLogos to step into an area of considerable need and touch the hearts and minds of people who may be a little mixed up and confused about where we are, and then together, we can find our way back to a place that celebrates what science can do for humanity and celebrates our love of Jesus and see those as entirely compatible. Stump: Well, thank you both for the work that you have done over your careers in this field of showing that science is good and that integrating science and faith in these ways that exemplify the virtues of Matthew 25. And thank you, Francis, for founding BioLogos, and thank you, Kristine for coming to lead BioLogos, and thank you both for the great conversation. May we do it again sometime soon. Torjesen: Thank you, Jim. Collins: Thank you, Jim. Credits Hoogerwerf: Language of God is produced by BioLogos. BioLogos is supported by individual donors and listeners like you. If you'd like to help keep this conversation going on the podcast and elsewhere, you can find ways to contribute at biologos.org. You'll find lots of other great resources on science and faith there as well. Language of God is produced and mixed by Colin Hoogerwerf. That's me. Our theme song is by Breakmaster Cylinder. BioLogos offices are located in Grand Rapids, Michigan in the Grand River Watershed. Thanks for listening.