Joe Biden’s nominee to be White House science adviser, Eric Lander, got a bipartisan drubbing at his Senate confirmation hearing over his record on race and gender issues, leaving his ultimate approval in doubt.
Professor Lander, the founding director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, at one point admitted to senators that he downplayed the importance of Nobel prizewinners Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in developing the transformative CRISPR gene-editing technology.
He also parried criticisms over his meetings with the late Jeffrey Epstein years after the infamous financier was convicted of sex crimes.
Democrats joining the chorus included the chair of the hearing, Tammy Duckworth, who called herself “troubled” by such incidents. She was also among senators who said they hoped Professor Lander had learned from his past, suggesting a willingness to nevertheless vote for him.
Even if confirmed, Mr Biden’s choice of Professor Lander may bolster doubts both for the president and for academic science more broadly over their levels of genuine commitment to racial and gender equity.
A professor of biology at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Lander offered Mr Biden top-level government experience from his role as co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in the Obama administration.
Yet he also brought a reputation for sharp personal style and political calculation. Just after Mr Biden took office in January, a group representing hundreds of female scientists criticised the Lander choice on the individual merits and for its perpetuation of “the long lineage of white male science advisers”.
Mr Biden does deserve credit for his decision to elevate the science adviser position to Cabinet level, said the group, 500 Women Scientists. But, they wrote in an editorial, “there was certainly no shortage of options” among more diverse candidates.
Now Professor Lander, after delays in his confirmation process attributed to senators investigating the Epstein ties, remains the only Biden nominee for the Cabinet not yet confirmed. The Epstein association has already derailed the careers of other academics enticed by his wealth, including Joi Ito, who resigned as head of MIT’s Media Lab after working to hide millions of dollars in Epstein donations.
Professor Lander admitted at his confirmation hearing that he met Mr Epstein twice in 2012. But, Dr Lander told the senators that he wasn’t aware of Mr Epstein’s 2008 conviction on charges involving underage prostitution. He agreed, under pressure from Roger Wicker, the committee’s top-ranking Republican, to produce more records detailing his interactions with Mr Epstein.
Professor Lander was more contrite over his 2016 paper in Cell, titled “The Heroes of CRISPR”, which has been widely criticised for channelling credit to Broad-affiliated MIT professor Feng Zhang at the expense of Professor Doudna, of the University of California at Berkeley, and Professor Charpentier, of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology.
Questioned by senators, Professor Lander said that he “understated” the importance of Professor Doudna and Professor Charpentier to CRISPR, which is now recognised as a foundational element of biomedical science. “I made a mistake,” he told the Senate committee responsible for science issues. “And when I make a mistake, I own it and try to do better.”
Professor Lander has also apologised in the past for his public admiration for James Watson despite the sexist and racist views of the man credited as a co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA.
During the hearing, Professor Lander was pressed by Republicans not to show favouritism toward his former colleagues at the Broad Institute, and to generally ensure that the federal government’s science investment is spread more widely beyond a small group of elite research universities.
