Reflecting on a recent article in Seed magazine, several bloggers have taken up the challenge of recommending science advisers for the next administration.

Should the next adviser be a physicist, as the previous four have been? Chris Mooney suggests that the next president might do better with a biomedical researcher, an environmental expert, or a “science celebrity,” like Steven Pinker or E.O. Wilson.

But Blake Stacey, over at Science after Sunclipse, thinks Mr. Wilson’s calls for environmental conservation will “draw the wrath of half the punditocracy.” And Scott Hatfield, of Monkey Trials, says Mr. Wilson’s role in sociobiology controversies “will be sifted through to find examples of alleged racism.”

Instead, Mr. Hatfield suggests choosing a former scientist who has moved into administrative duties “and who has some understanding of the weight lifting and making nice-nice that gets science funded.” He proposes (among others) Frances Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Matthew Nisbet seconds that nomination at Framing Science. He says Mr. Collins would be “a perfect science ambassador to religious America.”

But the person blogging as RPM at Evolgen criticizes the choice: “I think Collins has no academic credibility,” RPM writes, as a result of “his public displays of ignorance regarding evolutionary biology.” RPM does not nominate an alternative but says a science adviser should be chosen not for his or her religious beliefs, but “because they are a well-respected scientist with experience tackling about science to non-scientists.”