Conservative Scientists.

[BorisTheAnimal]

With all the meme about Conservatives hating science (and let's not allow this thread to be political either), the most prominent that I could think of is this gentleman who became Surgeon General under the Reagan Administration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

 

[Old Rocks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

Legacy[edit]

Koop is perhaps most remembered for four facets of his professional work:
Abortion Though Koop was opposed to abortion on personal and religious grounds,[5][14][20][21] he declined to state that abortion procedures performed by qualified medical professionals posed a substantial health risk to the women whose pregnancies were being terminated, despite political pressure to endorse such a position.[17][21] Tobacco In his 1988 Report of the Surgeon General, it was reported that nicotine has an addictiveness similar to that of heroin or cocaine. Koop's report was somewhat unexpected, especially by those who expected him to maintain the status quo in regard to his office's position on tobacco products. During his tenure, in 1984, Congress passed legislation providing for new, rotated health warning labels on cigarette packs and required advertising to include the labels. Those labels remain unchanged today. New labels containing graphic depictions of smoking-caused illness and death have been announced by the FDA, but are on hold pending the outcome of tobacco industry legal challenges. Koop issued a challenge to Americans in 1984 to "create a smoke-free society in the United States by the year 2000."[22] As Surgeon General, he released eight reports on the health consequences of tobacco use,[23] including the first report on the health consequences of involuntary tobacco smoke exposure. During Koop's tenure as Surgeon General, smoking rates in the United States declined significantly from 38% to 27%.[24] AIDS Koop was Surgeon General when public health authorities first began to take notice of AIDS.[25] For his first four years in office, Koop, the nation's top health officer, was prevented from addressing this health crisis, for reasons he insisted were never fully clear to him but that were no doubt political.[26] Koop wrote the official U.S. policy on the disease, and in 1988 he took unprecedented action in mailing AIDS information to every U.S. household.[27] Gay activists and their supporters were unhappy with the way in which he targeted gay sex and the risk of infection through anal sexual intercourse as primary vectors of the disease, but Koop was unapologetic claiming such activities entail risks several orders of magnitude greater than other means of transmission. Religious activists, upset over the pamphlet's frank discussion of sexual practices and advocacy of condom use, called for Koop's resignation.[28] Koop also infuriated some former supporters by advocating sex education in schools, possibly as early as the third grade, including later instruction regarding the proper use of condoms to combat the spread of AIDS. While a straightforward telling to the public about the disease was controversial, Koop was also criticized by some health activists who claimed that his office had not gone far enough in attempting to develop a cure or vaccine, reducing the role of his office to educating the public on health concerns. Baby Doe and the Rights of Handicapped Children In April 1982, a child born in Bloomington, Indiana, was diagnosed with Down syndrome as well as esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula. Six days later, after court involvement and parental discussion involving disagreement among physicians about whether or not to treat the baby or let him die, the baby died, having been denied surgical treatment to correct his esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula. Baby Doe, as he would be known, became a symbol for children with birth defects, handicapped infants, and the debate over infanticide. Koop was not initially involved with the Baby Doe case but had a special interest in it. As a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, he and his colleagues had operated on 475 such babies during his 35 years there, with ever-increasing survival rates. During his last eight years in active practice, Koop never lost a full-term baby upon whom he had operated to correct esophageal atresia. It was due to this background that he became actively involved championing policies to protect the rights of newborns with defects, which led to Congress passing the Baby Doe Amendment.

 

[Vikrant]

With all the meme about Conservatives hating science (and let's not allow this thread to be political either), the most prominent that I could think of is this gentleman who became Surgeon General under the Reagan Administration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

What was his specific contribution to science? What did he add to the field of science and technology that was not already known?

I am just curious. I am not trying to discourage you. On the contrary, I think this thread has a great potential if we can come up with genuine scientists who happens to be self professed conservatives.

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

With all the meme about Conservatives hating science (and let's not allow this thread to be political either), the most prominent that I could think of is this gentleman who became Surgeon General under the Reagan Administration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

What was his specific contribution to science? What did he add to the field of science and technology that was not already known?

I am just curious. I am not trying to discourage you. On the contrary, I think this thread has a great potential if we can come up with genuine scientists who happens to be self professed conservatives.

If you read his bio, he was the leading pioneer in pediatric surgery. All procedures for separating conjoined twins, for example, can be traced directly back to Dr. Koop.

 

[Vikrant]

With all the meme about Conservatives hating science (and let's not allow this thread to be political either), the most prominent that I could think of is this gentleman who became Surgeon General under the Reagan Administration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Everett_Koop

What was his specific contribution to science? What did he add to the field of science and technology that was not already known?

I am just curious. I am not trying to discourage you. On the contrary, I think this thread has a great potential if we can come up with genuine scientists who happens to be self professed conservatives.

If you read his bio, he was the leading pioneer in pediatric surgery. All procedures for separating conjoined twins, for example, can be traced directly back to Dr. Koop.

I did not read the article yet. I was hoping you would summarize it for me so that if I found it interesting I would read it further. Thanks for the information!

 

[Steven_R]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk]Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rdean]

Republicans built the interstate highway system and started NASA.

But to find a conservative scientist, it's someone 70 years old from nearly thirty years ago.

And check out the video above. He skipped over evolution, vaccines, and the number of scientists who left during the Bush administration.
Worse, how much of that funding was for weapons? There's facts and there are "facts". You can find facts to fit almost any situation, but the Devil is in the details.

 

[Steven_R]

You can find crackpots on both sides of the political spectrum. You can point to an anti-evolution idiot who votes R and I can point to a pro-astrology idiot that votes D. But NDT is a Democrat from NYC who is saying that for all the speechifying Ds do regarding sciences, the money being spent on sciences is up during R presidencies and down during D presidencies.

I'm not worried about intent or who says what at election time, but the bottom line is how your congresscritter votes and what earmarks he fights for. If he's voting to kill NASA and not fighting for some STEM project in your district, then the letter after his name is irrelevant if the end result is less science. Likewise, if he's voting to increase NIH or NASA or NOAA spending and fighting to get some STEM project, it doesn't matter which letter he has if the end result is more science.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"And that's why I wear one."

 

[rdean]

You can find crackpots on both sides of the political spectrum. You can point to an anti-evolution idiot who votes R and I can point to a pro-astrology idiot that votes D. But NDT is a Democrat from NYC who is saying that for all the speechifying Ds do regarding sciences, the money being spent on sciences is up during R presidencies and down during D presidencies.

I'm not worried about intent or who says what at election time, but the bottom line is how your congresscritter votes and what earmarks he fights for. If he's voting to kill NASA and not fighting for some STEM project in your district, then the letter after his name is irrelevant if the end result is less science. Likewise, if he's voting to increase NIH or NASA or NOAA spending and fighting to get some STEM project, it doesn't matter which letter he has if the end result is more science.

Nancy Reagan's Astrologer - TIME

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

And this is why republicans want to kill cancer funding and space expiration. lol

 

[Toro]

Best Ali G clip ever.

[youtube]zeUtCxe-xDg[/youtube]

 

[rdean]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

And this is why republicans want to kill cancer funding and space expiration. lol

Bush saying "let's go to the moon" for no stated reason is not embracing science.