Hultgren to Receive Champion of Science Award at Fermilab
The Champion of Science Award presentation takes place on Friday, Oct. 12 at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
The Science Coalition, a collection of 50 of the leading public and private research universities in the United States, will present the Champion of Science Award to 14th District Congressman Randy Hultgren at Fermilab’s Ramsey Auditorium at 9 a.m. Friday, Oct. 12, 2012, in the Ramsey Auditorium.
In attendance will be Matthew Greenwald, University of Chicago; Pier Oddone, Fermilab director; Robert A. Easter, University of Illinois president and Hultgren.
The Science Coalition’s Champion of Science Award recognizes members of Congress "whose actions and votes consistently reflect their belief that basic scientific research, conducted at universities and national labs across the country, is essential to the nation’s ability to address pressing issues in health, security, energy and the environment, and additionally, that a strong federally supported basic research enterprise drives innovation that fuels the U.S. economy," according to a press release issued by Hultgren's office.
Jim Kirkhoff
4:51 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
This is sad. Not only does Rep. Hultgren not understand science, but he is anti-science in his firm position that Creationism should be taught in schools. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY5du10BRpo
G.Ryan
8:59 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012
Jim, do you know what is even sadder than this? Barry Sotero(B.O.) winning the Nobel Peace Prize!
Colin C.
8:31 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
What an irony this is. The representative that Hultgren replaced is actually a real scientist, and an excellent and widely recognized one at that. Bill Foster represented our district well, worked very hard at it, was extremely well informed on just about any issue you might have cared to ask him about, and was independent in his voting record. He was much sought after on Capitol Hill because of his scientific background. I think that at the time he was the only actual scientist in Congress.
Bill's weak point was that he was not a back slapping, charming people pleaser. That and the fact that he tends to tell the truth rather than just say what he thinks people want to hear. He lost his last race for Congress to Hultgren on a wave of "anti-government" hysteria fueled by the tea party mentality. Those lovely, considerate, and well mannered people would invade political forums and try to prevent anyone but their favored candidate from speaking. And I understand that they tend to consider themselves "true Americans".
It's sad, the shallow and populist way that we choose our representatives. Maybe that's why this Country is in such trouble: just like in grade school, we vote for the most popular and glib, not the most qualified.
Jim Ryan
9:53 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
I understand the vote count for this prestigious award was very close. Mr. Hultgren had won this by a mere one vote over his next closest competitor, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), also a member of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Yes, the same Paul Broun who recently declared that what he had been taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang theory are "all lies straight from the pit of Hell".
Bruce
10:13 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Maybe Foster could have kept his seat if he didn't vote for Obamacare! But he knew better than his constituents. He promised, along with Obama, it would only cost $900 Billion in the first 10 years. Now estimates are over $2.6 Trillion. You'd think a scientist would be better than that with math.
Wes
6:39 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Bingo. Foster chose to forsake the wishes of his constituents and toe the party line.
We won't forget it, Billy.
Justin Eggar
11:13 am on Monday, October 8, 2012
Occasionally we would all be better suited if we put away the rhetoric and just say congratulations when somebody wins a prize.
They don't have to be your BFF and you don't have to agree with somebody 100% to congratulate them.
Congrats Randy!
Mike Bruno
10:57 am on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
I understand that his award is for supporting an endeavor that brings money to his district...not that he is a scientific wiz-bang. It is still sad, though, that a creationist can achieve high office and, ostensibly, be perceived to receive scientific credentials. It seems that the best science minds too seldom have the political skills to achieve office. We would all be better off if our legislators worked off of evidence instead of ideologies.
http://geneva.patch.com/blog_posts/mike-bruno-evolution-is-my-political-litmus-test
Justin Eggar
11:37 am on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Mike,
The most die hard evolutionist is working from ideology 99% of the time. That doesn't make their contributions less valid - just like Randy's beliefs don't make his contributions less.
For the moment, the country still rewards people based on their performance and not on their personal beliefs. I for one am grateful for that.
Danny
12:15 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
There is almost no factual truth in anything said by Mr. Eggar at 1137am. There is no such thing as a "die-hard evolutionist." Evolution is a scientific principle (actually a number of them), not an ideology.
Belief in creationism actually does reduce one's contributions to science, which is the topic of the award.
As far as his last point--yes and no. So I guess there's a fact in there at the end.
Rudy
1:05 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Congratulations are in order to Randy for supporting his district even if he doesn't fully (or maybe he does?) in the work being done. This is what a Good Politician does? Support ALL of your constituents not just your favorites. To me this award means more going to Randy than to a scientist it shows he Can reach on the other side of the aisle. Remember too that Randy's family business is a Funeral home I don't think he will be running around screaming there no God any time soon. It proves he is a good business man and not Stupid! Only the ignorant would throw half of their potential voting block out the window because of their personal ideals. We don't care fore your ideals we want to know will you represent ALL of us Randy Hultgren does a fantastic job as far as I am concerned!
Justin Eggar
2:18 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Danny,
Thanks for your response. You can probably appreciate that I'm not going to get involved in a matter of semantics on the internet.
On a side note, how does it feel to know that mere christians have contributed far more to science in the past thousand years than you will ever be capable of?
Or does your ideology erase all of that? :)
Mike Bruno
4:39 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Let me be clear. I don't begrudge Hultgren for receiving the award. Regardless of his ideologies or dubious scientific literacy. His actions kept money going to basic research (very good) and money coming into the economy of his district (also very good). I merely lament that on such and important issue...where the correct answer is easy to find...that he either 1) doesn't bother to ask the experts or 2) dismisses the experts in favor of ideology yet we, as an electorate, would consider either of those as disqualification to be a lawmaker.
Mike Bruno
4:42 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
@Justin
The scientific method has only been around for some hundreds of years. The better question is "What new scientific understandings has the religious (not just Christians) given us in the last 100-200 years?"
Justin Eggar
5:11 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Hey Mike! - It has been around for a few hundred years. And to be frank, I appreciate our scientists dedication to the scientific method and what it has accomplished.
All of that said, the purpose of religion isn't scientific advancement so it would be unfair for us to hold that as an objective. The real question is can people that believe in religion also make a scientific contribution? I can only look at what has occured in the past and that answer would seem to be yes.
Granted, Dan's statement is more of a holistic view of science and whether religion is more of a net negative than positive... but trying to make a claim either way on that is at best conjecture.
Mike Bruno
8:36 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
@Justin
Well you're the one that brought up Christian scientific contributions with "how does it feel to know that mere christians have contributed far more to science in the past thousand years than you will ever be capable of?" Such statements remind me of the drivel I hear from Dinesh D'Souza that credits everything from democracy to sliced bread to Christianity.
Since the Enlightenment and the scientific method, religion has basically tapped out and left the heavy (and light) lifting to science to impart any new understanding or make discoveries. Moreover; Christianity (or religion in general) was incidental to pre-enlightenment discoveries. If we could attribute great discoveries to revelation or holy texts, then we might credit religion with some of it, but it was just people thinking really hard about stuff.
Justin Eggar
10:08 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Mike,
I switched gears a little bit (between creationism and religion/christianity) with my statement so let me come full circle on it. The point of religion isn't to further science. Thinking the world and science would have progressed further without religion is purely hypothetical and cannot be proven.
Somebody can hold a disimilar view (whether correct or incorrect) and still make a contribution to society. Even in the scientific realm. Randy's contribution benefited science and our area, and he rightly deserves the award.
As far as anti-elitism, that's certainly not as issue I have. I'd say that both sides of the fence have had issue with sound economic policy. Not just those that are Ayn Rand fans.
Colin C.
6:28 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
I think that the crux of the matter about Mr. Hultgren and others who may tend dismiss science in favor of an ideology is this: If one chooses to follow belief instead of proven fact in, say the matter of evolution, what does that say for their ability to make sound judgements on matters that will have a direct effect on us all; say climate change?
Mike Bruno
8:45 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
@Colin
That is spot on Colin. If one dismisses evidence or expertise or favors ideology over evidence and expertise they put themselves on the slipperiest of slopes. Climate change is an excellent example, but it seems that one political faction prefers the fictional narratives of Ayn Rand over the considered expertise of economists when discussing economic policy. It is very scary how anti-elite much of the country has become.
Ignatius Reilly
9:00 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
It's the "we know science isnt your thing but please keep our funding award." Also, notice there is no author credited to this article. Would a staffer who wrote this quote him or herself?
Colin C.
1:08 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Mike, Your comment about Ayn Rand brings back fond memories. I read The Fountainhead my senior year in high school and Atlas shrugged as soon as it was published. I LOVED these books. They held THE ANSWER! It was so simple, so direct, so complete. WOW! That was it!
Or at least it was until I got a little more psychology. sociology, economics, history and some real life experience under my belt. Then I realized that, ironically, Rand had made the same mistake that the person she railed against had made. Both she and Karl Marx had developed socio-economic theories that sounded great but utterly failed to take human nature into consideration.
Marxism and "Randism" both look wonderful-----on paper. It's when humans actually try to practice either that we find that neither can actually work, as promised, in real life.
Humans simply aren't built that way.
So what does work? In my humble opinion, nothing. That is, we humans have failed, so far, in finding an adequate way to govern ourselves in a complex, technological, and massively populated, diverse society.
As Winston Churchill said:"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried".
We still have a long way to go to find a way to govern ourselves that is equitable and effective.
Neither Karl nor Ayn had the answer. I'm not sure that anyone has.
Justin Eggar
2:03 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Haha, good post Colin.
Humanity is in its very nature messy. If there was a perfect system, it would be unfortunate in that it likely wouldn't include us in the picture.