Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

A tribute to C. Everett Koop

David A. Kessler, Jeffrey A. Nesbit, Timothy Mark Westmoreland, and Mary Beth Albright
PNAS April 30, 2013 110 (18) 7108-7109; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305902110
David A. Kessler
aUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA 94143;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: KesslerD@medsch.ucsf.edu
Jeffrey A. Nesbit
bClimate Nexus, New York, NY 10016;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Timothy Mark Westmoreland
cGeorgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC 20057;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Beth Albright
dAlbright Law, Washington, DC 20005
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Commitment to service, loyalty to science, and passion for public health were the hallmarks of Dr. C. Everett Koop’s career. His death in February, 2013 at the age of 96 is a reminder that one determined person with the courage to look past ideology and on to the greater good can make an enormous difference.

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Dr. C. Everett Koop.

That determination and courage wasn’t what many people expected when Dr. Koop—“Chick” to his friends—was nominated for the position of US Surgeon General by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The opposition to his appointment from progressives in Congress, women’s rights groups, and a host of health-related organizations was ferocious, largely because of his well-known moral opposition to abortion and his lack of any apparent public health experience.

However, after a bitter confirmation process, Koop began to win his critics over, not only because he had an authority that commanded attention, but also because he spoke truth to power. He said things in public that angered the politicians who had promoted his appointment, he never equivocated, and he didn’t back down. Koop became the nation’s doctor.

The four of us worked with Dr. Koop in different capacities, but to each of us, he was a colleague, mentor, and friend, a man we deeply admired.

Early in his tenure, Koop began to take on the tobacco industry, releasing data-filled report after report demonstrating the health hazards of smoking. He pushed for much stronger warnings on cigarette packs and smokeless tobacco, set goals for “a smoke-free society,” testified in favor of a ban on cigarette advertising, and joined the chorus of voices emphasizing that nicotine is an addictive substance.

It didn’t matter to Koop that free cigarettes were still being distributed at Republican fundraising dinners or that packs bearing the presidential seal were available at the White House. Koop wasn’t concerned about what the industry or its political allies thought. When the time came to consider negotiations with the tobacco companies—stricter regulation in exchange for a release from liability—a lot of us struggled mightily with the wisdom of a settlement. Koop never did: He was not interested in bargaining to make peace with “evildoers.”

Koop brought that same kind of steely eyed clarity to AIDS. The science was what mattered, and when the science told him that latex condoms could prevent the spread of infection, that’s the news he was determined to share. The White House warned Koop not to use certain words to educate the public about HIV—words like “penis” and “vagina”—but he did so anyway. He said over and over that he was the Surgeon General of homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. When Koop was politically pressured to condemn the people who were at highest risk, he said that he was the nation’s doctor, not the nation’s chaplain.

That attitude did not sit well with some in the Reagan Administration who pushed Koop to remove all references to condoms before releasing The Surgeon General’s Report on AIDS. Koop refused to make the changes, and in the end 20 million copies of the report went out across the land.

Koop applied his uncompromising scientific principles to abortion as well. Koop was an evangelical Christian, and he believed that life began at conception. In his opposition to terminating a pregnancy, he was also influenced by his experiences as a surgeon operating on babies born with defects. Koop feared that society would progress too readily from permitting abortion to permitting infanticide and euthanasia.

The White House knew Koop’s views when he was appointed, and probably assumed he would not object to writing a report indicating that abortion was medically harmful to women. However, once again, the ideologues had not fully considered with whom they were reckoning. Koop read the science and recognized that it did not support categorical claims that women were harmed physically or emotionally by abortion. The issue, he said, was moral not medical, and he would not sacrifice his allegiance to the latter to support his personal views on the former.

It took determination to stand firm on those kinds of issues, especially at a time when many policymakers felt free to ignore or distort evidence in service of a cause. Representative Henry Waxman, who had been a vociferous critic of Koop’s appointment but who became a supporter of Koop’s work on tobacco and HIV, later apologized to him privately and publicly. “I was wrong about you,” he said.

As he elevated the once-obscure post of Surgeon General, Koop was able to achieve far more than even the most powerful Cabinet secretary. His relentless courage of conviction overpowered the doubters who once dismissed him as a political neophyte. Koop liked to say that opinion polls showed he was the most trusted person in America, and he learned how to use that to his advantage.

Koop cared passionately about the nation’s health. The American people saw in him a leader who did not waver and they liked that. Years after he left government service, Koop remained a beloved figure. His stature and vaguely Old Testament-like appearance meant that people still recognized him at airports, restaurants, even public restrooms, and they would say, “You were my favorite Surgeon General.” With his usual wry humor, Koop invariably replied, “Can you name another?”

Koop’s journey to prominence began in modest Brooklyn, New York, surroundings, where he was born in 1916. Koop wrote in his autobiography that he could not remember a time when he did not want to become a doctor. Always large for his age, he began masquerading as a medical student at age 14, sneaking into Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center to observe surgery as it was performed. By the time he graduated from Dartmouth College, Koop had already worked with one doctor willing to let him perform autopsies and another who guided him through a leg amputation.

Koop earned his medical degree at Cornell Medical College and completed his residency at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital. Almost immediately afterward he was offered a job as surgeon-in-chief at Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and remained there until the White House came calling 35 years later.

While at Children’s Hospital, Koop earned a reputation as a groundbreaking pediatric surgeon and a powerhouse in the medical community. He was also a great teacher, as eminent cancer pioneer Judah Folkman and the many others who trained with him could testify. Koop invented new surgical techniques to correct birth defects in infants, transforming the field as he dedicated himself to saving children who had once been considered beyond help.

Koop married his college sweetheart, Betty Flanagan, in 1938 and the couple remained together until her death almost 70 years later, in 2007. They raised four children, celebrated the births of eight grandchildren, and endured the excruciating loss of a son, David, in a mountain climbing accident when he was 19. Koop remarried in 2010 and is survived by his wife, Cora Hogue.

C. Everett Koop was blunt and unsentimental, a tireless public servant who lived fearlessly for what he believed was right. All of us owe him a debt of gratitude for his very tangible accomplishments in advancing the public health. Perhaps more importantly, we owe him a renewed commitment to build policy on a foundation of scientific evidence.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: KesslerD{at}medsch.ucsf.edu.
  • Author contributions: D.A.K., J.A.N., T.M.W., and M.B.A. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A tribute to C. Everett Koop
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
A tribute to C. Everett Koop
David A. Kessler, Jeffrey A. Nesbit, Timothy Mark Westmoreland, Mary Beth Albright
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2013, 110 (18) 7108-7109; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305902110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A tribute to C. Everett Koop
David A. Kessler, Jeffrey A. Nesbit, Timothy Mark Westmoreland, Mary Beth Albright
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2013, 110 (18) 7108-7109; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305902110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (7)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Core Concept: Solving Peto’s Paradox to better understand cancer
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Image credit: Shutterstock.com/ronnybas frimages.
Featured Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Hao Wu
 Nonmonogamous strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio).  Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Putative signature of monogamy
A study suggests a putative gene-expression hallmark common to monogamous male vertebrates of some species, namely cichlid fishes, dendrobatid frogs, passeroid songbirds, common voles, and deer mice, and identifies 24 candidate genes potentially associated with monogamy.
Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Active lifestyles. Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.
Meaningful life tied to healthy aging
Physical and social well-being in old age are linked to self-assessments of life worth, and a spectrum of behavioral, economic, health, and social variables may influence whether aging individuals believe they are leading meaningful lives.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.

More Articles of This Classification

  • The varied careers of Kenneth L. Bowles
  • Robert W. Kates (1929–2018): Grappled with problems of the human environment
  • Retrospective of Charles Pence Slichter (NAS 1967)
Show more

Related Content

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490