Gina McCarthy Quotes

Governments and scientists in India need to ensure that politics and religious ideology do not intrude into science. They belong to separate spheres, and if they are not kept separate, it is science in India and the country as a whole that will suffer.

Just as we have endeavored to maintain a separation between church and state, so too do I believe that we should try to maintain a comparable separation between basic biomedical research and politics.

There is need for more science in politics and less politics in science.

Some of the FDA's own scientists have charged that politics, not science, is behind the FDA's actions.

Science has become politicized, and that's an embarrassment.

The science community now recognizes that this administration completely puts its political cart before the scientific horse. We've seen it with one issue after another.

If Baltimore's view, that scientists who do not take the words of authorities are far removed from the ordinary behavior of scientists, prevails in the scientific community, then something fundamental, very serious, and very disturbing is happening to the scientific community.

We have to keep up the fight for evidence-based science and policy.

I find it greatly disturbing that the Bush administration has used political and religious ideologies to influence national policy on science and medicine.

I don't know how you overcome the dearth of scientists in the government positions.

The real scientist is ready to bear privation and, if need be, starvation rather than let anyone dictate to him which direction his work must take.

Government scientists need protections so that they are not forced to choose between violating their scientific ethics or losing their job.

Let’s end President Bush’s war on science—muzzling the scientists and taking information off websites.

The government needs good science, and I’m not willing to abdicate the role of advising the Administration and Congress on [science] policy.

I strongly believe that fundamental science cannot be driven by instructional, industrial, governmental or military pressures. This was the reason why I decided, as far as possible, not to accept money from the government.

When I got to MIT, I discovered a really interesting Master's program called the Science and Technology and Policy Program - it taught people with a background in STEM how to think about science and tech from a policy perspective. It was a great way to understand how to communicate science to a policymaker or a layperson.

Many science people feel groups like WHO are there to do a job and not to be dealt with in a political way.

I think that what is true is that the Russians intended to meddle, and they meddled. And it could be another country in the future.

I recognize that there's an appetite that I'm now serving, and I'm happy to do so. I think it means quite a bit that science has achieved this level of public interest and access. And so I'm simultaneously astonished every day upon recognizing this, and I think it's a good sign for the country and possibly for the world.

One must not politicize science. But the converse is not necessarily true. There's no reason why scientists can not go into the public sphere. In fact, I would argue they should.

We're not living in a society that science actually dominates the conversation. We're living in a situation where some science is allowed and a lot of it's about policy.

To the extent that the scientist's capacity for pursuing the truth depends upon costly apparatus, institutional collaboration and heavy capital investment by government or industry he is no longer his own master.

The McCarthy period came along...and many of the other scientists who had been working on these same lines gave up. Probably saying "Why should I sacrifice myself? I am a scientist, I am supposed to be working on scientific things, so I don't need to put myself at risk by talking about these possibilities." And I have said that perhaps I'm just stubborn... I have said "I don't like anybody to tell me what to do or to think, except Mrs. Pauling."

Canada has always been ready for the truth. I think they actually appreciate a politician or anybody as a leader who tells the truth.

I put a lot of effort into writing 'A Briefer History' at a time when I was critically ill with pneumonia because I think that it's important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.