Science fiction is the WikiLeaks of science, getting word to the public about what cutting-edge research really means.
If scientists can't communicate with the public, with policy makers, with one another, the future is going to be held back. We're not going to have the future that we could have.
My 6 years with Murdoch were pivotal for my entire research career.
A doctor can save maybe a few hundred lives in a lifetime. A researcher can save the whole world.
It was because the chimps are so eye-catching, so like us and teach us so much that my work was recognised worldwide.
There is an intellectual snobbery that, regrettably, many academics suffer from. They are proud their paper is only read by a small group of people - makes it very exclusive. Let's get rid of that. If it's truly important, people should be excited about it.
What happened after publication of our paper was that, for the next 40 years, people said, all right, we now know the answer to the capital structure question under ideal conditions.
We've been living with this myth that somehow government investment in research has not been critical to economic growth.
I hope I'll be remembered for my scientific contribution to understanding life and human life.
Empirical explorations ultimately change our understanding of which questions are important and fruitful and which are not.
I support basic research, which can lead to discoveries that change our world, expand our horizons and save lives.
How in heaven's name can a nation with a $1 trillion surplus threaten so much scientific research so vital to its future?
And, cuts in education, scientific research and the rest are harmful, and they are what are affected by the sequestration.
If you suppress laboratories, physical science will be stricken with barrenness and death.
The thing that we at MIT must understand is the amount of real damage that is being done to us in the fine structure of how research funds are expended.
Every paper published in a respectable journal should have a preface by the author stating why he is publishing the article, and what value he sees in it. I have no hope that this practice will ever be adopted.
The social and economic impact of innovative American researchers, companies, and workers over the course of U.S. history have been enormous.
Personally I discovered that you could go through the academy as a young scholar, come out, and almost immediately have an impact on the academic environment.
Most scientists will get serious media exposure about twice in their entire career. And they'll get that because they've actually done an experiment that was interesting.
When the U.K. and India collaborate, there is force multiplier, which is very-very strong. The force multiplier with India is much stronger than with many other countries. We get much greater impact and valued research papers when British and Indian scientists co-operate.
Every cent that goes to research is changing the lives of patients and their families right now.
In the software business there are many enterprises for which it is not clear that science can help them; that science should try is not clear either.
I like doing research that has an impact. If I went to a company to make what they call 'real money,' I'd be just trying to make a system work as fast as possible to meet the product and serice deadlines.
Academia does not provide many opportunities for immediate gratification. You work for two years on a project, it takes two more years to get it published, and then you start hoping someone might read it.
You stop planetary exploration, those people who do that extraordinary work are going to have to go do something else.
