Alan Guth Quotes

In this time of budget cuts, we cannot forget that basic science is a building block for scientific innovation and economic growth in the information age.

I think, however, that so long as our present economic and national systems continue, scientific research has little to fear.

I went into science, ending up with a Ph.D. in cell biology, but along the way I found out that experimental science involves many hours and days and nights of laboratory work, which is a lot like washing dishes, only a little more challenging. I was too impatient, and maybe a little too sloppy, for it.

If you look at the history of our country over the last 100 years, there have been periods where science and research have been celebrated. They were really kind of held up as heroes in society, which encouraged a generation of people to go into these fields.

Many badly needed goals, like fusion and cancer cure, would be achieved much sooner if we invested more.

I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped.

Throughout history, people have studied pure science from a desire to understand the universe rather than practical applications for commercial gain. But their discoveries later turned out to have great practical benefits.

After World War II, scientific research in the U.S. was well supported. In the 1960s, when I came to America, the sky was the limit, and this conducive atmosphere enabled many of us to pursue esoteric research that resulted in America winning the lion's share of Nobel Prizes.

The decline in funding for the physical sciences has put our Nation's capabilities for scientific innovation at risk.

There is no question but … science is the weakest in the lands of Islam. The dangers of this weakness cannot be overemphasized since honorable survival of a society depends directly on strength in science and technology …

Innovation is the key to the future, but basic research is the key to future innovation.

The business of biomedical research is mostly about failure. Few projects we commission will ultimately result in success. But every study we do contributes to the body of knowledge that brings science and society closer to a solution.

The United States needs to be a leader in scientific research.

The spending in science and technology need to be to increased.

So now, if we don't fund the physical sciences, where will the Next Big Thing come from?

Many of our advances in science and technology were seeded through government.

We need to not reduce but increase our commitment to research.

Historically, science and society have gone separate ways, although society has provided the funds for science to grow, and in return, science has given society all the material things it enjoys.

David Sainsbury has been good for science and good for innovation in the U.K. He has been an outstanding science minister and shown extraordinary passion and commitment to his portfolio.

If we choose to ignore science and refuse to fund important scientific research, we voluntarily cede our place as a world leader in innovation.

Societies will, of course, wish to exercise prudence in deciding which technologies that is, which applications of science are to be pursued and which not. But without funding basic research, without supporting the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake, our options become dangerously limited.

Too great haste leads us to error.

Unfortunately, in the environment, I don't see as much willingness to invest heavily in R&D as I do in consumer technology. And that's a pity.

I don't know if there's a lot of patience anymore. I think that could serve a lot of people.