Mark Walport 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.

The currencies of science are discoveries and ideas; the rewards are the excitement of going where nobody has been before and, if one is inclined to such things, the kudos of peer acclaim, plus funds to do more research.

It takes years to realize the multiple benefits of science; without adequate, sustained funding for research, the careers of many bright, young scientists may come to a screeching halt.

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.

If I could snap my fingers and do one thing in science, I would get more funding for basic science. But the level of funding that needs to be done is not on the order of millions, like the cost of the Breakthrough Prizes. It's billions to tens of billions.

Britain punches way above its weight in science, and I think we need to continue to do that, and anything that makes it easier to bring scientists in will be very welcome.

Students and postdoctoral fellows largely depend on the support of the public sector to finance the training and research that will make them world-renowned scientists.

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

Who does science determines what science gets done.

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

As you know, in most areas of science, there are long periods of beginning before we really make progress.

I do think actually in this case the government does get credit for funding some of the basic research.

It is important to fund young researchers who want to do curiosity-driven research. Curiosity-driven research is a part of life. Some people are curious. They want to learn more about nature and society should help that. It's like art: you can learn more and bring more beauty.

When, as we must often do, we fear science, we really fear ourselves.

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.

The U.S. can still maintain research institutions, such as Caltech, that are the envy of the world, yet it would be hubristic and naive to think that this position is sustainable without investing in science education and basic research.

The future of society is 100% dependent on scientific advances.

Is science of any value? I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value.

I think you know that I classify science as British science, American science, and everybody else.

When I was the NIH director, I often expressed envy of institute directors: they had the money and ran the scientific programmes.

Young people ask me if this country is serious about science. They aren't thinking about the passport that they will hold, but the country that they must rely on for support and encouragement.

We think that it is the best scientists working in the frontier fields of science who are best able to judge what is good and what is bad - if any - in the application of their scientific research.

The role of the federal government is to make sure enough research dollars flow into … universities to help create the ideas that 10 or 15 years from today will be exciting products.

We are a society now that is 100 percent dependent on science.

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