Laurie David Quotes

Scientists aren't necessarily good communicators, because they aren't trained to be good communicators.

It probably helps that my background is in the sciences and I can speak the scientists' language.

I would say it's important for scientists to speak out when they can and when they can be listened to.

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.

The simplest and cheapest of all reforms within institutional science is to switch from the passive to the active voice in writing about science.

General writing about science, even if we do it badly, helps us to see our work in perspective and broadens our vision.

The world is too complicated to have scientists only talking to scientists.

If you are knowledgeable about something and are able to talk about it, you should be able to express yourself.

If you can't make yourself understood by your friends, you'll be in trouble when your enemies come for you.

There are two kinds of speeches: the Mother Hubbard speech, which, like the garment, covers everything but touches nothing, and the French bathing suit speech, which covers only the essential points.

Brevity is a great charm of eloquence.

I'm a good communicator, and I'm a good translator. I can talk to engineers; I can talk to people for whom technology is not remotely interesting or even maybe scary - things like that.

People are interested in science, but they don't always know they're interested in science, and so I try to find a way to get them interested.

When I write a scientific treatise, I might reach 100 people. When the 'National Geographic' covers a project, it communicates about plants and fish and underwater technology to more than 10 million people.

I take pride in having something to say, which people actually want to hear.

If scientists could communicate more in their own voices - in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary - would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better understood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?

A candidate for office can have no greater advantage than muddled syntax; no greater liability than a command of language.

No one can speak well, unless he thoroughly understands his subject.

Scientific concepts sometimes elude the vast majority of elected officials.

The genius of guys like Lincoln and Reagan and FDR - the great communicator leaders - is that they're actually educators, so they understand when they use a phrase that they have to explain it, because, by definition, you won't understand it or they wouldn't need to be using it.

The average American is more focused on leadership than likeability. And more focused on qualifications than quality of speakership.

My first published writings were trying to take scientific concepts and make them clear for a general audience.

Miss Universe is someone who communicates her thoughts effectively and is able to connect to people.

I know what to say, how to say it, how to bring profile to the issues I care about and people want to listen to me.

Learning how to get a point across is pretty useful in any situation.