Donna Strickland Quotes

I think people love fundamental science.

All basic scientists who look to the NCI for funding should know that I will tolerate no retreat on the study of model systems and the pursuit of fundamental biological principles.

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.

It doesn't matter whether it is chemistry or immunology or neuroscience: I just do research on what I find interesting.

Who does science determines what science gets done.

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.

What intrigues basic scientists like me is that anytime we do a series of experiments, there are going to be three or four new questions that come up when you think you've answered one.

No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem, basic research has proven over and over to be the lifeline of practical advances in medicine.

I have always focused on basic research, motivated by a desire to understand the world.

If you don't invest in basic research at some stage you start losing the basis of applied 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.

Like other government research, big bucks academic research is done to understand the nature and structure of the universe or to understand life, which really means that it is either for blowing up the world or extending life, whichever comes first.

No one will be able to deter the scientific mind from probing into the unknown any more than Canute could command the tides.

This is an appropriate role for the federal government - to invest in basic research.

Fundamental science that may not achieve results must be supported at the state level.

There are cases when it takes 50 or 100 years for fundamental science to achieve results.

The real value of science is in the getting, and those who have tasted the pleasure of discovery alone know what science is. A problem solved is dead. A world without problems to be solved would be devoid of science.

Science will stagnate if it is made to serve practical goals.

I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.

Science demands patience.

For me, science is just a bunch of tools - it's like playing the violin.

It was getting the results that made science worth doing; the accolades were a thin, secondary pleasure.

As long as scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems.

I am only a physicist with nothing material to show for my labours. I have never even seen the ionosphere, although I have worked on the subject for thirty years. That does show how lucky people can be. If there had been no ionosphere I would not have been standing here this morning.

The science hangs like a gathering fog in a valley, a fog which begins nowhere and goes nowhere, an incidental, unmeaning inconvenience to passers-by.