Stephen Hawking Quotes

It's very important for us to see that science is done by people, not just brains but whole human beings, and sometimes at great cost.

The tension between public and private science is powerful.

We want a system that will improve consistency and steadiness in the quality of government.

Laboratories can reduce risk by implementing a proven and internationally accepted quality assurance technology that is applicable across the globe.

We need to have much clearer regulations on things like corporate funding of scientific research. Things need to be made explicit which are implicit.

If the government regulates against use of drones or stem cells or artificial intelligence, all that means is that the work and the research leave the borders of that country and go someplace else.

Our [politicians] responsibility is to be sure that we utilize the best science.

You can't keep fraud out of the system. The key to good regulation is how quickly you catch it.

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

… attempting to supervise the financial sector is a fool’s errand

We are constantly auditing our supply chain. Making sure that safety standards are - are, you know, are the highest. We're making sure that working conditions are the highest.

The people who work at FDA are just trying to do their jobs.

A lot of scientists are hesitant to get involved with industry. It's seen as, you know, getting in bed with the devil, actually. But I found that doing this has been really the only way and one of the best ways I know to take a finding from the bench side to people.

There definitely will be flying cars, but whether there'll be flying cars for most people to use, it'll probably take a long time to straighten everything out, all the rules and hassles. It'll take a while to figure out how to keep people from crashing into each other.

Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality.

In conclusion I wish to say that in working at the problem here dealt with I have had the loyal assistance of my friend and colleague M. Besso, and that I am indebted to him for several valuable suggestions.

Regulators have not been able to achieve the level of future clarity required to act pre-emptively. The problem is not lack of regulation but unrealistic expectations. What we confront in reality is uncertainty, some of it frighteningly so...

Right now, scientists are in exactly the same position as Renaissance painters, commissioned to make the portrait the patron wants done, And if they are smart, they'll make sure their work subtly flatters the patron. Not overtly. Subtly.

Most man only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.

However, you have to recognize that regulations will never be completely successful and they will always be full of holes. You must constantly be ready to fill new holes. Actually regulation should be kept to a minimum, but there has to be some cooperation between market participants and authorities - as was the case in the early postwar years. The Bank of England was a very successful regulator by cooperating with market participants. This cooperative spirit was broken by the market fundamentalists.

Deregulation is a popular term that's used across the political spectrum. And it's one of these terms like "choice," that corporate interests have used because they know their focus-group buzzword testing makes it sound like a popular word. Because, who can be against deregulation? Being free, having liberty, not having someone tell you what to do, being deregulated, hey, that sounds great. But deregulation is a non sequitur in the realm of media policy or media regulation. The issue is never regulation versus deregulation; our entire system is built on media policies and subsidies.

My current goal is to change the way we think about antitrust and anti-monopoly.

It is easier to disrupt consumer finance. It is much harder to disrupt institutional finance, Wall Street. It is very heavily regulated, and because it is institutional finance, you are dealing with incumbents.

Transparency and detail are everything in science.

Regulatory fiat cannot create a market at a technologically interdependent interface. And by the same token, regulation and so-called monopoly power rarely prevail at modular interfaces between stages of value-added technology.