I had imagined doing nuclear physics and cosmic ray work in greater style in peace time. To do modern physics in a small way is of no use of all.
The value and utility of any experiment are determined by the fitness of the material to the purpose for which it is used, and thus in the case before us it cannot be immaterial what plants are subjected to experiment and in what manner such experiment is conducted.
Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right.
I don't think CNN is 'fake news.' I think there are some reports everywhere, in print, on TV, on radio, in conversation, that are not well-researched and are sometimes based on falsehoods.
Clearly, one does not have to give up being an academic, retreat from rigorous research, or renounce the importance of specialization in order to address major social issues. I don't think you give up theoretical rigor by writing in a way that addresses major social concerns and is at the same time accessible to wider informed general audiences.
Is my science of a level consistent with other people who have gotten the Nobel? Yes.
I don't like to say bad things about paleontologists, but they're not very good scientists. They're more like stamp collectors.
If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.
It's pretty challenging in a small country to develop a business school with a world-class reputation because of the problem of attracting a critical mass of top-class researchers.
An actual scientist embraces debate because it sharpens their research.
Bad writing, it is easily verified, has never kept scholarship from being published.
A show is going to be good and fun to work on, if the research is interesting.
The 150th anniversary of Penn State will highlight what is important and good about this distinguished institution and the fine people and research that it produces.
The post-war "publish or perish" tyranny must end. The profession has become obsessed with quantity rather than quality. [...] One brilliant article should outweigh one mediocre book.
Occasionally I find a travel book that is both illuminating and entertaining, where vivid writing and research replace self-indulgence and sloppy prose.
A number of bloggers in economics and the financial sector have risen to prominence through the sheer strength of their work. Note it was not their family connections nor ties to Ivy League schools or elite banks, but rather the strength of their research, analysis and writing.
It is the weight, not numbers of experiments that is to be regarded.
The quality of research in the U.S. is absolutely the best.
Great research universities around the world are visible not just through their quality graduates but as knowledge creators and technology developers.
It can be said with complete confidence that any scientist of any age who wants to make important discoveries must study important problems. Dull or piffling problems yield dull or piffling answers. It is not enough that a problem should be "interesting".
Academic freedom is simply a way of saying that we get the best results in education and research if we leave their management to people who know something about them.
There are worse sins for a scientist than to be wrong. One is to be trivial
It is a truth universally acknowledged on Wall Street that original research is on life support. Serious research can be bad for business, as well as expensive.
The very bulk of scientific publications is itself delusive. It is of very unequal value; a large proportion of it, possibly as much as three-quarters, does not deserve to be published at all, and is only published for economic considerations which have nothing to do with the real interests of science.
What people actually refer to as research nowadays is really just Googling.
