The possibility of saying anything about a thing rests on the assumption that it preserves its identity, or continues to be the same thing in the respect described, that it will behave in future situations as it has in past.

All science is static in the sense that it describes the unchanging aspects of things.

There is no sense in making statements that will not continue to be true after they are made.

In the long run all producers are forced to use the most efficient methods or give place to others who do.

Barring some national security concern, I see no valid reason to keep peer-reviewed research from the public. To be clear, by 'peer review,' I mean scientific review and not a political filter.

Polytechnique is a school whose multidisciplinary, very high scientific level curriculum is invaluable.

About seven years later I was given a book about the periodic table of the elements. For the first time I saw the elegance of scientific theory and its predictive power.

When does life begin? When does the soul enter? That's a religious question. Science is not going to be able to help with that.