I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.

I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

Questions have arisen about the policing of science. Who is responsible for the policing? My answer is: all of us.

Questions have also arisen about AIDS being transmitted to hemophiliacs via blood transfusions.

People want to protect the territory that they have, and they're very threatened by change. That's not true for all of scientists, but you know, fortunately, the scientific community moves forward in a conservative fashion.

Science is, rightly, searching for drugs to arrest ageing or to slow the advance of dementia. But the evidence suggests that many of the most powerful factors determining how you age come from what you do, and what you do with others: whether you work, whether you play music, whether you have regular visitors.

I feel like science fiction is so much more mainstream now than it has been. And I feel like that's because technology has caught up with us.

It is my idea that the public needs to be better educated about the nature of scientific inquiry and how the scientific process works. I firmly believe that this is the only effective way forward to combat the widespread distrust in facts and science.