Would physics at Geneva be as good as physics at Harvard? I think not. Rome? I think not. In Britain, I don't think there is one place, neither Cambridge nor Oxford, which can compare with Harvard.

In the 1950s, the average person saw science as something that solved problems. With the advent of nuclear weapons and pollution, the idealistic aura around scientific research has been replaced by cynicism.

Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.

Chemistry is good for fun - it's like baseball. It has its role for small children, but I can't see an adult being concerned with it.

Males and females can both have a fixed mindset about math and science, but it hurts girls more because they are on the negative end of the stereotype.

There's a difference between good chemistry and a bond. Chemistry is something you have with somebody you meet - or you don't. It's an intangible. It may be superficial. It's much harder to put your finger on than a bond.

The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them.

You don't have money, you can't do science. But that's part of the price that I pay.