I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world.

I regard it as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to understand the nature of our world.

When it was suggested to Pasteur that many of his great achievements depended on luck, he replied - I'm sure with more than a little irritation - 'In the field of observation in science, fortune only favours the prepared mind.' It is not by chance that it is always the great scientists who have the luck.

The physics of motion provides one of the clearest examples of the counter-intuitive and unexpected nature of science.

Depression is sadness gone wrong

The image of the disinterested, dispassionate scientist is no less false than that of the mad scientist who is willing to destroy the world for knowledge.

I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology - from medicine to industry.