I think that if the novel's task is to describe where we find ourselves and how we live now the novelist must take a good hard look at the most central facts of contemporary life - technology and science.

Science is not about control. It is about cultivating a perpetual condition of wonder in the face of something that forever grows one step richer and subtler than our latest theory about it. It is about reverence not mastery.

Weapons of mass destruction aren't pulled out of a black hat like a white rabbit at a magic show. They're produced in factories. There's science and technology involved. They're not produced in a hole in the ground or in a basement.

Certainly going back to Sherlock Holmes we have a tradition of forensic science featured in detective stories.

This is a global fight to get the right people in the right place and we're talking about people with PhDs in engineering computer science mathematics.

Oh I'm nerdy about science fiction and fantasy and graphic novels and reading and I'm nerdy about board games. My favorite board game is a board game I'm working on right now. It's a game of Napoleonic era naval warfare and it's going to be fun.

In science read by preference the newest works. In literature read the oldest. The classics are always modern.

The science is clear that there is an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is not clear from the science is how much of that increase is caused by human activity and what also is not clear is what impact those increases have on the climatic cycle.

Science is defined in various ways but today it is generally restricted to something which is experimental which is repeatable which can be predicted and which is falsifiable.

Indeed the whole human species is endangered by nuclear weapons or by other means of wholesale destruction which further advances in science are likely to produce.

I saw science as being in harmony with humanity.

I did not imagine that the second half of my life would be spent on efforts to avert a mortal danger to humanity created by science.

From my earliest days I had a passion for science.

But the first the general public learned about the discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb. A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign. Science became identified with death and destruction.

At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role and conduct themselves accordingly.

As a microbiologist I am particularly concerned with Mr. Bush's blatant disregard for science.

What has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet.

You have no time to do the science if you're talking to the media.

I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can.

I love science fiction.

And finally no matter how good the science gets there are problems that inevitably depend on judgement on art on a feel for financial markets.

First I think the science of monetary economics has clearly gotten better.

Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.

I do not think we are ever going to be able to for a long time get the kind of quality of school personnel that we need in our schools especially in the areas of science and math. One of the answers to that problem is to use more educational technology.