What we want is scientists who don't become part of the policy discussion: All they do is produce science. If someone becomes an advocate, then I won't pay as much attention to their science.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Through basic science literacy, people can understand the policy choices we need to be making. Scientists are not necessarily the greatest communicators, but science and communication is one of the fundamentals we need to address. People are interested.
Scientists generally are really chicken about getting involved in some kind of dispute. As a broadcaster, I find it very difficult to urge them, if it is a controversial subject. They don't want to have science being portrayed badly.
I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.
Some of the FDA's own scientists have charged that politics, not science, is behind the FDA's actions.
Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.
A lot of my role is advocacy, and as a scientist, you're an advocate, too, because you are coming up with a theory and having to convince your fellow scientists that you're right.
The general public has long been divided into two parts those who think science can do anything, and those who are afraid it will.
Many science people feel groups like WHO are there to do a job and not to be dealt with in a political way.
If scientists can't communicate with the public, with policy makers, with one another, the future is going to be held back. We're not going to have the future that we could have.
If you publish a scientific paper it is very hard to start a nationwide debate about something. If you do this in a movie, you can start a debate. We like to create a bridge between those two worlds - film and science.
No opposing quotes found.