I don't accept the argument of people like David Horowitz that the government should impose some sort of predetermined political balance on academic research.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Great research universities must insist on independence from government and on the exercise of academic freedom.
I think that what we've been able to do is put together both a good group of scholars and analysts and people who aggressively want to make the case to the American public.
It's very important that there should be cross-fertilisation between government and academia. Both parties can benefit from having a better understanding of how the other works.
Scientists are being portrayed by much of the power structure in politics and business as having a vested interest - that they're just out to get more grant money by exaggerating the threats.
I do not believe that Congress or the Administration should prohibit the medical community from pursuing a promising avenue of research that may improve the lives of millions of Americans.
I think, however, that so long as our present economic and national systems continue, scientific research has little to fear.
I don't know how you overcome the dearth of scientists in the government positions.
Scientists are not delinquents. Our work has changed the conditions in which men live, but the use made of these changes is the problem of governments, not of scientists.
It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.
I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.
No opposing quotes found.