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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The public impression is that the government, industry or the highest bidder can buy a scientist to add credibility to any message. That crucial quality of impartiality is being lost.
I don't know how you overcome the dearth of scientists in the government positions.
People want to protect the territory that they have, and they're very threatened by change. That's not true for all of scientists, but you know, fortunately, the scientific community moves forward in a conservative fashion.
Scientists are not movie stars or politicians who will feel insulted if they are not showered with accolades. Scientists are not interested in accolades.
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.
We're starting to see a renaissance of investors embracing the idea that scientists can build businesses.
Politicians often misuse science for political ends and to pursue their own agenda.
I think top scientists need to be compensated at a different scale in society. Somebody with experience will tell you that true scientists are not motivated by money - they are motivated by the quest itself. That is true. But I think an additional recognition will not hurt.
Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.
Scientists cloister themselves away from the rest of society, happy just to receive their next grant. They lose their connection to a purpose.
No opposing quotes found.