No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?
James D. WatsonRead
At lunch Francis [Crick] winged into the Eagle to tell everyone within hearing distance that we had found the secret of life.
Interpretation
The quote celebrates the discovery of the fundamental essence of life, highlighting a significant scientific breakthrough.
James D. Watson's quote reflects the excitement and significance of a monumental discovery in biology: the structure of DNA, which is often referred to as the 'secret of life.' This discovery not only revolutionized our understanding of genetics but also underscored the collaborative nature of scientific inquiry, as Watson shares this momentous news with his colleagues with enthusiasm.
In practice
In a speech about scientific breakthroughs, one could quote this to highlight a pivotal moment in understanding life.
No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?
I think the reason people are dealing with science less well now than 50 years ago is that it has become so complicated.
Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans favour research using embryonic stem cells and yet politicians continue to pander to the outspoken religious minority that is hampering efforts to develop this potentially valuable technology.
DNA was my only gold rush. I regarded DNA as worth a gold rush.
Science has always been my preoccupation and when you think a breakthrough is possible, it is terribly exciting.
If you go into science, I think you better go in with a dream that maybe you, too, will get a Nobel Prize. It's not that I went in and I thought I was very bright and I was going to get one, but I'll confess, you know, I knew what it was.
Research can only present data about the past. No one seriously believes that people's answers to hypothetical questions about the future accurately represent their future behaviour; they merely represent a current attitude, which may or may not be translated into future behaviour.
If a sect does officially insist that its structure of belief demands that evolution be false, then no compromise is possible. An honest and competent biology teacher can only conclude that the sect's beliefs are wrong and that its religion is a false one.
I am a very bad scientist. I will do anything to make a human being feel better, even if it's unscientific. No scientist worthy of the name could say such a thing.
I'm enormously interested to see where neuroscience can take us in understanding these complexities of the human brain and how it works, but I do think there may be limits in terms of what science can tell us about what does good and evil mean anyway, and what are those concepts about?
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
The problem with intelligent-design theory, is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet - a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.