I'm sometimes shocked by the way scientists huddle behind closed doors to discuss important research results without informing the public about them at all. Academic caution is often preferable to premature publication, but fear can also destroy opportunities.

Often people run out of gas before they write the summary and conclusions. This part of the paper, or talk, is what will remain uppermost in the reader's/listener's mind. I want to know where this work leaves us (i. e. the summary) and where does it leas us (i. e. what are the questions raised by this work, i. e. the conclusions).

The false starts and futilities of the past years proved themselves to be groundwork, foundations, laid in the dark but well laid.

Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.

Feminist Gloria Steinem has called research on sex differences “anti-American.” She says, “It is what is keeping us down.” According to Gloria Allred, such research simply should not be done. “This is harmful and dangerous to our daughters’ lives, to our mothers’ lives, and I am very angry about it.” Feminist critics have a term for neurologists who study sex differences: “neurosexists.

Emeritus John Farrington said, "Sometimes God's creation does not yield to scientific research without great effort and our results are not always what we would like or predicted.

I independently produce scientific advancements to share with everyone, and that is over seven billion people!

Memorizing and regurgitating are not science. Real science is a constant investigation of the unknown.

When one hears about acts of extraordinary bravery in combat, it is usually a sign that the battle has not been going terribly well. For when wars unfold according to plan and one's own side is winning, acts of exceptional individual heroism are rarely called for. Bravery is required mostly by the desperate side.

Don't study science. Play with it.