I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.

I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

Questions have arisen about the policing of science. Who is responsible for the policing? My answer is: all of us.

Questions have also arisen about AIDS being transmitted to hemophiliacs via blood transfusions.

As history has shown, pure science research ultimately ends up applying to something. We just don't know it at the time.

I have always believed that technology should do the hard work - discovery, organization, communication - so users can do what makes them happiest: living and loving, not messing with annoying computers! That means making our products work together seamlessly.

It is actually crazy because with our wrestling career, our coaches were always blown away by our timing, and they always remarked how our chemistry and timing is always perfect. Just being twins, we have that. We don't have to talk; we don't have to communicate. It just happens.

Ribofunk indicates a focus on biology as the upcoming big science in the way that physics was for the last 50 or 100 years. If you look for a biological thread throughout science fiction, you can find it, but it's a very small percentage of the total. That's been changing in the last few years.