Donald Kennedy Quotes (16 Quotes)

We assumed a certain level of familiarity there and I wasn't about to argue with an agreement among co-authors about order. I don't like complimentary co-authorship and would have asked, I think, if it had occurred to me.

We carefully considered the implications of publishing this research and concluded that the knowledge we're gaining to potentially protect public health far outweighs the risk of working with the virus.

I think it's a 'sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander' proposition. If you're going to be a full co-author and share in the credit for an accomplishment, then you have to take the fall if it's wrong.

The process benefits enormously from the kind of candor that results when referees know that their identity is held in confidence.

He got out with just the clothes on his back.

We are going to be giving that paper careful scrutiny, guided by what we can learn in the course of time about the 2005 one and what went wrong there.

As Science celebrates its 125th birthday, we've recognized that an examination of science's outstanding mysteries also reflects its tremendous accomplishments.

Since we do not yet have sufficient information to proceed with the retraction, we are issuing this statement so that readers are aware that concerns have been raised about the validity of the data in this paper.

Today, science's most profound questions address some of the largest phenomena in the cosmos and some of the smallest. We may never fully answer some of these questions, but we'll advance our knowledge and society in the process of trying,

This is really a twin tragedy, both for the people who were misled over there, and for those of us who were misled over here.

At the time of publication, we felt on ethically solid ground.

There's no possibility at all of that. It's held under the kinds of conditions the Centers for Disease Control specifies for select agents.

He has made it much more of a place that has a plan and a vision about its own role and its own future, ... Plainly, Caltech has flourished. I dreamed he would have gone on forever.

It is clear the authors are going to need to provide more details as to where the errors lie and how they arose.

Scientific fraud is not new to us. It is not rare, but it is not common either. It happens at a frequency that's high enough to bother certainly people in the United States Congress, and probably others as well. But it is not frequent enough to declare that because the peer review system cannot reliably detect it, something has to be done about the peer review system. I think the peer review system is not quite fine, but absolutely the best thing we have.

In a way it was a bad year for evolution, given what happened in Kansas and Dover and lots of other places. But at the same time, it was a really good year for evolution research, really in every area of biology.