One of the problems we've had is that the ICT curriculum in the past has been written for a subject that is changing all the time. I think that what we should have is computer science in the future - and how it fits in to the curriculum is something we need to be talking to scientists to experts in coding and to young people about.

When we see the shadow on our images are we seeing the time 11 minutes ago on Mars? Or are we seeing the time on Mars as observed from Earth now? It's like time travel problems in science fiction. When is now when was then?

Sound science must be our guide in choosing which problems to tackle and how to approach them.

I felt strongly that since the pursuit of good science was so difficult it was essential that the problem being studied was an important one to justify the effort expanded.

The rise of Google the rise of Facebook the rise of Apple I think are proof that there is a place for computer science as something that solves problems that people face every day.

Drill everything mine everything roll back regulations tweak the science expedite permits. Sound familiar? The Republicans offer up more 19th-Century solutions to our 21st-Century energy problems.

It may be that everything the life science companies are telling us will turn out to be right and there's no problem here whatsoever. That defies logic.

We're as clever as we think we are but we'll be a lot cleverer when we learn to use not just one brain but to pool huge numbers of brains. We're at a level technologically where we can share information and think collectively about our problems. We do it in science all the time - there's no reason why we can't do it in other endeavors.

Further the dignity of the science itself seems to require that every possible means be explored for the solution of a problem so elegant and so celebrated.

That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder.