If you look at the purported dangers of salt or fat there is no consensus of support in scientific literature. So I would ask first: 'Is it possible to have an informed government that actually follows the science?' From what I've seen it's not likely.

I started in this racket in the early '70s and when I was president of the Science Fiction Writers of America of which I was like the sixth president I was the first one nobody ever heard of.

So one reason the science educators panic at the first sign of public rebellion is that they fear exposure of the implicit religious content in what they are teaching.

I believe that science fiction is as profound as you want it to be or it can be very simple entertainment and I'm all for very simple entertainment. Every now and then we all need to come home veg-out watch something and not think too deeply about it. It's what you want it to be. We tend to steer clear of being pedantic it's entertainment first otherwise we'd be on a lecture circuit.

When I did 'Battlestar Galactica' it was the first time I really understood science fiction. That was a very political drama but set in spaceships so people didn't really take it seriously. But some really fascinating things were explored in that.

One of the first rules of science is if somebody delivers a secret weapon to you you better use it.

But the first the general public learned about the discovery was the news of the destruction of Hiroshima by the atom bomb. A splendid achievement of science and technology had turned malign. Science became identified with death and destruction.

First I think the science of monetary economics has clearly gotten better.

Many writers upon the science of political economy have declared that it is the duty of a nation first to encourage the creation of wealth and second to direct and control its distribution. All such theories are delusive.

I wrote the very first stories in science fiction which dealt with homosexuality The World Well Lost and Affair With a Green Monkey.