A Quote by Craig Venter

A doctor can save maybe a few hundred lives in a lifetime. A researcher can save the whole world. — © Craig Venter
A doctor can save maybe a few hundred lives in a lifetime. A researcher can save the whole world.
I created a character whose motives were pure and good and she was going to go out and save the whole world. But the truth is, you can't save the whole world, but you can save one. And that was the whole thrust of the novel - to save just one.
Women must begin to "save" themselves and their daughters before they "save" their husbands and their sons; before they "save" the whole world.
What does one save for, anyhow? For a few tired hours at the end of life when one sits and counts dollars? Or do we save so that those last years will not be mentally barren or esthetically shabby? I try to save a few things to furnish my mind decently, on the theory that no auctioneer can get in there to sell off all the furniture.
I don't know where I am. It's like I'm breaking into a million pieces and there is only one thing I remember: I have to save the Doctor. He always looks different. I always know it's him. Sometimes I think I'm everywhere at once, running every second just to find him. Just to save him. But he never hears me. Almost never. I blew into this world on a leaf. I'm still blowing. I don't think I'll ever land. I'm Clara Oswald. I'm the impossible girl. I was born to save the Doctor.
You can no longer save your family, tribe or nation. You can only save the whole world.
There are two kinds of people in this world, son. Those who save lives, and those who take lives." "And what of those who protect and defend? Those who save lives by taking lives?" "That's like trying to stop a storm by blowing harder. Ridiculous. You can't protect by killing.
We're not on our journey to save the world but to save ourselves. But in doing that you save the world. The influence of a vital person vitalizes.
I think we have the potential to connect the world in a way that can save hundred of millions of lives. That should be our goal.
You save an old man and you save a unit; but save a boy, and you save a multiplication table.
If my house was on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I'm going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down. We either save this country or we do not.
Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.
You don't have to either choose to save the world or become a sellout. I say to people, "Listen dude, how can you save the world if you can't even save yourself? Why don't you try to affect one person's life who's in your life, and that would be historic."
A friend told me that each morning when we get up we have to decide whether we are going to save or savor the world. I don't think that is the decision. It's not an either-or, save or savor. We have to do both, save and savor the world.
If it could save a person's life, could you find a way to save ten seconds off the boot time? If there were five million people using the Mac, and it took ten seconds extra to turn it on every day, that added up to three hundred million or so hours per year people would save, which was the equivalent of at least one hundred lifetimes saved per year.
If I could be a doctor and save lives I would, but I can't so I sing songs.
You have to save the habitat, you have to save the population - not individual animals. What you want to save is the foundation, the basic infrastructure from which resources are produced. You can't save Fifi and Boo-Boo and Thumper.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!