Leadership Quote by Thomas R. Cech

A mild sentence with a sharp institutional critique hiding in plain sight. When Thomas R. Cech argues for “practising scientists” leading research institutions, he’s not praising curiosity in the abstract; he’s drawing a line between people who still live inside the experimental grind and those whose power has drifted toward budgets, branding, and risk-management.

The key word is “practising.” It implies science as a craft, not a credential. A practising scientist knows the difference between a flashy, fundable idea and a workable one; between a grant’s storyline and the messy reality of negative results, equipment failures, and long time horizons. That lived experience becomes a governance philosophy: protect exploratory work, tolerate ambiguity, and recognize that the most valuable research often looks inefficient right up until it isn’t.

The subtext is also defensive, and timely. Modern research institutions are increasingly run like complex corporations, where leaders are rewarded for growth metrics, donor optics, and “strategic priorities.” In that environment, scientific judgment can get flattened into administrative consensus. Cech’s phrasing quietly rebukes that drift without demonizing administrators; he’s suggesting that legitimacy and decision quality come from proximity to the work itself.

Context matters: Cech isn’t just any bench scientist; he’s a Nobel-winning biochemist who has operated at the highest levels of academic leadership. The statement reads like hard-earned pragmatism from someone who’s seen how easily incentives skew: short-term publication counts over durable discovery, safe projects over strange ones, managerial polish over intellectual risk. It’s a call for institutions to keep their center of gravity where the science actually happens.