I will have a large Work and Tonic please

My twitter feed, which suffers a great deal from my tendency to argue with people and not allow others the last word ( Muttley syndrome) popped up a link to this article today.
My first reaction was this:

@SciBry @deevybee only someone with a low teaching load believes that

— Inky Thehorse (@inky_r) July 14, 2015

which elicited this:

@inky_r @deevybee Most scientists don't teach.

— Bryan Gaensler (@SciBry) July 14, 2015

To which I called Bollocks. Huge sweaty bollocks.
But you see this is a matter of perspective.  In america this may be true, though I have to say that my friend, who has been Head of Chem Eng. at one of the top American Uni's routinely complains about his teaching load.  But it was asserted that most research was not done in Uni's but in Medical research laboratories.  If I understood correctly.
Now I suspect this may be a bit medicocentric but I am not in a position to judge the American system.  I will let others do so.
However from a European, and specifically ( I speak from where I have experience) UK, French and Swiss perspective, the idea that scientists do not teach is...unreal.
In the UK the vast majority of research is done in Universities. I can say that with moderate confidence.  It came about during the 80s when places like Shell, Boots, Pfizer etc. began applying the 80:20 rule, closing down commercial research centres and contracting out through PACE awards, KTI or other uni collaboration in order to get the research done off-site.  The UK government does run centralised laboratories, a list is here but note the list is quite small and these labs tend to be open access facilities like Diamond Light at Harwell.  They collaborate with Uni and commercial research but are relatively lightly staffed in and of themselves.  Think of them as a shared fumehood for much of the time.  Of course Rothamstead etc. are exceptions, but the number of staff at those places rarely rivals a big, or even moderately sized Uni.  and there are far more Unis out there.
And before you say it, teaching-only unversities are a very very rare thing in the UK because research is a cash cow (30% of budget) that funds teachng etc due to the extortionate overheads charged. (One institution I worked at insisted that after a grant had been costed an on-charge of 45% of the total (including equipment and consumables) be added to cover Uni expenses.  Everywhere has some on-charge, that one was just the most eyewatering I have seen)
The vast majority of staff at universities are academic.  This is true of the science departments as well.  I can say without a shadow of doubt that most scientists in the UK work in an academic institution.  And that means there is teaching going on.
So who does the teaching? Now as ever Oxbridge does it slightly differently because they are a bunch of inbred throwbacks who think the world looks like Hogwarts. (I worked in Cambridge for a while, believe me).  But here is how it works.
In the UK the basic unit of independent science is the Lecturer.  Thats the lowest grade that is likely to be a PI on a grant.  Professor is a very senior title, unlike in the US, normally a department head.

A lecturer will have been employed after having done a couple of years postdocing and will be expected to submit a successful grant application and get some research done very quickly.  Some institutions employ teaching fellows but this is mainly a dead end job and nobody wants to do it unless they have given up on advancement.
Lecturers, as the name suggests, are employed by the university to teach.  But they are, notoriously, graded on their research.  Most junior Lecturers will still be getting their hands dirty in the lab, trying to get the initial results to pump prime research.  If they get grants in they will normally try to employ a PhD student, or a postdoc, to do the research properly.  I would not count PhD students as scientists, they are embryo scientists.  But even so PhD students are often required to demonstrate in labs or take tutorial sessions (supervisions if you are somewhere posh) which is teaching.  You see I count student contact hours as teaching (undergraduate students that is).  So do most Uni contracts.
Postdocs are definitely scientists in my book, and postdocs definitely teach.  It is often a didactic requirement of the grant.  Most of them want to do it because it is good on the CV for becoming a lecturer.
Now s you move up through Senior Lecturer, reader, Principle lecturer, Professor the teaching load varies, but it rarely disappears.  when it does it is normally because the Prof has money enough to Buy Out his teaching hours, which then gets spread onto a plethora of postdocs etc.  However many institutions have rules against complete buyouts.  This is certainly true at ETH for example.  Also students, who in the UK increasingly want to dictate what they are paying for, do not take kindly to being told the lecture course by famous Professor X will instead be taught by Igor, the guy who cleans the gunk out of the Chicken Soup machine.
I have worked at both the top and the bottom of the UK market.  In both places all lecturers taught unless lots of money, which is increasingly rare.  In one place I had 25 contact hours a week, plus marking etc. (that's a hell of a lot) and was STILL expected to be rated on my research.  Do that 9-5 I dare you.
I think the basic point here is that the European system is very different from the US one, if indeed most scientists do not teach in the US.