Ideas

Next venue

The Queens Arms

201 Harrogate Road
Chapel Allerton
Leeds LS7 3PT (map)

Click here for more details

Login

News

Links

Leeds Salon

Headingly Cafe

The Café Scientifique

The Café Scientifique started last May in Leeds. I happened to read the obituary of Marc Sautet, the founder of the French 'Café Philosophique', where people meet to discuss philosophy in cafes on Sunday mornings. It occurred to me that the British would never take this up, as they don't take philosophy seriously enough, but they might be prepared to discuss science - a subject they respect.

So in a local wine bar, I advertised an evening - "where, for the price of a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, anyone can come to discuss the scientific ideas and developments which are changing our lives". On the first evening, with a speaker on Darwinism, I had no idea whether the audience might consist only of myself and a few friends.

Bringing Science Back Into culture

When the neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks was asked what was the purpose of the Café Scientifique he immediately replied 'To bring science back into culture.' His response is reminiscent of a campaign by the Spectator magazine of London, whose aim was to bring 'philosophy out of the closets and libraries, schools and colleges, to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea-tables and in coffee-houses'.

But the Spectator campaign dates from 1725 - almost three hundred years ago. Why does science, (or 'natural philosophy'), need to be discussed in public places now? After all we have newspapers, magazines, popular science books by the tonne, radio, TV and the internet. Surely it is reasonable to assume that the idea of sitting around in cafes belongs to a bygone age?

My own experience suggests otherwise. In part, the genesis of the Café Scientifique in Britain, in 1998, was due to my profound irritation with television. Almost weekly, it seemed to me, I was reading about challenging ideas in and around science which were not reflected on TV. I had 25 years experience of science and medical programmes, from the popular end of the spectrum to the most esoteric. Ideas had always been the mainstay of such material, but ideas were getting increasingly difficult to sustain in argument, in the face of concerns about demographics, publicity and 'impact' - the language of television executives.

3 supermodels

There are many different ways of conducting Cafés Scientifiques, and the idea is flexible enough to include many more variations. However to-date three models seem to dominate the European scene, each born in a different country - France, Denmark and the UK.

The French Model

The pioneering French Cafés started in 1997 and 1998 in Caen, Paris and Lyon. Independently, many other towns developed their cafes and there are now at least 20 in France. They are generally funded by local institutions, university, city or regional authorities and there is no central organisation, although the Paris region has a local organisation. There are two main philosophies; (1)'outreach' by scientists from universities who explain their work to the public and invite questions and discussion; (2) more political and social discussion about the practise and ethics of science today.

Cafe scientifique in Britain

It is almost exactly five years since the first Café Scientifique was started in Britain. At that time we were not aware of any similar movement in France, so the idea seems to have been 'in the air', waiting to be developed, almost simultaneously, in different countries - rather like some scientific discoveries.

At present there are fifteen active Cafés with new ones starting every month. This presentation will be an overview of the situation in Britain, and it will consist of three parts - a brief history, a guide to the present situation, and, since we are in France, a final section on philosophy.

Let me start with a personal reminiscence of the first Café, which started in a local wine-bar. The speaker was a local philosopher who had criticised the idea of 'The Selfish Gene', by Richard Dawkins, and instead argued that culture was more important than genetics in understanding humans. I had no idea how many people might turn up and I was pleasantly surprised to see over 30 people there. But my pleasure turned to horror when the speaker came out with a lot of quasi-academic jargon, as though lecturing to an audience of students. I thought the evening was going to be a disaster.

Recent Comments

The Roots of Language
The Roots of Language
Monday, 19 July 2010, 08:00 PM
Dr. Katie Slocombe from York University
Dr. Katie Slocombe spoke at a recent conference in Holland about the evolution of language. Her previous and current work focusses on chimpanzee vocal communication and, in particular, the extent to which our closest living relatives can use calls to refer to objects and events in the external environment and the psychological mechanisms underlying call production. This behavioural work is conducted with both wild and captive populations of chimpanzees.

The debate about language seems to be moving fast. Whereas some years ago Chomsky’s theory of language seemed universal, there is now debate about the relation between gestures and the spoken word, and also about the relative importance of animals or birds in the development of human language.

I would agree with Dr Slocombe that chimps, etc do not have language. The ability of humans to express an infinity of concepts and thoughts is so different from a chimp's ability to say where food is or to beware of a predator that it is right to label that human ability with its own word. Chimps can communicate; humans have language.
raynerd >> Respond
GM crops: real benefits, real concerns?
GM crops: real benefits, real concerns?
Monday, 07 June 2010, 08:00 PM
Professor Howard Atkinson and Dr. Peter Unwin, Centre of Plant Sciences, University of Leeds
Over 1 billion people are chronically hungry including 30% of all Africans and we need 50% more food to be produced within 20 years to feed the growing world population. We have little more land available globally for productive cropping and the yield from some agricultural land may fall. There are several key questions we must address:

- Can GM crops help feed the world and what are the real limitations to ensuring food security?

- What are the risks for us and the environment?

- Are the concerns real and can they be managed?

- Is this science irrelevant to European needs?

- How would being a hungry African rather than a well fed European alter your viewpoint?

Scientists have a duty to listen to the concerns of society while meeting the challenge of providing new, beneficial crops that are safe to eat and ensure a healthy environment. Surely UK science must contribute to assuring future food security for all.
I hate to speak against Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on this issue of GM foods, because I largely agree with them and actively support them on all other issues. However, in this statement about blight-resistant potatoes, notice the frequent use of the words ‘possible’ and ‘would’ etc.
Much of the contra GM arguments are hypothetical and trade on science fiction fears, not supported by actual hard evidence. Further, had it been possible to easily solve this particular problem by selective breeding and hybridisation, it would have long been achieved.
In this debate, as indeed is the case with many others concerning science, we have to distinguish between two distinct issues: the science itself on the one hand, and its social use on the other. It is the latter that is often controversial and indeed reprehensible. I see nothing wrong with socially responsible application of GM food technology, but I am highly opposed to its use to exploit poor countries. This debate can be extended to almost any topic of science and technology (take the internet as an example).
This is why we as scientists and the public must be constantly engaged in this dialogue, and it is the reason why I appreciate the role of Café Scientifique as a platform for this debate.
ashelt >> Respond
The debate on GM crops is clearly highly polarized. At the Cafe yesterday Prof Atkinson and Dr Unwin said that GM crops were safe to eat, were necessary to feed the developed world and especially the developing world, made obvious economic sense and provided environmental benefits (better biodiversity and less use of chemicals). On Radio 4's Today programme 12 hours later a Friends of the Earth spokesperson said that the blight-resistant trial potato crop near Norwich is not safe to eat (because of possible antibiotic resistance), is hugely expensive, delivers nothing that conventional selective breeding and hybridization can't deliver, will lead to increased use of chemical sprays as parasites develop resistance to the plant's defences, and would harm biodiversity. Clearly both cannot be true. The media will continue to broadcast, even promote, sceptical views like those of FOTE. The question that wasn't answered at the Cafe yesterday was how the scientists / GM industry can generate the trust necessary to overcome UK public and media opposition to GM crops - especially when it seems that ownership of GM intellectual property resides in a small number of large corporations who, it is feared, can hold farmers to ransom for their seed.
raynerd >> Respond
Who needs science communication?
Who needs science communication?
Monday, 05 October 2009, 08:00 PM
Graeme Gooday , Professor of History of Science & Technology at the University of Leeds
There is a lot of science communication about nowadays, and it is increasingly taught by universities too. But who is it really for, and what is it meant to achieve? Does the public really "need" to know more about science? Or is it more that scientists need it to ensure that their research can still flourish in an increasingly challenging socio-economic climate? Insofar as the public does need to know more about science, does it actually get the kind of science communication it deserves? Is it ever legitimate, for example, to present new scientific projects as essential to preserve humankind from apocalypse, or as destined to free us from bodily infirmity? This talk will explore these questions, and suggest that maybe we've been here before...
What? Religion is not "the spiritual". Religion is not the exclusive monopoly on 'spiritual affairs'. Religion entails objective claims about the nature of the universe, eg. there is a supernatural; god created/designed/etc. life; god created the universe.

A universe where life was created by a omnipotent intelligence is *empirically very different* from a universe without one.

Religion is not some nebulous label which means you're a "good, honest, in-touch person".

Religion makes claims about the nature of the universe which conflict with the physicalism, science and evidence.
mjburgess >> Respond
Synthetic Biology – A Brave New World?
Synthetic Biology – A Brave New World?
Monday, 15 March 2010, 08:00 PM
Dr Bruce Turnbull
Imagine a world in which we could make fuels or pharmaceuticals in the same way we ferment malt to make beer. A world in which materials as strong as steel are made without industrial waste, or artificial viruses can be used to administer anti-cancer drugs without the usual side-effects of chemotherapy. Synthetic biology promises new technologies that could change our lives through the construction of new biological parts and devices, and the redesign of existing biological organisms for new purposes.

So, how can we redesign living organisms to perform useful functions? Are we on the point of creating artificial life in a laboratory? Dr Bruce Turnbull, a synthetic chemical biologist from the University of Leeds will provide an overview of synthetic biology – the possibilities, practicalities, perils and potential profits.
You might have noticed that one of my questions (are we on the point of creating artificial life in a laboratory?) has maybe been answered this week! Craig Venter's team have announced the creation of an artificial bacterium they have called "Synthia" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm).
So will this impressive breakthrough change the world? In my opinion, probably not... As I described in my talk, it is already possible to do some amazing things using natural bacteria and yeast. However, Venter's work definitely shows how powerful the synthetic biology techniques have become!
wbturnbull >> Respond

Site design by Phil Exell