The Queens Arms
201 Harrogate Road
Chapel Allerton
Leeds LS7 3PT (map)
Click here for more details
Who needs science communication?
Monday, 05 October 2009, 08:00 PM - 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...
Prof Steve Jones made the excellent comment on the radio this morning that science and religion do not occupy the same territory, indeed there is no overlap at all. It is like a fight between a tiger and shark. On its own territory each is unassailable, but stray into the domain of the other and defeat is certain.
Dom Rayner (on Tuesday, 26 January 2010, 02:10 PM)
I think Steve Jones must have had his tongue in his cheek. There is no conflict between science and religion but this is not because they occupy separate domains - rather that the domain of religion completely encompasses that of science, which forms a nice logical and (usually) rational corner of the vastly larger domain of faith and human intellectual endeavour.
Paul VINALL (on Tuesday, 02 March 2010, 12:56 PM)
Surely, there is no overlap or conflict between the logical territory of human activity and the spiritual. But we must not confuse the spiritual in our lives with religion. I, personally, derive much spiritual enrichment from art or walking in the dales, others may be from music or Yoga, for example. Similarly, morality is an essential part of our human nature as social animals. In the past religion lay claim to both these areas, with the object of exercising power.
Where science comes in conflict with religion, and there is no point denying it, is over 'dogma & belief'. In science, everything - absolutely, everything - is open to question and proof. Even the laws of thermodynamics have to be proved over and over again with every experiment. Darwin's 'natural selection' is subject to the same test. Doubters rejoice.
Ayman SHELTAWY (on Thursday, 04 March 2010, 01:08 PM)
There is no real conflict as religious belief is purely a personal option and is what the individual chooses to believe or have faith in. Science is seeking to find the truth.
David Broadley (on Monday, 15 March 2010, 05:37 PM)
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.
Michael Burgess (on Wednesday, 02 June 2010, 05:19 PM)
(You must be logged in to join the discussion)
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.
raynerd >> Respond
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.
ashelt >> Respond
raynerd >> Respond
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...
mjburgess >> Respond
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.
wbturnbull >> Respond