« A false economy | Main | Insane in the membrane! »

Talk talk


A few of my colleagues are at the 2006 Society for Neuroscience meeting this week, and I think it's really interesting that the SfN invited architect Frank Gehry to speak at their meeting (in the "Dialogues between Neuroscience and Society" lecture/section). This isn't the first time they've invited a famous non-scientist to speak at the annual meeting - the Dalai Lama of Tibet spoke last year - and it's not entirely clear if the lecture was a success: one neuro-blogger wrote that she "throuroughly [sic] enjoyed seeing the pictures of his work ... [though he did not] attempt to draw his narrative into the realm of neuroscience."

This got me thinking - who could a large chemical society (like the ACS) invite to speak in a "Dialogues between Chemistry and Society" seminar? The late R. Buckminster Fuller would have been an obvious choice for chemists interested in nanotechnology, and the late Rachel Carson could have spoken in front of the Environmental Chemistry division... As for living non-scientists, maybe Tracy Kidder could speak in the Computers in Chemistry division?

If you were in charge of a "Dialogues between Chemistry and Society" seminar, who would you invite and why?

Joshua


Joshua Finkelstein (Associate Editor, Nature)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1327

Comments

What made you think of Tracy Kidder?

"Dialogues between Chemistry and Society" demand Poppa Carl Djerassi. The inventor of the Pill broached the first ray of hope for humanity to end war from population pressure. Both God and government actively hate Poppa Carl. In both cases, the worst possible solution to any problem is one that works. The Pill is safe, effective, and inexpensive. The Pill is anathema.

Poppa Carl is Fine Artsy, too.

I'd invite Dr Gillian McKeith PhD for her pioneering work bringing awareness of the role of photosynthesis in the human gut to the attention of the British public.

I'm a big fan of "Soul of a New Machine," but I just wondered why *specifically* Kidder?

Daen - thanks for the follow-up question... Kidder popped into my head because I really enjoyed reading Mountains Beyond Mountains last year and recently read House (when I was away on holiday last week).

(On a related note - if you're in the Boston area this week, Tracy Kidder and Dr. Paul Farmer will be speaking about Mountains Beyond Mountains at Harvard's Sanders Theatre on October 20th).

Sir James Black who discovered drugs for two major therpeutic clasess.

Dialogue with society? What dialogue with society?

Why is it that Chemistry rarely makes to the general media? The only science that makes it seems to be drug discovery (without any mention of chemistry), Astronomy, Robotics (well that is more like engineering) and Animal Biology.

Perhaps the speaker might help us create a dialogue with society.

Well, I think the best choice might be someone who works in the general media in science shows. Eg, a producer of Nova, David Suzuki, the folks from the Daily Planet (Canada),- even the great Bill Nye would do.

What are their opinions on why Chemistry is out of the general media? How could we make chemistry more palatable and better understood?

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thescepticalchymist at boston dot nature dot com '.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 1046 total comments,
the most recent were:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2