Science to understand everyday life
Diego Golombek Interview with Ariel Ruiz Mondragón
From the beginning, man has sought to understand the world and explain the phenomena around him, from his experiences most mundane to the workings of the universe. For this intellect was refined to result in more complete tool that has allowed to satisfy their curiosity in the most serious and stronger: science.
Science tries to explain not only the great mysteries of life and the cosmos, but also is used to know and understand routine aspects that some may seem trivial because of its lack or anything extraordinary. But even in that aspect its products are highly appreciated.
On some of these topics (sex, love, cooking and culinary derivatives) Diego Golombek published last year in Buenos Aires a couple of fun volumes: Sex, drugs and biology (and a bit of rock and roll) , and, in tandem with Paul Schwarzbaum, third edition, revised and augmented scientific Cook. When science gets in the kitchen , both books published by Siglo XXI Editores Argentina and Editorial Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. About
issues on which both books deal chatted with the author: the state of the popularization of science in Latin America, the relationship of science and large industries, the contribution of science in the fight against discrimination, the effects of love on scientists, the possible manipulation of human reproductive performance, culinary transformations caused by synthetic chemicals and changes in matters of sex, love and cooking has led to the scientific-technological revolution. Golombek
a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires and professor at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Is a major American popularizers of science, for which she has won awards including the Nobel Konex, National Science Award B. Houssay Award, best book of Education 2005 (awarded by the Foundation Book) and the Ig Nobel Prize (awarded by Harvard University). He is currently director of the library books "that barks Science, published by Siglo XXI Editores.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why publish these books?, Why edit the collection "Science barking?
Diego Golombek (DG): The belief that science is science when communicating, when account is made, and consider the dissemination of science as a part of the profession. One such scientist has to do experiments, find results, reports, publications, training students, but also has to have this for many reasons.
One simple reason is that scientists are in the public system: we pay with taxes, and is as accountable. Some vaccines are accountable inventing or making issues that go directly to the public, others can be accountable by counting the kitchen of science: how things are handled in science, in accessible language without losing the rigor.
Another reason is quite hedonistic, me and the authors of the collection will cause much pleasure to write and fun to have (I hope readers in the fun). It's a slightly more selfish reason, but no less valid: we like it and cause us pleasure.
AR: Yes, and besides, as you say, science can become a useless knowledge if not disclosed.
DG: Exactly.
AR: You know enough of popularization of science not only in Argentina but also in Latin America. When you make the metaphor with Don Quixote, say that science barks does not bite but rides. In this regard, and in general terms, how he rides today the release of science in Latin America, both in academic circles and in the media?
DG: In absolute terms, more or less, the poor see and we lack a lot. In relative terms, given to think and be optimistic, because it really has changed much in recent years in our countries. I think Argentina and Mexico are good examples.
For various reasons the situation has changed, because scientists have changed their stance on disclosure and no longer considered just a waste of time, but they think it's important to have what they do, especially the younger generation scientists.
On the other hand, the media see that there is interest in this disclosure, including commercial interest, for there can make a supplement or a TV show, and people see it.
The third point is that the public has realized that it interests you. There was a hidden demand, unknown, both for those who could produce the information to those who receive it. Then the offer was growing while demand. That's pretty interesting.
Either way there is much to do, many outstanding efforts to make scientists more interested in this, to professionalize the popularization of science. This is quite important in Mexico, because here are professional communicators, while in other parts of Latin America do not exist. Also there are in Brazil, in Argentina there are science journalists, not necessarily professional communicators.
Then I see two things: we need much, but today there is much about what was a few years ago, which provides for optimism.
AR: Now the conversation approaches to the books. Science applies to everyday issues very, such as sex, love and cooking. Sex has a lot to do with beauty, of course. Does science have helped in some way, to shape and forge the tastes of the people?
DG: I do not know if you model, but to understand them, which is fascinating because it is finally understand ourselves, we understand why something is attractive, pleasant or unpleasant. We tend to think that this is a matter almost purely cultural or social, there are fashions, which we model clothes or gateway, and pictorial models, art and even in the kitchen, in which science has little to say.
Admittedly, there is much social and cultural about it, but the interesting thing is that there is plenty of vaccine, much can explain another kind of science. For example, the theme of the attraction of a man and a woman one might think: "I like it because it looks like an actress I like." But there are other issues that support strictly biological attraction, and has to do with evolution. The phenomena that are sexually attractive are the phenomena that ultimately lead to evolutionary mandate to partner with someone and make a couple to have children, which is what you want any bugs that crawl walk or fly, including humans. Then
signals certain proportions in the body, certain features of the face, symmetry, signs of physical force in the male, etc., are signals that the brain unconsciously sees and interprets as beautiful, because they are signals that increase likely to have a couple and have healthy children. This is what occurs in the common of all nature, what's fascinating is that humans bring a bit of that and we can have an attraction beyond reproductive purposes, which does not occur in nature. We get to fall in love, and you will know what good is love in evolutionary terms, because people fall in love and not having children goes around and following long.
There are many hypotheses, one can speculate that you fall in love and is a partner in a stable manner, so that children will grow healthier and more secure, and therefore are more likely to, in turn, reproduced and have children, that's what he wants evolution. Then it
different perspective on things every day, one that we are not accustomed to. I think there science can give us great satisfaction because of the possibility of knowing, to better interpret and even entertain me with these questions ourselves with things that happen to us all the time.
AR: In that sense I also interested to see how science has cooperated closely with the industry only indirectly, as in the case you mention: Pasteur, Kellog, Sawyer. Something very interesting is the matter of pheromones. How has the relationship of science with major industries?
DG: Very complicated. If you're going to examples of pharmaceutical industry, the relationship is very complicated and there are serious conflicts. There are conflicts in which certain common standards in public science are not in corporate science, where there are secrets, and pursued a commercial purpose, may pursue heal humanity, but they want to sell remedies. Public science should have no secrets, no permanent conflicts with this, but at the same time and in the right direction, one can feed the other and vice versa. Then
good science policy is one that promotes genuine collaboration within an ethical framework, including basic science and applied science (I'm speaking particularly of pharmaceutical examples.)
On the other hand, is also the human engine of development, not just knowledge per se . In our countries is very important and very valid that there is what is known as basic science, which is know: I have questions because I know the world, I want to rock the world with questions and see what he says. That needs to be supported because the possibilities that arise and applications development.
At the same time to encourage research in specific areas of regional problems such as diseases, energy and food issues, to respond to the quality of life of people.
So it's a delicate balance is not always true in the best way. Finally is a matter of science policy, to allocate resources, to decide priorities without ignoring other things to do. But we must establish some priorities for each government and scientific societies should work together to be the best for each country.
AR: In Sex, drugs and biology address the controversial nature versus culture, that is the question that runs through the book. I like the story of the director of an English university who said that men were more suitable for mathematics and science, and women to the kitchen ...
DG: The president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers.
AR: And recently a Nobel laureate said that blacks are less intelligent ...
DG: Yes, James Watson. Look, luckily they both had to resign, which he still speaks well of the scientific society. All the people who say such silly things, such stupidities, has to resign.
AR: Do you think science is working to combat these trends discriminatory?
DG: Yeah, no doubt. Science is a rational activity that should not be mixed with issues of discrimination, for the reason you do not agree with it. If we consider science as an adventure of thinking and asking questions, anyone who wants to undertake it, is welcome to train.
discrimination on any basis other than the genuine work of smart people who want to strive and advance the science, it is quackery. While science is a human activity, which is not exempt from all human sins of jealousy, competition, careerism, even fraud, these are exceptions. What motivates scientists is still increasing knowledge, with all those condiments inherent in any human activity.
Thus, the discrimination is on its side, and the one that says "blacks are less intelligent", the next day has to give, since it does not how to argue, that to talk about race directly, you have to give up, because the human genome project has shown that there are no races, those who speak of genetic differences between women and men who make few are suitable for one thing and another to another, has to leave because this is not true: they are different and complementary women and men, and fortunately the world is like.
AR: From what you say I was very interested in fighting the myths that you do in your books (but also some that seem to point out that myths are not, as in the example of water that explodes in the microwave). I think that's one of the key battles that have to give the popularization of science: the struggle against the myths and pseudoscience. How can you distinguish a scientific truth of quackery, which is presented to us many times as a result of scientific work?
DG: Science is based on evidence, and based on quackery quacks, in other words. So the important thing is knowing how to find and interpret such evidence supporting certain statements. It seems very rich popular culture has myths, some are true and others not. I find it amusing that science gets in some of them to try to prove or disprove, as an example is that of overheating that can occur from water in the microwave, and indeed it can give a very sharp exothermic reaction which springing up and people can burn.
Other myths: our grandmothers probably did the merengue, the whites whipped in copper pots, because they are better. This has been demonstrated by the chemical, a reaction between copper and albumin makes the meringue more stable.
Some other myths are completely fictitious, and one who loves to cook is that for the meat is juicy in the oven, seal (ie sudden warming in a skillet or on a griddle, supposedly to to close the pores of the meat surface and the water is inside.) This is a lie, it is not true because the meat does not have pores, so there is nothing to close, and then the water will escape the same way. What happens is that the meat will be tastier, and therefore to put in your mouth you to salivate over and you'll seem more juicy.
Then this role of science as "myth collapses or supports, myths, it is crucial, it is very entertaining. That's one way to demonstrate what we want to do with the collection: that science have not only in laboratories, in academia, not only draws on scientific cranks to which nobody understands anything, but the questions you you do in what happens to you in everyday life constantly, either in the kitchen, bath, bed, in the Metro. That's what we want achieve with this collection.
AR: Addressing another issue: Do not you think it has negative effects on scientific love, about people who engage in thought? I say this as one of the books talk about the reactions of the neurochemistry of the brain and you say that inhibit certain brain regions, including one dedicated to critical thinking.
DG: Of course, in the state of love, which is the initial state, when really you're a different person, those first weeks when you are madly in love with someone, you will become another person, one who loses his reasoning ability, it loses some of its capacity care, can not choose correctly. This is supported by laboratory tests in which subjects carried who claims to be in love, as proven because they present a picture of the person they are in love, and something comes on in the brain differently than if they present a picture of anyone else.
To those people who are in state of love, indeed fare poorly when they do tests of cognition, memory-making. But at the same time, scientists are human and hopefully fall in love and it lasts the state of love as well as any other. In that state they will very well the experiments, but are perks the trade.
AR: In the book about sex make several comparisons between human beings and many animals, from the spider to the bonobo. In matters of sex and love, is there some characteristic that distinguishes human beings from other animals?
DG: The truth of all, being absolute, the most important thing is to consider that humans are animals like any other. If we start to spin finer culture, apparently, is a human phenomenon: we could not talk about animal culture (although it is very difficult to define the concept of culture), although animal communication, there is language, there are some very complex behaviors someone might interpret as a culture. Within
reproductive behavior, it seems that humans have certain characteristics that make them unique. For example, it's what we talked about earlier: attraction rather than a reproductive phenomenon that does not exist or does not tend to exist in nature. Monogamy, though not universal among humans (we know not), is quite specific among humans. There are also examples in nature, but are a minority.
Another feature that distinguishes humans from other species is that their reproductive behavior escapes the rules of fertility. Can not be attracted to the female to a male or beyond a reproductive purpose. For example, the human female has a menstrual cycle of 28 days, three of which are fertile. But we do not get together with human only in those days: we have attraction and sex at other times of the cycle, and even outside the ring. May even prove attractive a woman is past menopause. That's pretty unique to humans.
Similarly, speaking of women's menstrual cycle, something we share with other animals, many animals show female sexual receptivity, show that they are fertile, change color, they emit certain smells, put in certain positions. The human, no, you do not walk down the street saying "This woman must be ovulating, that menstruating, those other so and so." One does not realize if they are fertile, but unaware of the time there are signs of ovulation, such as "unconscious odors" (as quotes, as they are not smell because they are not so aware), as called pheromones . A very interesting experiment is that if one measures, using methods very precise and small, left and right sides of women, is little more symmetrical at the time of ovulation, and the symmetry is subconsciously understood as something more attractive. Therefore, if it is beyond the mandate of the appeal of pure play, there are also signs that the attraction is greatest in reproductive times.
AR: Near the end this book where you talk about rock stars, explain that the book seeks to understand some of the most basic issues that shape us, such as love and sex. But what dangers can get to run with a full understanding of reproductive performance and even their possible manipulation? We also ask the question even in terms of bioethics.
DG: In principle I absolutely none because I understand that never finished. Subjectivity is what more we represent, and if science is getting into the subjectivity in the study of consciousness, the biological basis of morality, the study of thought (that is messing with our subjectivity), there is something there that is beyond science, and fortunately so. There is a mystery that I believe will remain so because we will continue to be subjective and entities in constant change.
On the other hand, is a matter of orders of organization, hierarchical orders: we are trying to understand a very complex command like us, for ourselves. Our brain is the tool to understand our brain. Something makes a noise there, because to understand a need microscopes microscopic cell, we have no brain Macroscope to understand, but every time we know better.
should be noted that there is a position that has never been lost in the history and present: a position, perhaps somewhat conservative, fear of progress. There was a group in England, the Luddites, named after Ned Ludd, who was a guy who was afraid to progress because it would completely dehumanize. This attitude is perfectly normal and quite common in society. In surveys of public perception of science in general are questions of how much to support science, if science is used to help (say it is wonderful), and immediately makes another: no is that science also has its risks, is to dehumanize us and we will become machines? Then, the same people who said science was wonderful, says yes. We have very clear about the role of science.
However, science as the adventure of knowing, of which we are speaking, is wonderful. Some people think that knowing poetic phenomena, knowledge of nature, knowing a sunset, knowing the stars, take away poetry, take away beauty. I think it's quite the opposite: the knowledge adds beauty, knowing how the world, we know ourselves adds beauty and also adds it to the world. Back to a phenomenon known universe, and not a phenomenon that we are distressed because it is unknown.
the beginning (and this is not mine, but Marcelino Cereijido) the evolutionary force of anguish against the unknown is great because it makes us invent things to know: inventing light to know the dark. That takes you to learn more and more, it can not frighten us because that would stop the progress, which is impossible. In this sense I am quite positivist positivism but is a bit dated at this point, besides that great wars have ended relativists, although they still exist, especially from certain schools of social sciences to discuss reality itself. There are things that if you do science, you can not put into question: there is actually no data. If you ask you data to nature's given you, these data are unique. Obviously the science as human activity is an activity of interpretation, and there we have to fight among themselves and discuss, and meanwhile, the phenomena of postmodernism and relativism ends have nothing to do with science.
AR: It seems very complete description of the provision of food science Cook, and very funny. Have you thought about delving beyond the preparation of food, that food effects have on health? There is also the issue of eating habits, I think.
DG: The question is perfect, and that is purposely not in the book because we are specialists in scientific cooking but nothing in nutrition. This is an established discipline and good literature. We did not want to get into that because I do not know about that.
's basically reinterpreting existing texts, and we're not involved with nutrition. Also, get the nutrition and health topics of food in the style we want the library has, the more solemn again. So we wanted to chemistry, physics, biology and everyday cooking. Maybe at some time in the library has a book on nutrition for someone who can handle the subject well. But education needs to be done on this subject I have no doubt.
AR: There is a part of the book where you talk about sweeteners, synthetic substances, sodium cyclamate, for example. You could also mention to GM. Do you think these new substances and cultures to change the kitchen?
DG: It's not the same to talk about issues synthetic sweeteners such as certain that GM food. These are exactly alike, and could not recognize nutritionally non-GM food. Basically this is an impressive advance of biotechnology, with some care should be encouraged and valued for what it is, is allowing relatively poor regions of the planet may have crops as they had never dreamed, in addition to pest control. You can not distinguish them from non-transgenic, unless the object of what you add to a plant or animal that is something nutritional, for example, you want to have more vitamins, or you want to milk a cow produces a hormone growth, and there you are going to distinguish itself for the better. Welcome be the GM.
In the case of foods, condiments or more synthetic, the situation is different: yes change the way to cook, how to approach a culinary phenomenon. The issue of sweetening is complicated, because social influences: the look that we have about ourselves and our body also influences an evolutionary question. Why is there an obesity epidemic in the world? Because we are not prepared for the diet we have. We are all prepared to live in the forest, the jungle, in caves, so that cost us long to find an energy source rich in carbohydrates, sugar. We are ready to have every so often we catch a mammoth and this month we gorge, and then not knowing when we can have another type of food. For this possibility we waste now, to open the fridge and eat ice cream with lots of sugar, our bodies are not evolutionarily adapted and do not know driving. The result of this is obesity. Then
sweeteners
respond a bit to it: a getting used to certain tastes that historically did not exist, so that now have serious nutritional problems that can lead to very serious illness such as obesity, then had to make some replacements synthetic way that was not so serious. And then the sweeteners, which have their own problems and have bad press. But to have problems with them you should eat very high doses of saccharin, aspartame and cyclamate, would need take you one hundred cans of Coca Cola light .
AR: Finally, how have changed sex, love, cooking, which has brought us the scientific-technological revolution?
DG: There are definitely changes. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, centuries of technological advance (rather than scientific) enormous, unprecedented and far greater than all the preceding centuries. This influenced the comfort, quality of life, influenced reduce social inequality (though not resolved, we have particular problems in our countries) has helped increase life expectancy, improve food and so on.
Possibly the greatest impact of technology on everyday life that has changed is the sense of time. Everything happens faster, we are in a hurry (especially in city life, but also in the field occurs) in the media that bombard us constantly, and so on. All that has changed the time we dedicate to various activities, from the interpersonal to professional work, leisure, sleep and wakefulness. This has the result in tasks such as cooking or passionate relationships, partner relationships, the time we dedicate to the love and affection, which is complicated by other issues that demand our attention.
Again: we are not developmentally ready for that so many stimuli bombarding us constantly. We are prepared to care that we do not eat, set up something to eat, ride a partner with whom to be happy and have kids. Suddenly the technology forces us to deal with a huge amount of stimulation that did not exist. That changes the direction of time, which changes throughout the rest of our lives: cooking, love, sex, communications, language, sleep, work, leisure.
So yes, definitely science and technology are probably inevitable that side effect. I think in the balance, the benefits of science and technology so greatly outweigh their risks and their problems, there is no question of saying "we must stop a little with the scientific and technological advance" because there are still many problems to solve.
