No, cooking is not science !

 I had to answer to a confuse message that I got by email : 

No, cooking is not science !

Or more precisely, one can speak of the "science of the cook", but this means only a knowledge, and this knowledge can include advanced techniques. But in the meaning of sciences of nature, it would be a nonsense to say that cooking is science, as explained well in the introduction of the Handbook of Molecular Gastronomy.

Cooking means "producing food", and this is technique + art

Sciences of nature mean "exploring the mechanisms of phenomena using the scientific method", ie.

- identification of phenomena

- quantitative characterization of phenomena (measurement)

- grouping the data in equations (said "laws" in the past)

-making theories, by the introduction of new concepts quantitatively compatible with the equations

- looking for theoretical consequences of the theory

- experimental tests of the theoretical predictions

- and so on forever, improving and improving the knowledge.

You see : no common activity... but if you study the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during cooking, then this science is called molecular and physical gastronomy, or molecular gastronomy for short.

I add that there is a difference between technique, technology and science.

And of course, I don't make a hierarchy between cooks, technologists and scientists : a good scientist is better than a poor cook, and a good cook is better than a poor scientist.

One question to finish: why do some people want to say what they are not? In big letters, in my office, it is written "you are what you make".

I.e.

if you cook you are a cook, and this is a wonderful (if do it well, if you like it)

If you do technology, you are a technologist, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

If you do scientific research, you are a scientist, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

If you teach, you are a teacher, and this is wonderful (if you do it well, if you like it)

But let's always be clear with our activities: they are better done when the goal is clear and when the method is well suited to reacing the goal, isn't it ?

Making a scientific oral presentation

All what follows is based on mistakes that my young colleagues make almost always!
The goal, here, is to help you avoiding them, and this is simple: yo will usimply need to
- read slowly what I am explaining
- follow the rules one by one.

Let's begin now:

1. You have to make an oral scientific presentation. Don't dive into the ppt immediately !

2. Because there is a difference to make between:
- the content of the talk (science, technology)
- the way the content is communicated.

3. And you cannot make a good communication if what you have to tell is not well defined, if the scientific/technologic content is not clear.
In other words, you CANNOT explain what you don't understand yourself.

4. This is the major mistake usually done: too many people just copy and paste information that they found, and when it is done, they don't ask themselves what it means really, so that when they are lecturing, the describe something that they don't understand.
Let's put it this way: describing something vaguely is not understanding it, and even less explaining it to others.

5. A second pitfall is when there is too much to say in too short a time: to take comparisons, don't try to put 1 L of water into 1 cm3, because it will not fit; don't try to go through the wall, because you will hurt yourself...

6. This is why a rule is  often given (I am sure that you heard it before): 20 minutes, 20 slides including the title, the table of content, and the reference list in the end.
Please, don't try to escape this rule, and do not apply it is a bad way, i.e., in putting too many things in each slide (we shall see later that each slide should contain only one title, and one graph or picture).

7. But when I say that, I am slightly misleading you, because it is in the communication domain.
 The idea is simply that, BEFOREHAND, you have to decide ONE idea that you are going to develop.
Hence a good advice: why wouldn't you simply ask ONE question ?  (for example: how to increase the viscosity of oil using polyphenols (answer: make a gel)? Or why does stale bread soften when heated in an oven (glassy state, crystallization, ...)  And your talk would be organized around answering this question.

8. By the way,  a good advice is to make the oral presentation using FIRST a doc file, with 20 lines (numbered 1 to 20): you write in each what will be the content of the slide (and this will make the title of the slide).
I show how it has to be done :

 

Slide
Content
 

 1
titre of the presensation, logos, authors, date
 

 2
table of content : tell how the question will be discussed
 

 3
The question given (if it is not the title of the ppt), or explained
 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
Conclusions and perspectives :
1. for conclusions, very few, but strong ; it can be the answer to the question given in the introduction, the most important ideas/concepts to remember
2. Prefer Perspectives to  conclusions: you have to open, not to close !
And please, no "thank you for your attention" (they were sleeping and you will make them uncomfortable)
 

20
References : please be sure that you give only good references !
In the alphabetical order
And of course all with the same format :
Author I. Year. Title of the paper, Title of the journal, 5(2), 23-29.

9. Now, of course, in a scientific presentation, one has to explain results only for experiments that are given before, for example. In other words, nobody can understand results of an experiment that is not given.

10. Keep in mind the simple presentation:
- one (structuring) question
- the context : why it is interesting to consider this question; here you will probably have to explain what are the objects that you are discussing (for example, if you speak of gels, why not giving the IUPAC definition of a gel? of if you speak of surface tension, give the definition very clearly... to the others and to yourself)
- how it was studied experimentally (the general strategy of the study)
- the Materials and Methods (the detailed experiments)
- the results
- the discussion of the results

11. Now, also positively, a good advice : don't try to be too general at the beginning, because your audience will not understand anything. Begin with one  good example, and give the generalities later.
For example, if you have to deal with surface tension, take the example of a board (area A) at the surface on a liquide (viscosity η) of thickness e, with an applied force F.

12. Be quantitative, fix ideas with equations and numerical applications (the equivalent of small exercises to test the theoretical knowledge after learning a general important law; e.g. calculating the force needed to move a board 1 m2 at the surface of water, by 1 m in 1 s).
And remember that in science, adjectives and adverbs are "forbidden": they should be replaced by the answer to the question "how much?"

13. Start from the known before moving toward the unknown: remember that discovering a new field of knowledge (your audience) is like discovering a new country: you have to follow a way (or road, lane...) without jumps. In other words, you and your audience will have to make all steps (I mean, putting one foot in front of the other and again).
 
14. Let's now move to the communication part.
Please DO NOT use the templates given by the ppt software, because they are pushing you to the mistake, containing unsignificant objects, such as colored bars that prevent you to put the references at the bottom, large colored area that takes space that you need for your own content !
For each slide, make simply:
- one title (at the top of the slides, always in the same position, at the left or at the center)
- one picture (photo, graph, equation, sequence of equations...)
- a reference in small letters at the bottem of the slide, in small size, either in full or abbreviated  (in this second case, write simply "Author, year", or "Author1 and Author2, year", or "Author1 et al., year").

15. About the characters : please, only one type (font) ! And only two sizes: one for the title of the slide, and one for comments.

16. NEVER write sentences that you would have to say (your audience will try to read it, and when they read, they will not be able to hear you).
If you really need to have text that can help you to present orally, put it in the "comments" part below (not displayed)... but then, no full sentences, only keywords to guide you.

17. Of course, the graph should have the axes given: what it is, units, etc.
The size of the objects that you describe has to be given, and, more generally, numerical information can be given (for example, in a microscopic picture).
Don't add a caption since it  should be the title of the slide (only the reference from the graph/picture is compulsory).

18. If you take a picture from someone (and you have to), it should:
- be from a good paper (please see "How to recognize bad from good papers")
- be along with a credit ("From Author, year", if it was modified, or simply "Author, year" if it unchanged).

19. In order to make the discussion/questions easier,  number the slides at the bottom right...

20. Because remember (and apply) this rule: everybody reads from left to right, and from top to bottom.

21. Don't forget to always show the chemical formulas of compounds of which you say the name (and discuss the reactivity of the compounds)

22. For definitions, use always the internationally accepted one (or say that this is very idiosyncratic from the author of an article that you quote).

23. The next seems a detail, but it is indeed very important, because one recognizes the scientific quality after details: remember that oils and fats are not made of fatty acids, but of triglycerides; and proteins are not made of amino acids, but of aminoacid residues; don't speak of glucose, but of D-glucose ; and when you draw chemical formula, use always the same representation.

24. Be sure that your audience knows enough mathematics: gradient, for example. Don't hesitate to explain them.

25. No vague sketch when discussing chemistry: we need the exact object, with all atoms (except perhaps some H), so that we can see the electrons in excess).

26. References should ALWAYS be  good ones. And from scientific journals, not popularization internet sites, for example. And figures as well.

27. Details about layout :
- Spelling !
- Alignments
- Turning spaces (the same space around an object such a a logo in a corner)
- remember the 2/3-1/3 rule : twice the space over a title than between the title and the text to which it corresponds
- make a pdf and not only ppt, because in the past, there were problems.

28. When showing the slides, don't move your hands erratically. Instead put your fingers  on each object that you are describing verbally. Yes, touch the board, putting your finger on each object that you discuss (and please don't move it while you remain on the same object; also if using a pointer, avoid absolutely moving it around, swirling! You can also hold a pen, for example, in order to avoid making unsignificant gestures).

29. Be SLOW, and even better, be EVEN SLOWER than slow.
Nothing worse than people saying very difficult expressions ( > 3 syllabes) such as "complexe polydispersed interconnected moving systems" : you can say that at ordinary speech velocity... but it will take dozens of seconds before your audience can understand what it means: they will have to translate slowly, in their mind, what it means... so that they are lost because you moved in the meantime.
I insist: don't speak too fast : remember that we are all slow minds,  and it is useless to make fast speech that nobody understand.
And I insist again : go SLOWLY: remember that clarity (i.e. being able to understand, on the other side) is the politeness of who speaks in front of an audience ; be polite !

30. And this leads me to this main advice: remember the "being clear is the POLITENESS that you should have when you speak in front of an audience".

31. I insist: you don't speak to yourself, but to others.  We don't care that you speak; on the other hand, the main point is that THEY HAVE to understand... otherwise your speech is a failure. Assume the audience knows nothing about the topic.

32. In view of being clear, explain slowly all what we see in the figures.

33. I was ready to write "Don't read text on the slides: comment it, explain it"... but if you applied one of the above rules, there is nothing to read !

34. In the slide, but also in your speech, chase adverbs and adjectives because this is unscientific: instead, answer to the question "how much"

35. Finally, remember that your duty is to make your friends happy, not boring. If you are positively interested in what you show, it's better.

Visiting the lab

1. After a discussion, colleagues from abroad tell me (this is perhaps only politeness) that they would dream to visit my laboratory. For sure, they are welcome, because this is the rule, in our realm of scientific research: one should be able to share at any time with any colleague.

2. But what are they going to see? A chemistry laboratory, with offices, on one side of two long corridors (on two levels), and laboratories on the other side. In the offices, people and computers; in the laboratories, microscopes, hoods, benches, rotary evaporators, vacuum machines, MNR spectroscope, GC-MS, LC-MS, Infrared, atomic absorption equipments, plus a lot of hardware, compounds, etc.

3. Yes, for scientists, all what we have is not new. No brand new equipment, because today, if you want to make some analysis using a synchrotron, you go to the synchrotron; if you need high field NMR equipment, you go to the NMR Centre; and so on.

4. Finally, my colleagues will not find that very exciting. But perhaps they are wrong, because when they say "lab", it means perhaps "having a scientific discussion".

5. And here, I have a duty to make my interlocutors excited; I have some many ideas, so many questions... It is probably this that they are willing to find. In French, on one of the walls of my office (not a lab, even if the office is in a previous lab, with a bench, old microscopes and a lot of strange stuff), it is written: "enthousiasm is a disease that you can get". But this translation is not good, because in French, the word "get" is does not simply mean that you get the disease, but also that you can "win" it.

6. Anyway, finally, science is very exciting!

A "cooking scientist"? Impossible: you can be a scientist, or you can cook, but cooking is not science (of nature), and science is not cooking

1. A friendly correspondant has named himself a "cooking scientist", but this is really impossible, as I shall try to show.

2. Let's observe first that human activities are defined by their goal, and the way to reach it. When you want to make shoes, i.e. being a shoe maker, the goal is to make shoes. And if you want to make food (or rather dishes), the goal is to produce dishes. The way to being able to make shoes is to learn how to make shoes, including having ideas about leather, tools for working it, etc. The way to being able to make dishes is to learn how food ingredients behave when you cut them, when you heat them, when you emulsify, foam, grind, distillate, etc.

3. For cooking (making dishes), there is more, because, as shown in one of my books, cooking is love, art and technique.

4. Accordingly, if you want to reach the goal of "cooking", it's probably good to decide how much of art you want to reach, how much love, how much technique.
I write this because I know chefs who don't think themselves as artist, and are happy to produce technically well done food. This does not mean that these dishes are not good, but the goal is not  to transmit emotions. Indeed, one can be proud to produce well done sandwiches for hungry people having lunch on their office site.

5. Some chefs can have the goal to be artists, i.e. for them the technical question is less important than the "beauty to eat" (to make "good dishes"). Did you ever cry of emotion while eating a dish? I did it twice in my live, and this was truly wonderful.

6. And other chefs focus on the social link. But more generally, I think that chefs would be well advised to choose the proportion of the three components, in order to reach their goal.

7. And science? For sure, the results of science, rather than the scientific activity can be helpful for chefs who want to be good at technique, because technology is exactly the activity of transferring scientific results into technique.

8. But science is very different from cooking!
Because the goal of science is to look for the mechanisms of the phenomena, not producing food!

9. Science does not mean being rigourous, as it is too often confused, in particular because Escoffier popularized the error.

10. By the way, the "way" of science, leading to its goal is to:
- identify phenomena
- characterize them quantitatively (measure everything)
- group the data into equations called "laws" (by fitting)
- induce a theory, introducing new concepts quantitatively compatible with the laws
- look for testable consequences of the theory
- test experimentally these consequences, trying to refute the theory
- and so on, back to the phenomena.

11. As we can see in 10, there is no room for cooking in sciences of nature. Sciences of nature are not producing food, but new knowledge.

12. For sure, one can like (or love) cooking AND science, but when one want to be very good in something, is it possible to have two activities?

13. So, finally, our friendly correspondant can change: he can be a scientist interested in cooking (molecular gastronomy) or a chef interested in science (or the results of science?). Which choice will be his own?

À propos de ce Handbook of molecular gastronomy dont nous envoyons la copie à l'éditeur dans quelques jours.

À propos de ce Handbook of molecular gastronomy dont nous envoyons la copie à l'éditeur dans quelques jours.

J'ai déjà annoncé que nous étions en grand chantier, avec la préparation d'un gros traité de gastronomie moléculaire, un ouvrage de référence, énorme, et qui réclame la compétence de nombreux auteurs. C'est un livre qui sera en anglais, comme son titre l'indique, et les auteurs ont été sollicités dans le monde entier, dans tous les laboratoires de gastronomie moléculaire et même plus. Les thèmes sont variés, car cela va des nitrites dans les charcuteries jusqu'au gonflement des soufflés, en passant par le vert des haricots, les questions de dégustation, le brunissement des viandes...
Mais je ne vais certainement pas donner la liste exhaustive, puisque nous avons plus que 160 chapitres. Oui vous avez bien lu : plus160 chapitres rédigés par des scientifiques du monde entier ! Chacun ne parle que de sa compétence, et donne une bibliographie bien choisie, afin d'aider les lecteurs à avancer dans la connaissance de cette merveilleuse discipline qu'est la gastronomie moléculaire.

Gastronomie moléculaire que l'on ne confondra pas avec la cuisine moléculaire, laquelle est une application technique, culinaire.
J'insiste un peu pour dire que la gastronomie n'est pas de la haute cuisine, que c'est la connaissance,  alors que la cuisine, c'est... de la cuisine, à savoir de l'amour, de l'art, de la technique.
Mais l'éditeur nous a poussé à assortir la très grosse première partie, scientifique, de gastronomie moléculaire, de deux autres parties d'application de la gastronomie moléculaire. Et c'est ainsi que nous avons donc deux parties pour les applications de la gastronomie moléculaire :  d'abord les applications didactiques, où les auteurs examinent  comment utiliser les travaux de gastronomie moléculaire dans les écoles primaires, les collèges, les lycées, des universités...
Puis nous avons une partie d'application technique, c'est de dire comment la gastronomie moléculaire est utilisée en cuisine. Dans cette partie 3 du livre, il y a donc la question d'utiliser la gastronomie moléculaire en cuisine pour faire la cuisine moléculaire, c'est-à-dire utiliser des ustensiles nouveau, mais surtout pour  la cuisine note à note, c'est-à-dire utiliser des ingrédients nouveaux. Cuisine moléculaire et cuisine note à note sont bien différentes, comme vous le verrez dans le livre.

Mais finalement, c'est donc un livre extraordinaire dont la préparation s'achève :  comme dit précédemment, la copie sera envoyée dans quelques jours !

Some questions from Greece

When was Molecular gastronomy first applied in the kitchen? 

 

The question needs rephrasing, because there are two options :

1. when was molecular gastronomy done for the first time?

2. when was is "applied", i.e. when were the results of MG used in the kitchen?

And the answer is simple :

1. MG was done for the first time when it was named, i.e., in 1988, by me  and Nicholas Kurti.

This does not mean that we did not make anything before, on the contrary, but before the name was officially given, it was a "prehistory". And here, the prehistory began a long time ago, because the pharmacist Geoffroy, in the early 18th century, was already studying the chemistry of meat stock, for example.

By the way, forget Brillat-Savarin, because he was not a scientist, but a lawyer. And all what he writes is fiction, like in a novel. Even the osmazome has nothing to do with the real osmazome, a concept and a name given by the French chemist Jacques Thenard (an ethanol extract of meat).

Brillat-Savarin never studied cooking: he wrote a book. And he did not know anything about chemistry.

2. About application: indeed because the application of sciences is not science, but technology, I gave the name "molecular cooking" to this modern way of cooking, which is to use hardware from laboratories (chemistry) to cook. I promoted that since 1980, but I gave the name itself only in 1999, because there was much confusion between cooking and sciences (of nature), in particular between cooking and molecular gastronomy.

Here are some recipes that I invented and whose practical demonstration was shown during a  masterclass (it was filmed and it will be podcasted) at the Cordon bleu Paris:



"Geoffroys"

Savory :
1. Put an egg white in a vessel
2. Whip oil that you add slowly, as for making a mayonnaise
3. Add (for example) mushrooms cooked with parsley, garlic, ground.
4. Season

Sweet :
1. For example, macerate (some days) vanilla with a good olive oil.
2. Then put an egg white in a vessel, a pinch of salt
3. Add slowly the vanilled oil while whipping, as for a mayonnaise
4. Dissolve sugar while whipping
This sweet emulsion can be served with slices of pineapple that were cooked in butter with sugar, and with financiers.


Liebigs
For the liebigs, the idea is to make a physically gelled emulsion:
1. Start from 100 g of a flavourful liquid (beetroot juice, orange juice, etc.)
2. Add 10 g  of soaked gelatine
3. Put to the boil, in order to dissolve the gelatine
4. Add a flavourflul oil while whipping, as for making a  sauce mayonnaise
5. Pour in a flat vessel on an oiled film, and let it set in the cold.



Gibbs
For a vanilla gibbs (dessert)
1. In a vessel, put an egg white
2.  Add olive oil slowly while whipping
3. When a creamy preparation is obtained, add sugar and vanilla extract, some salt and chili.
4. Pour in cups, half of them, and cook in the microwave oven, full power, until a 1/4 expansion is obtained.

For a brown butter gibbs :
1. In a pan, put  200 g butter.
2. Heat slowly: the butter melts before it crepitates
3. Before it becomes black, stop heating, and let it cook.
4. In a vessel, pour two spoons of egg white powder.
5. Add 3 spoons of water, one fourht of cup of citric acid, salt, pepper.
6. Add the brown butter while whipping, as for a mayonnaise.
7. Pour in cups, and cook in the microwave as for the previous gibbs.



Debyes
1. Give some flavour to 100 g oil by macerating a ground product (carrots, basil, coffee, leeks...)
3. Put to the boil a liquid (the one you want) with agar-agar (24 g of agar-agar per litre).
4. Cool until gelled.
5. Mix the gel into oil.


Chaptals and vauquelins
 For the chaptals :
1. Put an egg white in a large vessel
2. Whip
3. When the foam is firm, add a spoon sugar
4. Whip until no sugar crystal can be see.
5. Add a spoon of a liquid (for example, apple juice)
6. Whip until the foam is firm.
7. Repeat the 3, 4, 5, 6 until you get a very large quantity of foam.

Vauquelins are obtained from chaptals as follows:
1. Take some of chaptal and put it in cups
2. Cook in the microwave oven (full energy) until expansion ; serve.


Würtz
1. In a pan, put   200 g  orange juice with 50 g sugar
2. Dissolve 5 g  previously soaked gelatine.
3.Whip for a long time until a large quantity of foam is obtained
4. Put the foal in the fridge.

Answering a question

The 10th of September 2019, thanks to the FIPDES friends, a new "obvious" idea arose abour answering questions and making exercises.
This idea did not come immediately, but after we spent some time discussing the following exercises of  Course #3 :

Exercise  1. Select an "interesting" recipe from your own culture. Tell the group why  it is "interesting" (but of course think of what it can be). Guess why this excercise was proposed. And try to know why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".

For some years, this exercise was the opportunity to  discuss what "interesting" means, and this is why the word was between quotes. Indeed there are wheels within wheels with this exercise, and the two last questions give only a superficial hint toward some of them. The fact that this exercise was the first meant that in the past years, we  spent a lot of time on it, because it was showing the way for the next exercices.
But this year, because we arrived to the exercise when we had discussed the idea that in science, adjectives and adverbs are forbidden, and have to be replaced by the answer to the question "how much?", it came suddenly to my mind that I did not do what I should: it is useless to try to "define" the word "interesting", as we did, but the only thing to do was to design a quantitative index... or many, because any definition should be associated with one such quantitative information.
And because we are now on the right scientific track, let's remember that science means quantitative + references ! So that the mistake of the past years was double: the quantitative treatment was missing, but as well the references!

And this is why, suddenly, the second exercise improved as well.
This exercise is:
Exercise 2 : please try to write a 1500 characters piece on what is art. Guess why this excercise was proposed. And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".
Last year, for example, my FIPDES friends wrote pieces about 1500 characters, using what they had found on internet. Of course, going to Wikipedia is not enough, and one can guess that someone like me needs much more. I am not saying that Wikipedia is bad (and I even contribute frequently to improving it), but I say that this is not strict enough in science and technology, with a poor impact in communication. For sure, a treaty of "aesthetics", such as the one by Shitao, is much better. Or the Poetic by Aristoteles. Or some theoretical works by Jorge Luis Borges, or by Umberto Eco. Remember that culture (I mean the right one: the pieces produced by intelligent people) is important for innovation!
And this why this particular piece to be produced should be more than a poor personal feeling being expressed! It has to include references... and if you are smart, why not try to incoroporate quantitative information as well? After all, now that we have these two ideas, quantitative and references, let's apply them always!

Now, a question: how to make it quantitative? Let's look at the next exercise:
Exercise 3: find  a Roman recipe on line, and show how it is similar or different from today's recipes. Guess why this excercise was proposed.
And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".
It is easy to find the references... and if you go online, you will probably find recipes by "Apicius" (guess why I put quotes here?).
Now, is it "original" to find such a recipe? Let's define quantitatively originality as the contrary to what is frequent.
Let's imagine that 1 recipe is not  from Apicius. Then the ratio of 1 over N (number of friends in our group) would be small, because N is larger than 1. And if two of us have a recipe outside Apicius, the 2/N ratio would increase... in spite that it is less original being 2 rather than 1 outside a group.
But we are looking for an index that increases with originality, not that decreases! Why not deciding for the N/k ratio instead, where k is the number outside Apicius? Or course, now this ratio would be infinite in the particular case when all recipes are from Apicius: this means that being original would be infinite. And on the other side of the scale, we would have 1.
Do you want instead an intervalle between 1 and 0? It is easy to change a scale, using a function.

For the next exercise, it was easy to find something quantitative... apparently:
Exercise 4 : try to find how many people are undernourished in your country?
Guess why this excercise was proposed.
And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".
Yes, you will probably easily find the number that you are looking for. But the question here is hidden: the idea is not to make this research, because it does not call for much intelligence, and you remember that I praise intelligence (and work), not making simple and silly things.
Here, again, there are many ideas behind the exercise, but in particular the question of "significant" figures. I know that some say that in their country, the figures are manipulated by the government, etc. But anyway, if you look well, you will find estimations.
Now, for all, the question of significant figures is in front of you:
1. do you know WELL what it is (I mean: so well that you can define it precisely, and apply this knowledge)?
2. could you say how much it is for a balance with 1 g precision? for a balance with 0.000001 g precision (beware, there is a trap here)? for the figures that you found here?

And now you know enough for the next exercise:
Exercise 5: identify an "original" culinary practice from your country.
Guess why this excercise was proposed.
And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".

And for the next one:
Exercise 6:
(a) find something that you  eat  daily and is disgusting for others ;
(b) find something that you consider disgusting in the country of a member of the cohort. Guess why this excercise was proposed.
And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".

And even for the next one.
Exercise 7: select a recipe and extract the parts of it when the goal is to achieve (1) safety ; (2) flavour. Guess why this exercise was proposed.
And find out why this would be useful for your carreer in the "food innovation and product design".



Finally, please remember :
1. quantitative
2. good references !

About the toxicity of potato peels, I was asked to give references, and here are some, with abstracts :


Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 41 (2005) 66–72Potato glycoalkaloids and adverse eVects in humans: an ascending dose study, par Tjeert T. Mensinga et al. :

Glycoalkaloids in potatoes may induce gastro-intestinal and systemic eVects, by cell membrane disruption and acetylcholinesterase inhibition, respectively. The present single dose study was designed to evaluate the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of orally administered potato glycoalkaloids ( -chaconine and -solanine). It is the Wrst published human volunteer study were pharmacokinetic data were obtained for more than 24 h post-dose. Subjects (2–3 per treatment) received one of the following six treatments: (1–3) solutions with total glycoalkaloid (TGA) doses of 0.30, 0.50 or 0.70 mg/kg body weight (BW), or (4–6) mashed potatoes with TGA doses of 0.95, 1.10 or 1.25 mg/kg BW. The mashed potatoes had a TGA concentration of nearly 200 mg/kg fresh weight (the presently recognised upper limit of safety). None of these treatments induced acute systemic eVects. One subject who received the highest dose of TGA (1.25 mg/kg BW) became nauseous and started vomiting about 4 h post dose, possibly due to local glycoalkaloid toxicity (although the dosis is lower than generally reported in the literature to cause gastro-intestinal disturbances). Most relevant, the clearance of glycoalkaloids usually takes more than 24 h, which implicates that the toxicants may accumulate in case of daily consumption.


Perishables Handling Newsletter Issue No. 87, August 06,
A Review of Important Facts about Potato Glycoalkaloids
by Marita Cantwell
I give only the conclusion :
To avoid toxic levels of glycoalkaloids, potato cultivar selection is very important. However, improper postharvest handling conditions are the main cause of toxic levels in potatoes. To keep glycoalkaloid content low, store potatoes at lower temperatures, such as 7°C(45°F), keep potatoes away from light, market in opaque plastics films and paper bags, and rotate frequently on retail displays.


And also :
Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science   
A Review of Occurrence of Glycoalkaloids in Potato and Potato Products
DUKE GEKONGE OMAYIO et al

There has been increasing consumption of potato products such as French fries and crisps in most countries as a result of lifestyle change in both developed and developing countries. Due to their generally pleasurable taste and texture, they are appreciated by a high number of consumers  across the world, with the younger members of the population mostly those in the urban areas having
a higher preference. The hard economic situations have also driven many people to their consumption as they are affordable. Moreover, these products are convenient for the younger generation who do not prepare their own food. However, there have been food safety concerns that have been linked
in the past to glycoalkaloids in the raw potatoes that are used for processing. Potatoes are known to accumulate glycoalkaloids (GAs) during growth and postharvest storage. Some potato varieties have been shown to have high glycoalkaloids. These toxicants have been found to bioaccumulate
in the body especially if daily consumption of foods containing the glycoalkaloids are consumed. Glycoalkaloids lead to intestinal discomfort, vomiting, fever, diarrhea and neurological problems and can lead to human or animal deaths in cases of acute toxicity. Transportation, handling, poor
storage and exposure to sunlight during marketing of potatoes exposes consumers to potential risk of glycoalkaloids due to injury and greening which lead to increased levels of glycoalkaloids. Glycoalkaloids are quite stable and therefore, freeze-drying, boiling, dehydration or microwaving have got limited effect and thus persist through the processing conditions into the final products with the levels being proportional to the concentrations in the raw materials used. This current review focuses on the occurrence of glycoalkakloids in potato and potato products that are commonly consumed.

And there are hundreds of others saying the same !

The new workshop on Molecular Gastronomy

Dear Friends

When spring comes, new words flourish, but indeed, it is perhaps not unnecessary to say clearly that :

1. Sciences of nature (sometimes called natural sciences) are activities where you look for phenomena using the scientific method (observing a phenomenon, measuring it, grouping the data into equations, looking for a theory, trying to refute the theory)

2. Technologies are activities of improving the technique (often using the results of sciences of nature).

3. "Applied sciences" cannot exist : the tree is not the fruit. If it is a science, it is not "applied", and if it is applied, this is technique or technology (and there, whereas applied sciences don't exist, there are applications of sciences)

More focused, now :

4. Food sciences are activities about studying food scientifically.

2. Food technology is the activity of improving food (often using the  result of food sciences)

3. Among food sciences, there are sciences for ingredients (finding new compounds in food ingredients),

4. The science for looking for mechanisms occuring during cooking is called "molecular and physical gastronomy", shortened in "molecular gastronomy".

And this is why I invite you to distribute the announcement of the next "International Workshop on Molecular and Physical Gastronomy", in Paris (France), June  5-7.

The topic will be :  Flavour through Cooking.

application to : icmg@agroparistech.fr

About intership

I am frequently asked  about making intership in my "lab", and I have to admit that I refused this for 20 years, because it takes me time to drive younger colleagues that don't have the slightest idea of what is science and what is scientific research. Even this morning, one of my younger friends was ready to use tap water in order to make an experiment. Tap water in science ? Ohhhhhh! Yesterday another one was ready to boil concentrated hydrochloric acid directly in the lab (no ventilating hood, or better, no reflux, in order to avoir releasing in the atmosphere a very dangerous compounds).
But anyway, when interns come, I do my best to help them to learn.


Now, the question is to know if this particular place is useful for them, and I propose to discuss this on the particular question that I received by email yesterday. 


About internship opportunity, my goal is working in the industry. However, most industries won't accept interns unless they have Master (Bac +5) at least for this field. 
Therefore, I want to do some research in the lab during the time of my study to gain some experiences, insights and deeper knowledge before entering the industries. I understand finding an internship position in here could be difficult; however, if you could spend sometime giving some advice about getting a position. Thank you very much and have a wonderful day.


My answer is :


Hi,
Sorry for the delay, but I had to think about it.
 
I know that people are not accepted in the industry without professional experience... but I also know (and this was very clear)  that students who did not have internship in the industry are not accepted, because the industry then says that they were not interested really, and the proof is that they did not have internship in the industry.

There are certain internships in the industry (my two sons did it, and so many students), and you can trust me, you have to apply everywhere (and get help from your professors) to get such internship !

Now, the question is to be more precise, because the appearance (making an internship in the indsutry) is of zero interest compared to the content... and you don't tell me your goal : in which industry do you want to work, and in which part of the industry? Please don't answer that the internship will help you to decide, because this would not be a good answer: in an intership, you will see only a tiny detail of the place where you work, and it will certainly not give you the possibility to choose safely.
 
In short, "getting a position" is not the key. The issue is : which help do you propose to people to give them during a particular intership ? This would be based on particular skills that you acquired previously and that you can tell them explicitly !
 
One point : "research in the lab" does not mean anything, and it is perhaps not appropriate. I explain : if you are an artist, you make art research, and this is not a skill for being a process engineer in the food industry; if you are a scientist, you make scientific research, and this is certainly not good for the industry; so that the research that you need to do is "engineering", if you want to be an engineer. Now, the "lab": a lab is a place where people do technical activities. A lab of science has nothing to do with a lab for formulation in the industry, for example.
 
Hope that helps !




Shall I add something?

More questions, more answers about molecular gastronomy and note by note cooking

This morning, I should not answer, because indeed the answers are already given, but I found new ways of answering.
The questions are in italics. 


What does molecular gastronomy mean to you as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook?

Molecular gastronomy should mean someone to me in particular. It means the same for everybody: the scientific discipline looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary processes. Nothing else.
The question is as strange as if I was asked: what does a cat mean for you, as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook.
And by the way, even when I cook (daily, at home, for all evening dinners plus meals of the week ends), I am not a chef, but I remain a scientist, and a scientist that cooks. The same when I am walking: I remain a scientist, and a scientist that walks.



How was your relationship with Nicholas Kurti( Kürti Miklós)?
 
It was a "love affair", immediate friendship that began as soon as we spoke on the phone, in 1986. After some seconds, he decided to come to Paris and see me, and we had this wonderful meal together, when we shared a "poule au vin jaune et aux morilles", at Maitre Paul, rue Racine, in the Quartier Latin of Paris. Immediately, we decided that we could share our results, thoughts, experiments... He was 50 years older than me, but we behaved as friends, and he was certainly not my tutor. Only a friend.
We shared everything: when I was invited as honoris causa in a university, I asked him to be along, and when he was proposed to write a text, we did it both (generally, I was writing the first draft, and he was improving it).
We did everything in a wonderful harmony, experiments on soufflés, on vinegar, organizing the Erice workshops... We spoke on the phone daily, and when I was making an experiment in Paris, he repeated it in London. He was a very good physicist, and I learned a lot from him in this regard, whereas he got much from me in chemistry, of which he did not know much.



I am not sure I understood this that’s why I am asking it.

Yes, but you make a load on me. Please read more carefully and use Google translate (or another one), because the explanations are clearly given. 


So is Note by Note for example when you deconstruct two material to their chemical structure and then construct it with another material with the same structure? 
 
Note by note does not mean deconstructing two materials to their chemical structure ! Indeed the sentence has no meaning: what is the "chemical structure, for example? And note by note cooking does not deconstruct. It means building a dish from pure compounds (let's say "chemical species" if you prefer). And what you build does not have the same chemical composition or chemical structure as... As what, by the way?


Or how is this going? I have read that for example the garlic and the coffee has the same structure so they can be combined to invent a new dish? 
 
By structure, you perhaps mean "composition". And no, garlic does not have the same chemical composition as coffee... otherwise they would be the same ! Please, also avoid the "I have read", and give precise references. By the way, only have good readings (can you recognize them?).
Finally, what you probably read is that coffee and garlic have one or more compounds in common, so that they would "pair". But this is a bad theory, that has nothing scientific as cooking is art, not a question of science.


I am sorry If I misunderstood this whole thing, it is a little hard for me to learn and write about such a hard theme in not my mother language.
 
Sorry for you, but I cannot help in this regard.


Can I do fruit caviars from agar-agar? Or is it just like gelatine but the vegetable matter of it?
 
You probably means "alginate pearls" with a liquid core, and for this, you need... sodium alginate. But it's true that I showed decades ago how to make it with gelatin: my solution is displayed on the internet site of Pierre Gagnaire. And I guess that I could also find a solution with agar-agar.





How can we invent totally new dishes with Note by Note?

Look at any recipe of the International Contest, or read my book Note by Note Cooking, at Columbia University Press.

Do you think that molecular gastronomy will be the future or not because it needs some hardly available items for it, or like liquid nitrogen. So will it be available in a normal kitchen or just for the best Restaurants?

You confuse molecular gastronomy (science) and note by note cooking. Molecular gastronomy is spreading in universities all over the world. And note by note is spreading in restaurants of all the world. But there are many answers about this elsewhere.
And note by note cooking will be able to used more and more common ingredients (remember this word: just as carrot and meat are ingredients of traditional cooking, pure compounds are the ingredients of note by note cooking).

Do you teach molecular gastronomy?
Yes,  in a lot of contexts.
- in the Erasmus Mundus Plus Master Programme "Food Innovation and Product Design"
- in the IPP Master Programme of AgroParisTech
- at the Ecoles des Mines de Paris
- at AgroParisTech, in the context of the Courses of Molecular Gastronomy
- and others

Un peu technique, celui-ci

I am asked about the definition of the  "allomerization", and here is it :


The term “allomerization” was transferred into chlorophyll chemistry by Willstätter, who used it to describe then unknown reactions of chlorophylls occurring when they were standing in alcoholic solutions in contact with air . Indeed allomerization is identical to auto-oxidation , including several reactions  that yield a complex mixture of allomers and other alterations products such as solvolysis of the isocycle ring, demetallation, dephytylation and photooxidation .
Concerning the mechanism, it was assumed that allomerization involves as a primary step the auto-oxidation of the Chl enolate anion, formed in small amounts in methanol containing traces of bases and/or metal impurities.

Des TPE sur les oeufs

Je le disais hier : les TPE battent leur plein !
Reçu ce message, qui me permet de donner des réponses utiles à beaucoup, semble-t-il :





# Dans le cadre du TPE de 1ère (épreuve anticipée du baccalauréat), mon groupe (3 élèves au total), a choisi de traiter le thème forme et matière. L’œuf avec les différentes formes qu’il peut revêtir en cuisine nous a de suite intéressés.
# Nous avons fait de nombreuses recherches internet (parfois infructueuses, ou peu précises), et le plus souvent celles-ci nous conduisent finalement à l’article de presse de l’INRA de mars 2013 (document sur lequel j’ai pu trouver vos coordonnées).
# J’ai également fait acheter par ma maman le livre « les œufs, 60 clefs pour comprendre » et celui-ci me ramène aussi à l’INRA.
# Votre expérience et vos connaissances en terme de gastronomie moléculaire nous aideraient précieusement.
# En effet, j’ai bien compris que cuisiner l’œuf, c’était faire de la chimie.
# Que différents paramètres température, air, pH… influençaient la structure des composants de l’œuf, notamment les protéines.
# Aussi, notre TPE devrait s’orienter sur les propriétés physico-chimiques de l’œuf qui font qu’il se transforme, avec une partie théorique et une partie expérimentale.
# Alors je viens vous solliciter afin de pouvoir obtenir des documents pertinents qui nous permettraient :
# 1/D’expliquer la formation de l’œuf, sa composition.
# 2/D’expérimenter la chimie des œufs, le but étant de reproduire au laboratoire (ou chez nous) des expériences et de réaliser une vidéo qui sera visionnée et notée par le jury final.
# (Par exemple, je vais réaliser votre recette de l’œuf parfait au lave-vaisselle !).
# 3/D’expliquer de manière claire et pédagogique la chimie des œufs, quels constituants se modifient.
# D’ailleurs, peut-être serait-il bien de tester au laboratoire comment « décuire un œuf » : à ce propose, j’ai pu lire que des scientifiques avaient tenter l’expérience.
# Bref, je suis preneuse de toute information !
# Je vous remercie par avance de l’attention que vous me porterez, et s’il faut que je sois plus précise dans ma demande, n’hésitez pas à me le faire savoir.


Je reprends en commentant point à point
 

Dans le cadre du TPE de 1ère (épreuve anticipée du baccalauréat), mon groupe (3 élèves au total), a choisi de traiter le thème forme et matière. L’œuf avec les différentes formes qu’il peut revêtir en cuisine nous a de suite intéressés.

C'est un excellent choix : fascinant de voir un oeuf liquide, jaune-vert, transparent, devenir solide, blanc et opaque ! D'autant que la composition d'un blanc d'oeuf est (assez) simple : de l'eau et des protéines.


Nous avons fait de nombreuses recherches internet (parfois infructueuses, ou peu précises), et le plus souvent celles-ci nous conduisent finalement à l’article de presse de l’INRA de mars 2013 (document sur lequel j’ai pu trouver vos coordonnées).

Pourquoi pas... mais cela m'étonne que vous n'ayez trouvé que cela. Je rappelle que l''on cherche en anglais sur Google Scholar, quand on  n'a pas de bases de données.


J’ai également fait acheter par ma maman le livre « les œufs, 60 clefs pour comprendre » et celui-ci me ramène aussi à l’INRA.

Oui, en France, l'Inra est essentiel. Savez vous qu'il y a une unité très spécialisée dans les oeufs à Nouzilly ? Les meilleurs spécialistes mondiaux.


Votre expérience et vos connaissances en terme de gastronomie moléculaire nous aideraient précieusement.

 Je fais de mon mieux.


En effet, j’ai bien compris que cuisiner l’œuf, c’était faire de la chimie.

Certainement pas : cuisiner, c'est cuisiner. Faire de la chimie, c'est faire de la science. Certes, cuisinier de l'oeuf déclenche des réactions entre des composés, mais la cuisine n'est certainement pas de la chimie : ce n'est pas une science de la nature !
Inversement, la recherche scientifique, notamment la gastronomie moléculaire, ce n'est pas de la cuisine : on ne prépare pas des aliments, mais on produit de la connaissance.


Que différents paramètres température, air, pH… influençaient la structure des composants de l’œuf, notamment les protéines.

Ca, c'est une phrase compliquée. Heureux de dire que je ne la comprends pas (je peux l'interpréter de mille façons différentes, mais ce n'est pas  à moi de deviner laquelle est la bonne).


 Aussi, notre TPE devrait s’orienter sur les propriétés physico-chimiques de l’œuf qui font qu’il se transforme, avec une partie théorique et une partie expérimentale.

Plus exactement, je vous renvoie vers mon site, où j'explique mieux que cela comment faire un TPE, en faisant l'exégèse des textes officiels.


Alors je viens vous solliciter afin de pouvoir obtenir des documents pertinents qui nous permettraient :
1/d’expliquer la formation de l’œuf, sa composition.

Voir le livre sur l'oeuf de M. Thapon et ses collègues chez Lavoisier Tec et Doc.


2/D’expérimenter la chimie des œufs, le but étant de reproduire au laboratoire (ou chez nous) des expériences et de réaliser une vidéo qui sera visionnée et notée par le jury final. (Par exemple, je vais réaliser votre recette de l’œuf parfait au lave-vaisselle !).

Mais sur le site d'AgroParisTech, il y a bien d'autres documents, notamment mon "Let's have an egg".




3/D’expliquer de manière claire et pédagogique la chimie des œufs, quels constituants se modifient.
 D’ailleurs, peut-être serait-il bien de tester au laboratoire comment « décuire un œuf » : à ce propose, j’ai pu lire que des scientifiques avaient tenter l’expérience.

C'est moi qui ai fait le premier la chose, en 1997. Et mon texte est mis sur mon site.
D'ailleurs, j'y ai mis aussi d'autres choses sur l'oeuf, parce que ce TPE n'est ni le premier, ni sans doute le dernier.
Bon courage

Questions and answers

Today, some questions are answered, in view of a trip to Singapore, at then end of June


1. In recent media reports, it was written that “note-by-note” cooking approach can “stave off energy crisis, eliminate food waste and end world hunger”. Can you please explain more about the NbN approach and its potential?

There are two different ideas: note by note cooking, which is a new way of cooking, and the Note by Note Projects, that include note by note cooking, but aims are improving the efficiency of our food production systems.Let's tell the story this way: today, we are 7 billions humans, and about 1 billion is starving. In 2050, there will be 10 billions, so that we have to plan methods for feeding everybody.

More or less, the agreement is that spoilage is to be fought, and it is true tht if 30% of the producted food is spoiled, avoiding this would improve greatly the efficiency of agriculture.

One way to fight spoilage is to “fractionate” at the farm, which means separating water, and making proteins, sugars, amino acids, phenolics, etc.

This would avoid the transportation of fresh products that spoils... and means transporting water (a truck full of tomatoes means a truck full of 95 % water!).

Moreover, as the Minister of Argentina for agriculture told me, this would have the advantage to make prices more even, which is good for the farmers.

Indeed, In the NbN projects, the farmers will enrich by selling new products... but they would have to make a small fractionation step at the farm... with hardware already existing (and cheap).

This being said, the citizens would receive powders (nowadays, you can already buy tons of proteins from plants)... and they will have to cook : this is exactly Note by note cooking.

By the way, a very fresh information: recent dinners by chefs in restaurants showed that NbN dinners cost twice less and need twice less time to prepare !

2. What made you decide to explore (and promote) NbN to the F&B industry?

Indeed, to tell the truth, in the beginning (1994), I had only the idea that a more rational way of cooking was possible. But more and more, it evolved. First, I considered that a new form of culinary style was possible, and then the many advantages of note by note cooking appeared.

And finally, I can tell you that, being a Gourmand, I was so happy of the Note by Note meal that my friend Pierre Gagnaire served to the New York Times journalist, when they came to Paris to see me about NbN: I am having meals frequently at Pierre's... but this meal was the most exciting, because of entirely new flavours !

3. Can this approach be applicable to the F&B industry in Asia? If yes, how can this approach be integrated with or adopted to Asian cuisine?

Of course, very easily. And the interesting thing is to see how different culinary artists will produce different cuisine. Indeed we can envision “asian NbN cuisine”, or “western NbN cuisine”, etc. (you see, I make a difference between cooking = technique, and cuisine=style)

4. You are scheduled to give a speech to the graduating culinary and pastry batches at Singapore’s At-Sunrice Global Chef Academy this month. Can you share with us some of the advice that you will impart to these newly graduated chefs?

Of course, the main ideas are work, loyalty, kindness, care, boldness... But I know that I shall have to explain that cooking is first love, then art and finally technique.

The technical component of cooking is important, for sure, but it is not difficult... if you accept to detach from tradition (I am not saying that tradition is useless or bad, but I say that tradition is the sum of the successes and advances of the past ; our Great Ancestors would be angry if they saw that we did not contribute to the advancement of culinary art).

But the question of art is most important. It is not difficult and it is not important to grill meat or boil vegetables, but rather the issue is to determine how to do it and why.

Indeed I realize more and more that one main issue around is that the goals are not clear, and it has to be very clear ! Indeed, imagine that you are in Paris ; if you don't understand clearly that your goal is Singapore, you will perhaps arrive in Hong Kong, or Tokyo, but not in Singapore. And it's only when the goal is clear that you can determine the way to reach it. In Greek, the way is “methodon”, method. Yes, when you have the goal, you can try to find the way, and this is “strategy”. And they you can implement, and this is tactic.

Coming back to hard “work”, or to innovation, creativity, etc. , the idea lies in this sentence: “Il faut tendre avec efforts vers l'infaillibilité sans y prétendre”.

And by the way, if I have time, I shall tell them the wonderful story of Michael Faraday. As an orphan, he was going once per week, in the evening, in “Improvement of the mind” sessions... and he became the one of the greatest physical chemists of all times.

But I know that I shall also have to make it very clear to explain the difference between Molecular gastronomy, molecular cooking, mocular cuisine, and note by note cooking/cuisine.

By the way, I would be very happy if I could stimulate the creation of a laboratory for molecular gastronomy in a chemistry department of Singapore

5. How do you see the future of food preparation? Do you think that chefs in Asia should create more molecular gastronomy offerings in their menu?

Indeed you confluse (sorry to tell you that) molecular gastronomy and cooking.

Molecular gastronomy is one science of nature, as physics, chemistry, biology. It is for scientists, not for chefs. Molecular gastronomy cannot be in a menu.

Molecular cuisine, instead, is cooking, for chefs, not for scientists... but this is 35 years old... and this is why we should move fast toward Nbn (like jazz is 50 years old, and new music can be introduced).

The future of food preparation : certainly NbN for the reason given above about 10 billions people on the earth.

Finally “should” Asian chefs offer more molecular cuisine: no, because molecular cuisine is old.

“Should” chef offer NbN ? If they want. The question is art : an artist does what he/she perceives, feels...

But it's true that if a chef serves NbN, this is NEW, and only the new can attract journalists... and guests.

6. What do you think chefs in Asia should do to get more diners to try molecular gastronomy offerings?

Again : confusion between molecular gastronomy (science), on one hand, and cooking, on the other hand. But I don't see the difference between this question and the previous ?

7. What are your future plans concerning NbN approach and molecular gastronomy? Will you be participating in more events here in the region in connection with promoting these culinary disciplines?

For molecular gastronomy, I am doing efforts to spread this science all over the world... and it works well. More and more, in science and technology universities, laboratories for molecular gastronoy are created.

For NbN : for sure, we have to be ready in 2050, and I am promoting all over the world this new way of cooking, with about 1 new countrie per two months. Right now, I am considering how to change the International Contest for Note by Note Cooking (we do tomorrow the 6^th).

More events in Asia? Why not, if people in Asia are interested.

(but remember: molecular gastronomy is not a culinary discipline, it's science ;-) ).

Answers to questions

This morning, an email that I have to answer !


Dear Hervé This,
Hi, my name is xxxxx xxxxx, and I am 11 years old, and in 5th grade in the U.S. In my school district, as an end of elementary school project, all of 5th grade is doing a project called xxxxxx. For xxxxx, students are allowed to pick any topic of choice to study and create a presentation on; to present to younger grades. My topic of choice is molecular gastronomy. I chose this topic since it seemed really interesting to me and I wanted to learn about it. One of the requirements for xxxxxx is; after researching your topic, you need to interview an expert on your topic of choice (in this case for me it’s molecular gastronomy), and I thought there would be no better person to interview other than you!
    I was wondering if I could ask you a list of questions for my project? If so, here they are:
    How did you come up with the idea of molecular gastronomy?
    What do you think is the purpose of molecular gastronomy?
    Why has molecular gastronomy become so popular?
    What is your favorite part about making molecular gastronomy?
    Has molecular gastronomy impacted your life in any way? If so, how?
Also, do you recommend any books or articles I could read (in English) to find out more about molecular gastronomy? If so, it would be great if you could send me some sources of information, as well as the answers to my questions.
Thank you for taking your time to read this, and I hope you can get back to be soon.

Here are my answers: 

How did you come up with the idea of molecular gastronomy?








The answer was given many times, and in particular on my internet site https://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/. 
Go to "questions and answers" : https://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/Home/et-plus-encore/pour-en-savoir-plus/questions-and-answers
Indeed all began because I was cooking a cheese soufflé the 16th of March 1980 : the recipe was advising to add the yolks two by two... and I realized at that time that this was non sense... and I decided to collect such "culinary precisions" in order to test them experimentally. This led to the creation of molecular gastronomy, but also to molecular cooking, molecular cuisine, and more recently to note by note cooking (have a look on this !)

What do you think is the purpose of molecular gastronomy?The purpose is very clear and simple, and it is given by the definition of molecular gastronomy: it is looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary professes.

In other words, when one cooks (i.e. makes a dish), there are transformations : expansion, browning, sizzling, water evaporation, odor appearing, taste changing... and all these are phenomena. Being a scientific discipline, molecular gastronomy is trying to understand why and how these phenomena occur.
And because molecular gastronomy is a scientific activity (contrary to molecular cuisine or molecular cooking, or note by note cooking), the method for looking for the mechanisms is :
1. identify clearly the phenomenon that you want to study
2. characterize it quantitatively (you "measure")
3. make "laws" (i.e. equations from data of measurements)
4. find mechanisms (theory)
5. look for a testable consequence of the theory
6. test this consequence experimentally
and over and over.

Why has molecular gastronomy become so popular?For many reasons, but in particular because there was a confusion between cooking and science.
For molecular cooking, the success was certain, because it was obvious that a modernization of culinary activities was needed. Oh, yes, I have to tell you the definition of molecular cooking: cooking using modern tools coming from chemistry labs (such as thermocirculators, etc.).
After 1992, some chefs began using the tools that I was proposing since 1980, and the became famous... because the dishes that they were producing were new. And for any new activity, the journalists are willing to advertize it, so that molecular cooking developped rapidly.
At the same time, because populations had enough to eat, media began developing programs such as top chef, iron chef, etc. And molecular cooking became very popular.
Since the beginning, there was in the public a confusion between molecular cooking and molecular gastronomy... but molecular gastronomy developped as well... for many reasons, and in particular because it was helpful for education: students were more willing to study science when linked with such as a wonderful activity as cooking.
Also, and I should have said this first, molecular gastronomy introduced many new scientific ideas (DSF, dynagels, etc.).
 

What is your favorite part about making molecular gastronomy?
I don't know: I love maths, but I love also well done experiments.

Has molecular gastronomy impacted your life in any way? If so, how?
Tremendously. Indeed it is my life. I work with passion at the lab, but I also lecture all over the world. How could I say...

Also, do you recommend any books or articles I could read (in English) to find out more about molecular gastronomy? If so, it would be great if you could send me some sources of information, as well as the answers to my questions.
I published many books in English (Molecular Gastronomy, Building a Meal, Note by Note Cooking, Cooking, a quintessential art), and even more in French, and there hundreds of podcasts on the AgroParis Tech site : http://www2.agroparistech.fr/podcast/ 
But there are also on line courses, both in English https://tice.agroparistech.fr/coursenligne/main/document/document.php?cidReq=FIPDESMOLECULARGASTR or in French

Indeed, don't miss the next Note by Note Contest !