Questions from a student : science or technology

I get questions from a students, about his future career and I consider important to answer in details. 

Here the question

 So not only would be so enriching to know you better, even for a few minutes of conversation about chemistry and life in general, but also to take advice where should I direct myself from now on, like on science, if you think is wise for me to pursue a doctorate, and a PhD, or to keep it more simple like running my business of analytical chemistry on quality control / assurance.

 

And my answer :

The question that you ask about the choice between science  vs business is very important, but I would say that the sole fact that you ask the question should drive you toward applications of chemistry rather than chemistry itself (I mean, the science).

1. as
- positions are not many in science,
- salaries are low,
- conditions are difficult,
- there is a lot of administration and paperwork (looking for funding, etc.)
- one "fails" daily in reaching the goal (making a discovery),
-  the way of science is very specific (trying to kill the theories that we build),
then very few people are cut out for science.

2. as practically the work done in technology is the same as for science, but with positions, money, society usefulness, etc. my advice is that students decide for the industry.
Many are like small birds that hesitate to flow away from the university nest, but they have to be brave.

About PhD, this is a very different question: PhD is a special educational complement, adding skills for research engineers, and it is very helpful for many students.
For example, all PhD that I had with me are now very good in the industry, and doing exciting things. For example, one is the technical director of a world food company, two are heads of the heads of laboratories of analytical companies, etc.
My interns, as well, have exciting positions in the industry (world specialist in ice cream formulation, etc.) and they are very happy.
Only two are doing science, and I knew from the beginning that they would because their interest for it makes all drawbacks out of scope.

By they way, more specifically for analytical chemistry, I have to tell you that my lab was hosted for years in such a lab, and I was fighting my colleagues about the differences :
-chemical analysis is a technique
- improving the chemical analysis (what they call analytical chemistry, often) is a technology (and why not doing it in the industry, at Bruker or Varian, for example)
- real analytical chemistry (science) is exciting, but few people do it


But coming to your business, I would say that the question is not to run it, but to develop it. I can tell you the case of Eurofins, that I know very well, because the founders were from our lab: they were so smart and active that they transformed a tiny enterprise into a very large one, succeeding to manage the many difficulties that you get on the way. I have a real admiration for these kind of people, and I urge my students to do the same... when they are able to do it.
Sometimes, an association between a "technician" and a "market man" is useful: the case of Jobs and Wosniak is well known, but personnally I know very well Jonathan Piel and Dennis Flannagan, who bought the old journal Scientific American for 200 USD, and sold it for 51 millions usd, after one life. Smart and active as well, but "twice" if I may say.

Kind regards

The day after the Sonning Prize ceremony

The day after the Sonning Prize ceremony, I was invited by my colleagues of the Food Science Department of the University of Copenhagen (thanks to them), and Bettina Illeman Larsen recorded this : https://www.instagram.com/p/DJrRsHFAmAk/  

Happy to share, and thanks to her

The difference between a technician and a technologist

 

Today, a friend of mine is asking if cooks are technologists. And my answer is very clear: no, a cook is not a technologist, but (generally) a technician. Let's avoid confusions ! 

 

Here, I explain the difference as clearly as possible :

1. When you do something, you are doing technique, from the Greek word "techne", which means "to do". A cook is producing dishes, a shoe maker is producing shoes, an electrician repairs electricy devices. And even a physician is a technician.

For cooking, the issue is that there are two kind of cooks

- some are just producing food for the body : when you are doing food that you eat for lunch, when you don't have much time, for exemple ; by the way, you can compare this with a painter who paints walls

- some cooks are artist, and the issue is now very different, because it is the same as for Picasso, or Rembrandt : the issue is not to speak to the body, but to the spirit.

Of  courses, even the painter for buildings and walls tries to do something "well done", but this is not the same purpose as Rembrandt. And even the cook in the street tries to do something "good", but it is not what some artists as Pierre Gagnaire are doing.

 

 

2. Now, for technology : the word comes from "techne" and "logos" : a technologist studies cooking in order to improve it, not in order to make it.

For sure, some cooks can try to improve their practice... but this is very new, and it was introduced by molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking !

 

3. And finally, sciences of nature have nothing to do with all this, because it means more or less solving equations.

Some explanations about science, technology, molecular gastronomy, food pairing (bad theory), honesty in general

I was recently invited in a programme mixing science and... I don't understand exactly what, but it included "food pairing". 

I am publishing again and again that the theory of food pairing is not scientific, and I also observe that this "theory" is promoted by people selling advices to chefs, often trying to convince that there is science behind.
You will see why I am strongly opposed to this way of doing on other posts of this blog, but it's enough to know that "good" means "beautiful to eat", and this is not a question of technique, but of art... and art escapes the rules : the Diabolus in musica is appreciated today ; no science about that. 

 

So that I don't  want to participate to something where this wrong theory is promoted.

By the way, in the proposed programme, I could see that there is question of "aromas", and frequently, there is a confusion between aromas and odors.

But more generally, I see too often people speaking of science, when indeed they are doing technology or technique, and this is not fair. 

Engineers are engineers, technologists are technologists, technicians are technicians, and scientists are scientists. All these people are different, with different goals and different methods.

Another point: since the creation of molecular gastronomy, by me and Nicholas Kurti, there has been many people

- confusing molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking/ molecular cuisine (and this is bad for the public)

- confusing science and technology (and this is bad for students)

- confusing everything about "science and cooking" (and this is bad for everybody

- giving ( or trying to give) new names to the science called molecular and physical gastronomy (and this not very honest)

 

Here are some explanations : 

1. molecular and physical gastronomy is sometimes named " molecular gastronomy" for short ; it is a scientific activity, done in laboratories, by chemists or physicists, or biologists. This is science, not technology, and not technique

2. molecular cooking is the technique of cooking with modern tools that were transferred from laboratories to kitchens (thermocirculators, liquid nitrogen, siphons, pumps, centrifuge, rotary evaportaors...)

3. molecular cuisine is a culinary trend (chefs using molecular cooking for making new kind of dishes)

4. science (sciences of nature) is an activity of "looking for the mechanisms of phenomena using a specific method using experiments and calculation"; it has nothing to do with technique and technology

5. technique means "to do something". For example, cooking includes a technical component

6. technology means using the results of science for improving technique

7. and finally, there is art, and one of my book explains well that cooking includes a social component, an art component, a technical component.

 

By the way, I hope that my friends know about "note by note cooking"? This IS the future, the next new technique, and already some "note by note cuisine" is appearing all over the world.