Program > Wednesday, November 6

Wednesday, November 6

The carbon footprint of research in France: new research results (inside and outside GDR Labos 1point5)

📣 With a talk by Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University, Cambridge), science historian and affiliated professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University,

and a talk by Anne Ventura (Université Gustave Eiffel, Bouguenais), expert in life cycle assessment

8:30 am | Welcome

9:00 am | Introduction

Stéphanie Barral (INRAE, Noisy-le-Grand) & André Estevez-Torres (CNRS, Lille) | Presentation of the next two days

📣 9:05 am | Lecture

Anne Ventura (Université Gustave Eiffel, Bouguenais) | XXX

XXX

10:00 am | Coffee break

10:20 am | GDR new research results

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

For more information on oral presentations: see here. 

12:00 pm | Lunch break & poster session

2:00 pm | GDR new research results

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

For more information on oral presentations: see here. 

📣 3:00 pm | Lecture

Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University, Cambridge) | The trouble with the supply-side model of science

Many scientists operate under a mental model that I label the "supply side model of science". It assumes that the job of scientists is to supply information that governments and citizens can use to make good decisions, and that governments and citizens will use that information once they have it in hand. Therefore, scientists need only do their job—which is to supply accurate, high quality, well vetted information—and all will be well. Events of the past few decades have challenged this model severely. Across the globe, governments and citizens have rejected established scientific findings on climate change, on evolutionary biology, on the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and other issues. Typically, this rejection is "implicatory rejection". That is to say, people reject or deny science not because the science is weak, unsettled or too uncertain to inform decision-making, but because they and don’t like the actual or perceived implications of that science. In some cases, for example evolutionary biology, the perceived implications are erroneous; in these cases, scientists can help to clear up misunderstandings by engaging seriously (and not dismissively) with people’s concerns. In other cases, for example climate change, the perceived implications may be partly true. In these cases, scientists may help by suggesting ways in which the negative implications might be mitigated or redressed. Often, this will require collaborating with other experts, such as experts in communication, religion, or public health. But whatever the details of the particular case, our overall situation suggests that it does not suffice for scientists simply to supply factual information, and leave it at that. Scientists need as well to engage actively with the recipients of that information.

For more informarion : see here

4:00 pm | Coffee break

4:20 pm | GDR new research results

XXX (XXX) | XXX 

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

For more information on oral presentations: see here. 

17h00 | End of day

To continue the discussions during the evening, a participative map has been created to find or add a meeting place (to propose a new place, click on Add a meeting place).