Programme > Mercredi 6 novembre

Mercredi 6 novembre 

L'empreinte environnementale de la recherche en France : les nouveaux résultats de recherche (hors et intra-GDR Labos 1point5)

📣 Avec une intervention invitée de Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University, Cambridge), historienne des sciences et professeure affiliée au département de sciences de la terre et des planètes à l'université Harvard,

et une intervention invitée d'Anne Ventura (Université Gustave Eiffel, Bouguenais), experte en analyse de cycle de vie

8h30 | Accueil

9h00 | Introduction

Stéphanie Barral (INRAE, Noisy-le-Grand) & André Estevez-Torres (CNRS, Lille) | Présentation des deux journées à venir

📣 9h05 | Conférence

Anne Ventura (Université Gustave Eiffel, Bouguenais) | XXX

 XXX

10h00 | Pause café

10h20 | Nouveaux résultats de recherche du GDR

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

Pour plus d'informations sur les présentations orales : voir ici.

12h00 | Pause déjeuner & session posters

14h00 | Nouveaux résultats de recherche du GDR

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

 Pour plus d'informations sur les présentations orales : voir ici.

📣 15h00 | Conférence

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.

Pour plus d'informations : voir ici

16h00 | Pause café

16h20 | Nouveaux résultats de recherche du GDR

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

XXX (XXX) | XXX

Pour plus d'informations sur les présentations orales : voir ici.

17h00 | Fin de la journée

Pour prolonger les discussions en soirée, une cartographie participative a été crée pour trouver ou ajouter un lieu de rendez-vous (pour proposer un nouveau lieu, cliquer sur Ajouter un lieu de rendez-vous).