Themes

The ESOF2008 Programme Committee invites proposals based on the following themes. We will be delighted to see proposals that focus on the presentation and discussion of cutting-edge science but are also looking forward to discussions of other relevant issues – including economics and funding priorities, policy considerations, communication with the public and the impact of the media. Technological advances in the areas we will discuss are clearly relevant to ESOF and will make a contribution to many themes.

1. The human mind and behaviour.

 We can now look at the brain non-invasively and watch people think. Should we? Are we allowed hidden thoughts? Can we be sure what we are seeing? How can these techniques be exploited in cognitive science? Will we categorise people on the basis of these data? What about vetting employees or using the techniques forensically? Are hidden memories best forgotten? What does our current understanding of the human brain tell us about the aspects of cognitive function that might be amenable to cognitive enhancements? What are the ethical, social and cultural implications of enhancements? 

2. The very big and the very small

 Using the Large Hadron Collider, an example of European collaboration, we hope to learn more about the very small. How will that inform us about the very big and the Universe as a whole? How do you do this kind of science and how will we exploit the results? Why does it matter? (or Matter?).
Many European countries are investing heavily in the nanosciences. Will the information inform us about the nature of  matter - can we link conventional smallness and quantum behaviour?   What are the latest technologies deriving from this research?

3. Open society, open science

 The Open Society has been one of the main European achievements. What role did the sciences and the humanities play in establishing the Open Society? Can they guarantee its survival today? How can sciences and the humanities help the public in evaluating risk, in coping with the problems posed by terrorism, and in preserving our freedoms in the face of close scrutiny? Are we over-regulating acceptable risks, thereby giving up core principles of our Open Society? 

4. Engineering the body

 The quest to fix worn out or diseased body parts seems to span many scientific disciplines. What examples are there across Europe that involve successful collaboration amongst the fields of tissue engineering, materials science, reproductive technologies, bioprocessing and imaging? Much of the media focus has been on work with stem cells. What is a stem cell, where can we get them, and what can we do with them? Are they going to replace tissues or are they ‘niche products’? How can we exploit them in investigative science? Are they useful NOW? What are the technological, economic, political and ethical obstacles preventing their use?  

5. What should we eat and how should we look?

 We are constantly being advised about our diet. How good are the data on which this advice is based, and if they are good, why is the advice confusing? What is the ideal healthy and beautiful body? Why are we fat and have to fear obesity? How shall we deal with the size zero ideal and the unhealthy obsession with being thin displayed in fashion magazines? What is a functional food and how should it be evaluated? What is a novel food? Is it OK to advise a population to eat these foods without an analysis of who is likely to benefit? Why is the popularity of organic foods soaring? 

6. Enhancing energy security, fighting global warming

 How can we satisfy our demands for energy? Will it be possible to reduce carbon emissions rather than slow their growth? How effective will those interventions proposed in Europe be in the global scheme of things? Will technological interventions be more effective than societal ones? Do carbon trading schemes fund effective developments in energy research and technology? What incentives are there for carbon reduction? How involved should scientists be in influencing political, industrial and public behaviour? Will the rising market of ecological resources and products enhance both, the environment as well as the economical health of Europe? How can we improve this market and make ecological products attractive even for those customers and countries that do still ignore the ecological time bomb. 

7. Science and innovation policy

 Facing challenges such as the greed for knowledge in China and India, Europe needs to reshape its scientific sector. It needs to be able to speak with one voice, to develop a common European science that allows national as well as regional differences. Requirements concern every area of the science and the humanities and every layer of science and innovation policy: processes of decision-making, the effectiveness of the distribution of research money, the urgent request of a common European market of talents and career opportunities. Does scientific mobility enhance output? Where do we find the scientific excellence for a competitive Europe? How can the newly founded European Research Council help to bring European scientists together? To what extent can the various national research councils improve their collaboration? How can science and the industry cooperate more productively? Does Europe need new science institutions?

8. Science and art

 Science and art deal with both, vision and cognition. How do science and art interact? How does science inform art and how does art inspire science?  In Barcelona we can see how Gaudi attacked the problems of architecture to allow an artistic vision to emerge, but why is the viaduct at Millau an object of beauty?  Questions about the interactions between art and science, have given rise to debate for centuries and continue. How can science be represented artificially? Can art add ‘something new’ to science? Is a work of art that relies heavily on science good art? To what extent does art shape scientific expression and demonstration by metaphor and pictures?  

9. Screening: burdens and benefits

 What are the prospects for screening for degenerative diseases? What should we look for? What parts of our current screening programmes should be abandoned? How many “patients” are we making out of healthy “people”?  Should we be disappointed about the contribution of modern genetics? Are we likely to find new biomarkers for illnesses to come and how do we use them?

10. Communicating Science

Scientists increasingly see communication with the public as an essential part of their work. But it is hard for them to communicate directly with non-scientists, so researchers normally have to go through the broadcast and print media. What are the pressures on journalists reporting on research, from editors demanding 'sexy stories' on one side and researchers denouncing hype on the other? How far should journalists go in simplifying and popularising complex issues? Maybe a little humour could help? And can scientists improve the underlying scientific understanding of the population by becoming more involved in schools?