The Empirical Epicurean: The Premise

There is a communication barrier between scientists and non-scientists. The danger of carcinogenic compounds, environmental policy suggestions, and the risk of nuclear power all become misconstrued in the public eye as a result of the difficulty of translating the results of scientific study into public knowledge. This challenge is four-fold:

• The inaccessibility of scientific jargon.
• Relatedly, the specificity of scientific knowledge. Not only must scientists engage in rigorous training for upwards of eight years, but even trained scientists often cannot decipher journal articles from another field of research, so how can someone with little to no formal training in the sciences hope to decipher the scientific literature?
• Speaking of the literature, the format of reporting scientific work is to publish articles in scientific journals, which, besides being literally inaccessible to most people (annual subscriptions to most journals range from about $80 to $300 and are typically provided by the home institution of scientists and students), are written in a format that is unique to the science world and rather tedious and impenetrable for those unaccustomed to the style.
• Finally, there is a misconception about the finality of scientific discovery. Science is a fluid entity, meant to continually change as experimentation and theory evolves to encompass new discoveries. This means that what we consider true today will not necessarily be accepted even ten years from now. A quick look at the history of science reveals the malleability of scientific understanding, as very little in science withstands the test of time. However, science carries great authority in today’s society, often giving off an air of infallibility. Thus scientific “discoveries” are often regarded as absolute fact, when in reality they are no less subject to scrutiny than the idea of a flat earth.

Thus we desperately need to break down this communication barrier and allow unimpeded discourse between scientists and nonscientists of all varieties. Though this may seem to be a lofty goal, we can start with baby steps, and such is the purpose of this blog.

I am a student of chemistry, biology, and so-called “science studies” – an interdisciplinary brand of social science which seeks to situate scientific activity in its cultural, political, historical, and economic context – but food is my passion. This blog is an exercise in uniting these interests, and was inspired by a physical chemistry professor with an eye toward uncovering the science of everyday phenomena. I will survey the academic literature as it relates to cuisine, and present a short summary of an article in terms that nonscientists (as well as scientists in fields other than the one discussed) can understand. I will pull primarily from the chemical and biological literature, but also hope to explore physics and even, occasionally, the realm of social science. Food has always been known as a phenomenal tool for building bonds between people, and thus I believe that it is the ideal topic through which to bridge the divide between scientists and nonscientists. And after all, as famed French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin astutely noted,

“The discovery of a new dish confers more happiness on humanity, than the discovery of a new star.”