Welcome by Sebastian Mernild, Head of SDU Climate Cluster, DIAS Chair of Science, Co-chairperson for the LIFE ACT project.Climate Change and Dilemmas by Henrik Seiding, Chairperson for the LIFE ACT project.Climate change is no longer a distant challenge – it is reshaping the very way we plan, design, and live in our cities. Urban development is at the frontline, facing a series of complex dilemmas: How do we balance densification with the need for green, climate-adaptive spaces? How can cities move fast enough to address urgent risks while still ensuring democratic legitimacy and citizen engagement? And how do we reconcile ambitions for economic growth with the necessity of building long-term resilience?Henrik explores these tensions, drawing on examples from Aarhus and abroad, where technical solutions, nature-based strategies, and questions of climate justice collide. Cities like Aarhus, Copenhagen and Rotterdam illustrate both the possibilities and the trade-offs in climate-conscious urban planning.The key message: there are no simple answers. Navigating these dilemmas requires political courage, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and a willingness to rethink how we define livability in a climate-challenged future. Henrik Seiding is Executive Director of the Department of Technical Services and Environment in Aarhus MunicipalityClimate Transformation and Dilemmas by Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, the University of Copenhagen.Over the past 35 years, climate science has advanced from a specialized research field to a central topic in public and political discourse. This lecture addresses not only the state of climate change but also the persistent challenges in communicating its science to society. While climate science is grounded in empirical evidence and reproducible results, public discussions often frame it as a matter of opinion, creating a tension between fact-based knowledge and perception.Drawing on my experience engaging with the media and broader audiences since the early 1990s, I will explore how careful, informed listeners differ from instances where communication is complicated by preconceptions, journalistic dogmas, or ideological framing—exemplified by controversies surrounding figures such as Bjørn Lomborg.The lecture will highlight key dilemmas: balancing accuracy with accessibility, countering misinformation without alienating audiences, and navigating the expectation of debate when scientific consensus is clear. I will also reflect on the role of scientists as public informers, the ethical responsibilities in presenting complex uncertainties, and the societal demand for immediate solutions in contrast to the slow, evolving nature of climate science. Through examples from my career, the talk will offer insights into how climate scientists can engage effectively with the public while maintaining integrity, emphasizing that communicating climate change is not about persuading with opinion but translating evidence into understanding and action.
On this Wild Wednesday, Anders Engberg-Pedersen (DIAS Chair), Bryan Yazell (DIAS Senior Fellow), Kathrin Maurer (DIAS Chair), and Ben Davies (DIAS Chair) will address the topic of reading: how, what, why we read. In their presentations, they will cover issues such as how to read canonical but ideologically problematic authors, how we read images as well as texts, and how reading is practised in the university today. Their four mini talks will explore reading in terms of materiality, practice, politics, and more. Together, they will raise important questions about the role reading plays in culture and research - at a time when reading is often presented as being in 'crisis', or at least undergoing significant transformations. As something that is fundamental to all disciplines, we also look forward to your contributions and a lively discussion about reading.
Vækst og dens utilfredshedKapitalismens historie er uløseligt forbundet med vækstens historie. Vækst bliver ofte fremhævet som kapitalismens største bedrift, men den har også skabt bekymring. Malthus advarede om befolkningstryk, Jevons om udtømning af kul, mens Boserup foreslog, at knaphed kunne fremme innovation. Disse debatter minder os om, at vækst altid har været omstridt. I modsætning hertil tager meget af den moderne økonomi vækst for givet og fokuserer i stedet på at forfine metoder og estimere årsagssammenhænge. Dette seminar bringer vækst tilbage i centrum for debatten og spørger, hvordan historiske refleksioner over velstand og begrænsninger kan hjælpe os med at tænke over kapitalismens fremtid i en tid med klimakrise og ulighed.Der vil være korte oplæg fra et panel af eksperter med forskellige perspektiver:[list][*]Professor Carl-Johan Dalgaard, Københavns Universitet, https://dors.dk/raad-vismaend/formandskabet/carl-johan-dalgaard[*]Professor Eoin McLaughlin, Heriot-Watt University, https://www.eoinmclaughlin.ie/[*]Professor Wim Naudé, RWTH Aachen University, https://www.wimnaude.com/[*]Professor Niklas Olsen, Københavns Universitet, https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/da/persons/niklas-olsen[/list]Efter oplæggene følger en paneldebat, modereret af Professor Søren Askegaard, DIAS, SDU.Bemærk: arrangementet foregår på engelsk
In contemporary healthcare, everybody seems to want more data, on more people, and use them for ever more purposes. There are many good reasons for such ambitions, and yet it is becoming obvious that the current data intensification generates not just stories of benefit and success, but also complaints about misunderstandings, meaningless work, and unintended consequences. In his book, Data Paradoxes (MIT Pres, 2023), Klaus Hoeyer outlines and describes why we tell such different – almost opposing stories about data, and why very different stories might all be partly true. How can we use such insights productively – not least in an age where also cross-border data integration is high on the political agenda? Klaus Hoeyer is professor of Medical Science and Technology Studies at the Centre for Medical STS, University of Copenhagen. His research focuses on the links between policy, practice and experience in medical research and clinical practice. In recent years, he has focused mainly on the increased emphasis on collection, storage, use, reuse of health data, and how these data practices change the health services. This research is primarily financed by the European Research Council.
An interdisciplinary workshop with historian Alex Mold (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), literature scholar Emily Hogg (SDU), and public health researcher Carolin Kilian (SDU). Alcohol was – and remains – a major part of life in many European countries.It is simultaneously a multi-billion-euro industry, a form of relaxation, a form of socialising, an addictive substance, a drain on police resources, a source of humour, a source of shame, a risk factor for several diseases, and much more besides. But how we view it depends on which angle we’re looking at it from. To discuss this, we have three talks from experts who have studied the alcohol industry, drinking, and alcohol consumption. They will speak about how these different viewpoints affect our conclusions about alcohol, and why it remains a controversial part of Europe’s daily life. Cake and coffee will be provided.
Matthew Collins (biochemistry) and Lars Boje Mortensen (literary history) will speak about CODICUM, an ERC Synergy project which spans the humanities and the sciences. Their talk will cover books and book production before the advent of paper and print (before c. 1400 / 1450).You will be able to see (and perhaps touch) a real medieval parchment book and several fragments of such books (courtesy of the SDU library)!Lars will introduce pre-modern books and their significance for intellectual and literary history – particularly within the Nordic context of CODICUM. Next, Matthew will demonstrate some of the startling research possibilities that thousand year old animal skins offer through DNA analysis and protein profiles, and the new facility at SDU. Together, these approaches will unravel new patterns of book history, intellectual networks and surprising insights and applications of “biocodicology”.
Empirical evidence from scientific research is considered the most reliable source of factual information in western societies. However, our worldview and ideology can influence scientific research and its outcomes. And vice versa, the results from scientific research also influence our worldview. So how sharply can and should we strive to distinguish science and worldview? Can worldviews be completely fact free, and can science be completely factual and neutral? Probably not. I will discuss three historical and current examples from biology where science and “nonscience” meet:[list=1][*]Social Darwinism and biological evolution[*]Religious belief and biological evolution, and[*]Gender and biological sexes.[/list]Although it is usually thought that “non-science” can hinder scientific progress, I will show that sometimes the opposite has been true. For this and other reasons, I will argue that universities should have space for nonscience next to science in order to remain sanctuaries for academic freedom. However, I will also argue that we should be as clear as possible on what is science and what’s not, and on the motivations for scientists to do scientific research. This will reduce the risk of naturalistic and ideological fallacies. Duur Aanen is a professor of evolution and genetics and studies and teaches fundamental questions and concepts, such as the evolution of cooperation, the evolution of sex and cultural evolution. In his research he uses fungi as model systems of conflict and cooperation, both in interactions within and between species. His team published key studies on the evolution of the mutualistic symbiosis of fungus-growing termites and on the evolutionary stability of multicellular cooperation in fungi. In 2018, he organised a Lorentz center workshop with biologists and theologians on the acceptance of evolutionary theory, resulting in the Leiden Declaration on Evolution and Religion. Professor Aanen collaborates with social scientists, on the topic of science and world view, and on the role of science in society.
What if communication were not just something humans do, but a process through which all kinds of beings—molecules, machines, institutions, emotions, organisms, laws, and people—come to express themselves and make a difference? Drawing on my forthcoming book, “Thinking the World Communicatively: An Exploration of the More or Less,” this talk introduces a way of approaching reality that transcends the traditional boundaries between the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. I propose that to think communicatively is to examine how relations allow phenomena to manifest themselves more or less in the world.Communication, in this broad sense, encompasses electromagnetic radiation warming our skin, neurons firing, procedures shaping institutional conduct, technologies guiding attention, and people coordinating with one another. Instead of reducing the world to discourse or matter, this communicative ontology highlights how beings both act and “pass through” others. It offers scientists, scholars, and students an anti-reductionist framework for understanding truth, objectivity, materiality, agency, and power across domains, from social interaction to quantum mechanics.BiographyFrançois Cooren (PhD, Université de Montréal, 1996) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at Université de Montréal, Canada. His research focuses on organizational communication, language and social interaction, as well as communication theory. He is the Past President of the International Communication Association (ICA, 2010–2011), the Past President of the International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA, 2012–2021), and former Editor-in-Chief of the journal Communication Theory (2005–2008). He was elected ICA Fellow in 2013, NCA (National Communication Association) Distinguished Scholar in 2017, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 2024. He published 16 books (four as an author or co-author and twelve as an editor or co-editor) and authored close to 100 peer-reviewed articles and more than 60 book chapters. He is one of the founding members of what is now known as the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, a primary branch of the Communication as Constitutive of Organization (CCO) approach.
