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.
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
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.
We often hear the phrase, “It’s in our DNA,” but what does that really mean? How does the information stored in our genes get read and used by our cells? Interestingly, cells do not use all of the information in their DNA at once. Different types of cells use different parts of their DNA, and some genes are only activated at certain times, such as during development or in response to stress or environmental changes. This process of reading and using genetic information is called transcription, and it must be carefully regulated and highly accurate. But how does this regulation happen? And what are the consequences if something goes wrong? Transcription takes place while many other important activities are happening in the cell, such as DNA replication or repair when the DNA is damaged. Because of this, cells have developed complex systems to manage this “gene traffic” and ensure that transcription happens smoothly and correctly. This talk will introduce the basic concepts of DNA and transcription, with a special focus on what happens when DNA is damaged—for example, by exposure to sunlight—and how cells deal with such challenges.About the speaker:Jesper Svejstrup is a Biochemist and Cell Biologist, renowned for his research on gene expression, particularly transcription and its interplay with DNA replication and repair. He earned his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology in 1993 at Aarhus University, focusing on DNA topology, before undertaking postdoctoral work with Professor Roger Kornberg at Stanford University. There, Svejstrup uncovered a direct link between the protein complexes responsible for DNA transcription and repair, a discovery that has shaped his research trajectory. He established his independent research group at Cancer Research UK’s Clare Hall Laboratories in 1996 and, in 2015, joined the Francis Crick Institute, holding honorary professorships at UCL, Imperial College London, and Aarhus University. Since 2020, Svejstrup has served as professor and deputy chairman at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, where he directs the Center for Gene Expression, employing multidisciplinary and ‘omics’ approaches. His achievements have been recognized by election to EMBO, the Royal Society, the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, and the UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences. He has received two ERC Advanced Investigator Grants and the Carlsberg Foundation Research Prize, and until recently served as vice-president for Life Sciences at the European Research Council (ERC).
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.
