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.

Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an explosion in the number of academic journals and publishers across most (if not all) research fields. This proliferation has placed significant strain on academics’ time (e.g., reviewing demands) and on university library budgets, and has raised pressing questions about both the quality and quantity of research outputs. Drawing on his personal experience as a former Editor-in-Chief of an Elsevier journal, as well as insights from a recent PNAS article on journal reform (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121), DIAS Chair Nikos Ntoumanis will open the session with reflections on why the current publication model is no longer fit for purpose and what reforms may be needed (or have recently been introduced). Following this short presentation, a panel discussion with DIAS colleagues Sergey I. Bozhevolnyi, Anthony Fernandez, Mette Præst Knudsen, and Lars Boje Mortensen, all of whom have editorial experience, will further explore the challenges and opportunities facing academic publishing today. We also look forward to hearing the audience’s views and experiences with current or alternative publication models.

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).

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.

Experts worry that support and tolerance for political violence and violent extremist actors is on the rise in the United States.  Is this true?  If so, what might explain why more Americans view political violence to be acceptable? Finally, what can be done to stem the tide of support for political violence in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere.  In this lecture I present some of my findings over several years of public opinion research on political violence in the United StatesJames A. Piazza is a Liberal Arts professor of Political Science whose research focuses on terrorism, political violence, and violent extremism in the United States. He holds a Ph.D. in Politics from New York University, an M.A. in Middle East Studies from the University of Michigan, and a B.A. in Political Science from Loyola University Chicago. Piazza’s work examines how democratic processes, demographic change, and extremist ideologies shape patterns of political violence. His research has been published in leading journals, including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Security Studies, and Political Research Quarterly, and he is widely recognized for his comparative studies of left‑wing, right‑wing, and Islamist extremism.