How did you first get into cooking?

I am cooking since very young… but indeed, even if I cook (quite well) every day (at home, for my family, for friends, etc.), I am not a « cook », but a chemist. And my passion is chemistry, not cooking !

What sparked your interest in molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking?

My interest in Molecular Gastronomy : this is said on the site, and also in the introduction of my book Kitchen mysteries.

I began my experiments the 16th of March 1980 because of a cheese soufflé, where the recipe was saying to add the yolks two by two. Since that time, I am collecting « culinary precisions », and testing them. Then, all the rest developped.

Molecular Cooking : I was upset that the press and the public were saying that my friends Ferran Adria or Heston Blumenthal were doing « molecular gastronomy », because it is not true. They are not scientists, and they don’t make science, but rather cooking. This is why I introduced the expression « molecular cooking », for telling this form of cooking based on modern scientific results, and in particular from results of Molecualr Gastronomy

Where did you begin your studies within food science?

See above

Were there any major obsticals you had to overcome in order to continue research and exploration within molecular gastronomy/ cooking?

None ; only I am missing seconds and smartness

What do you enjoy most about your carreer choice?

Science !

How do you think molecular cooking and gastronomy has changed since you first starting practicing in this field?

Just look around you, and compare with books by Escoffier, or even Bocuse

What are your goals for the future?

Producing good science !

What advice would you give a young cook hoping to explore the science of food, and molecular cooking?

Don’t spend your time studying science : art is much more important. And love !

How long it takes to work up a new technique to be used in molecular cuisine? And how you find new methods/tools to be incorporated into the molecular gastronomy art?

What do you mean by "to work up"? If you mean, how long it takes me to get an idea that I can propose to Pierre Gagnaire, so that there is an innovation, the answer is complicated. Indeed it takes me some seconds to get the idea, but in reality, I am thinking of food all day long, for decades!
How do I find innovation? There are many ways, but one is to use systematically the new knowledge produced by science, as I explain in the document attached, whics is part a the new book that I am publishing today (in French) under the title "Culinary... Science, technology, technique : which relationship?"

What dish from your portfolio You are most proud of? Could You tell something more about this particular composition?

Indeed I am not proud of anything, because I find it too easy. Even in science, I am not proud of what I am doing... but in both areas, I am happy of "what next".
I am not saying that I did not do well in some occasions, but really the applications are easy.
In the scientific part, my introduction of the CDS/NPOS formalism for the description of colloidal matter was quite fine. It was applied to classical sauces, and showed that there are 23 physical categories, which led to the idea that we can make easily new categories. This was the basis for the sauce called Gay-Lussac. It was also the basis of the invention of the machine called a Pianocktail, that can today make automatically more than 500 billions differents sauces.


Do You think that molecular cuisine is the "cuisine of the future" - that one day we will eat solely foams, coulets and spheres?

No, molecular cuisine is not the cuisine of the future, and I published some years ago an interview where I explained why I want it to die soon : as molecular cuisine means "new tools, new ingredients and new technique", it will be old when everybody uses new ingredients, tools and techniques... and we can move to something new.
This is why I proposed for 1994 a concept called "note by note cooking" (explained in French in my book "Construisons un repas", and in English in "The science of the oven", just published at Columbia University Press.

Who should be involved with it?

Who should be involved with Molecular Gastronomy ? Scientists.

How should/can chefs apply it every day in their kitchens?

One cannot apply Molecular Gastronomy in the kitchen, because strictly speaking you cannot apply science. But you can use the results of science, and of Molecular Gastronomy in particular.

Let’s consider one example. A Molecular Gastronomy project on « carrot stocks » (aqueous solutions obtained by thermal processing of carrot (Daucus carota L.) roots in water) showed that the color of stocks is brown when the stock receives light, and orange when processed in the dark. As chefs are frequently using grilled onion to give a brown colour to stocks, an application of the result is to avoid the onion, and used light only (a lid or not).

More generally, I am explaning one innovation per month on the internet site by Pierre Gagnaire, and with Pierre, we work to give also recipes using the innovation by me.

How much science does the average chef/souschef/cook need to know?

Nothing in particular. I am fighting the idea that one has to understand to make « molecular cooking » (mind that I did not write molecular gastronomy). Molecular cooking was defined years ago as « using new tools, ingredients, methods ».

Of course, I would love that chefs understand what they do, but they don’t « need » to know. It’s only probably better.

What is the ultimate effect on/benefit to the customer?

Thanks for the question because you give me the possibility to say that I am not very interested in 3 stars restaurant. I work for the public. And this is why I am very interested by applications such as the Chocolate Chantilly, a chocolate mousse with no eggs that I invented in 1995 : the cost of this is less than the cost of a traditional mousse with egs… because you don’t use the eggs. This is called « home economics ».

More generally, it’s a pity that we cook as we do, i.e. more or less as in the Middle Age, with pans, sieves, etc.

We have to rationalize. For exemple, it’s awful that we spoil up to 80% of the energy we use for cooking ! Whisks are not appropriate for what we do with them. If we want to foam, there are much more efficient tools (siphons, or many other) ; if we want to emulsify, an ultrasonic probe is much more efficient (and fast !) ; if we want to…

Let’s cook more rationnally… if we have enough knowleldge to design changes. This is a long term idea of Molecular Gastronomy : producing the knowledge that will be the basis on deciding for changes.

May I tell you that, in this regard, we shall show in Hong Kong, the 21rst of April 2009, the first fully synthetic dish of the history of cooking ?

 

What was your job title at Inra when you started and what is it now?

When I cam to INRA in 2000, there was a long discussion about my title and it was chosen that I was  writing on my cards and emails, and also letters : “Physico-chimiste INRA (Attaché à la Direction scientifique Nutrition Humaine et Sécurité des Aliments), Laboratoire de chimie des interactions moléculaires (Professeur Jean-Marie Lehn), Collège de France.

What’s the name of the boss who told you that science had to be “good science”?

A wonderful guy, called Gérard Pascal (please, do not write that he did not answer me about the question.

Did you join Inra in 2000 and are you 52?

Yes for the first, and I am born in 1955.

 

How big is your team at Inra? Is your department called the “molecular gastronomy” department? Do you have students or, as I have written, do people just come by to work on their theses?

            My team is changing always. Right now, we are 14. This is the “INRA MG Team”, within the Chemistry Dpt of AgroParisTech. This dpt is a common INRA and AgroParisTech Research Unit. This INRA Unit belongs to the AlimH dpt of INRA, within the Food Direction of INRA

 

What’s your mother’s name?

            My father is called Bernard This, and my mother is Claude This, born Jacquemin

 

Do you have brothers and sisters?

 One brother elder, Laurent, died very young, one brother is Bruno, younger, and one sister Isabelle, much younger.

Am I right to assume that you studied FRENCH literature and where?

Yes, but more precisely : “Lettres modernes”, at Censier (Paris IV university).

Did you start working as the editor of Pour la Science straight after your studies? If not, what did you do in between?

Yes, immediately after finishing the scientific curriculum at ESPCI, I was hired by Belin publishing company (a joint venture with Scientific American), and I collaborated to Pour la Science. Six months later, I moved from Belin to Pour la Science.

 

When did you start collecting cookery sayings?

23 March 1980

 

When you said it was prestigious to write for Science magazine, you didn’t mean Pour la Science?
            I don’t remember this part. Tell me more.

 

What year did you test the Elle soufflé recipe with eggs?
            1980

 

When was your chocolate chantilly recipe published in Elle?
            Don’t remember. It was for Xmas, probably 1999?

 

When you tested the suckling pigs recipe, did you cook TWO pigs?
            No  : four. Two had the head cut immediately, and two had not.

 

What is the name of your wife, and am I right to think she is a cancer specialist?
            Pascale is an extraordinary physician with 3 specialties : endocrinology, gynaecology, and breast cancer. The created a “women center” in the Versailles Hospital (she still coordinates it), and she is at the root of a special “women with high risk of breast cancer” at the Curie Institute)

 

Est ce que La Table d’Anvers est un resto connu, étoilé? When did they try out your new molecular techniques?
            Now, the restaurant is nothing, but it was a very famous restaurant. I would say that they begin doing funny things in 1992 (remember that it was the year of the first International Workshop on Molecular Gastronomy, in Erice, Sicily, that we organized with Nicholas Kurti.

 

Is the name spelt Wöhler, ie sauces?

Don’t understand the question : if you want to know the name of the Wöhler sauce, yes, the spelling is ok.

And could you write the ingredients of a note-by-note sauce, ie
Salt, glucose, water, etc.

Water, ethanol, sodium chloride, glucose, tartaric acid, total Syrah phenolics, butter.

 

AND CAN I HAVE SOME MORE SAYINGS???? FOUR OR FIVE??? Envoyez moi sur un site web, si ca vous embete.
Did you try : http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/apprendre_experimenter/gastronomie_moleculaire/une_banque_de_precisions_culinaires/precisions_relatives_aux_viandes/battre_la_viande

 

But also :

1742 : Marin, Les dons de Comus, 2001 (fac similé de l’édition de 1742), Manucius, Pau, Tome 3, p. 154 : « Faites suer le tout sur des cendres chaudes pendant deux heures pour faire sortir le jus, surtout que la marmite soit bien bouchée pour que le parfum de la sauce ne s’évapore pas ».

 

1789 : Menon ?, La science du maître d’hôtel cuisinier, 1789, nouvelle édition, Libraires associés, Paris, p. 124 : il met une garniture dans l’eau et  « faites infuser sans bouillir sur de la cendre chaude ».

 

1838 : B. Albert, Le cuisinier parisien, p. 2  : « Au lieu de les faire trop réduire [les fonds de cuisson], ce qui leur donne souvent de l’âcreté, liez-les avec du beurre manié de farine ».

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 103 : pour préparer un fond de viande, qu’il  nomme jus, il écrit « Je recommande expressément de laisser mijoter seulement ; c’est le point essentiel, si l’on veut que le jus soit clair ; vous l’obtiendriez trouble infailliblement si vous faisiez cuire à trop gros bouillons ».

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p.28: « quand il s’agit de réduire, vous devez au contraire employer un feu très ardent, pour faire évaporer le plus vite possible. Une glace ou une sauce qui réduisent trop lentement perdent à la fois comme coup d’oeil et comme goût ».

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p.356 : « Je rappellerai que l’emploi que l’on fait du blond de veau comme élément particulièrement colorant et nutritif tient au principe gélatineux qu’il contient, ce qui permet de le faire tomber facilement à glace et d’en obtenir, pour les sauces et consommés,  une belle couleur dans la nuance voulue ».

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 27 : « Les cuissons s’obtiennent par le feu lent et continu. Les réductions s’obtiennent, au contraire, par un feu très vif et un évaporation très prompte ».

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 28 : « Une glace ou une sauce qui réduit trop lentement perd à la fois comme coup d’œil et comme goût ».

1875 Environ: Baron Brisse, Ildefonse, La cuisine à l’usage des ménages bourgeois et des petits ménages, Environ 1875, C. Marpon et E. Flammarion, Paris, p. 36 : pour un jus, il fait rissoler, puis déglace au bouillon, puis « laisser mijoter le jus au moins pendant trois heures ».

1925 : A la Vichy. St Ange p. 756 : "Le sel de Vichy, ou bicarbonate de soude, ajouté aux éléments de la cuisson, remplace ici l'eau naturelle de la région de Vichy, laquelle eau n'étant point calcaire procure une cuisson parfaite. »

1976 : Paul Bocuse, La cuisine du marché, p. 72, recommande de n’utiliser que la partie rouge des carottes, dans une soupe fermière.

1981 : André Daguin, Le nouveau cuisinier gascon, Éditions Stock, Paris, 1981, p.42 : il cuit des carottes dans de l’eau avec du beurre et du sucre « jusqu’à l’évaporation ». Qu’est alors devenu le beurre?

1996 : Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : « Les carottes râpées noircissent très vite au contact de l’air. Pensez à leur ajouter un jus de citron »

1996 : Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : «Quand on épluche des carottes, on se retrouve parfois avec les doigts tout orangés. Frottez-les avec du jus de citron ou avec de l’eau oxygénée à 10 volumes ».  (Si ça jaunit, c’est que les caroténoïdes sont solubles dans les graisses, donc dans la chair ; pourquoi n’a-t-on pas le même effet avec la peau des tomates?).

 

Auguste Colombié, Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, p. 19 : « Ratissons ou enlevons le plus fin possible la peau de la carotte, car le sucre est dans la chair rouge »

 

A propos de carottes, Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 74 : « Faites cuire à grand feu pendant 20 minutes, en couvrant bien, la casserole. Ce temps doit suffire pour la cuisson du légume et pour la réduction du bouillon. » C’est étrange qu’on couvre pour réduire!

 

 

A la Vichy. St Ange p. 756 : "Le sel de Vichy, ou bicarbonate de soude, ajouté aux éléments de la cuisson, remplace ici l'eau naturelle de la région de Vichy, laquelle eau n'étant point calcaire procure une cuisson parfaite. "

 

Carême, art de la cuisine française p. 176 explique que les carottes sont glacées quand on ajoute au consommé du petit pain de beurre frais et des morceaux de sucre.

 

Auguste Colombié, Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, p. 19 : « Ratissons ou enlevons le plus fin possible la peau de la carotte, car le sucre est dans la chair rouge »

 

A propos de carottes, Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 74 : « Faites cuire à grand feu pendant 20 minutes, en couvrant bien, la casseroles. Ce temps doit suffire pour la cuisson du légume et pour la réduction du bouillon. » C’est étrange qu’on couvre pour réduire!

 

Paul Bocuse, La cuisine du marché, p. 72, recommande de n’utiliser que la partie rouge des carottes, dans une soupe fermière.

 

Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : «Quand on épluche des carottes, on se retrouve parfois avec les doigts tout orangés. Frottez-les avec du jus de citron ou avec de l’eau oxygénée à 10 volumes ».  (Si ça jaunit, c’est que les caroténoïdes sont solubles dans les graisses, donc dans la chair ; pourquoi n’a-t-on pas le même effet avec la peau des tomates?).

 

André Daguin, Le nouveau cuisinier gascon, Éditions Stock, Paris, 1981, p.42 : il cuit des carottes dans de l’eau avec du beurre et du sucre « jusqu’à l’évaporation ». Qu’est alors devenu le beurre?

 

 

 

1860 :  Jules Breteuil, Le cuisinier européen, Paris, Garnier frères, p. 23 : « Quelques ménagères demeurent encore convaincues que c’est seulement dans un pot-au-feu de terre qu’on peut faire une bonne soupe grasse ; c’est une erreur. Le pot-au-feu se fait tout aussi bien dans un pot de fonte de fer émaillée à l’intérieur ».

 

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 44 : « Il faut avoir soin, en plaçant le couvercle de la marmite, de laisser une ouverture de deux travers de doigt : le bouillon se troublerait dans une marmite hermétiquement fermée. »

 

1875 : Ildefonse Brisse, La cuisine  l’usage des ménages bourgeois et des petits ménages, environ 1875, C. Marpon et E. Flammarion, Paris, p. 2 : « N’en déplaise à d’aucuns, c’est dans un pot de terre ayant servi plusieurs fois que s’obtient le meilleur bouillon ».

 

1890 : C. Durandeau, Guide de la bonne cuisinière, p. 21 : « On mettra  la viande après l’avoir dressée, attachée et battue si l’on craint qu’elle soit dure, dans un pot de terre ou de fer».

 

1892 : Lucien Tendret, La table au pays de Brillat-Savarin, Lyon, 1986, Éditions Horwarth, p.26 : « Le choix du vase pour le cuir n’est point indifférent ; ceux de terre, après peu de temps, communiquent au bouillon un goût de graisse rance ; ceux de cuivre n’ont point cet inconvénient ».

 

1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, p.350 : « Après avoir battu, dressé et attaché la viande, on la place dans un pot de terre ou de fer qu’on remplit d’eau froide ;

 

1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, Paris, page 351 : « Après avoir battu, dressé et attaché la viande, on la place dans un pot de terre ou de fer qu’on remplit d’eau froide ; l’eau de fontaine ou celle de rivière sont préférables à l‘eau de puits. »

 

1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, Paris, page 351 : « On sale immédiatement, »

 

1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, p.350 : « l’eau de fontaine et celle de rivière sont préférables à l’eau de puits.

 

1896 : Lucien Tendret, La table au pays de Brillat-Savarin, Lyon, 1986, Éditions Horwarth, p.26 : «  Mettez quatre livres de viande et cinq litres d’eau dans la marmite de cuivre. »

 

1899 : Jean de Gouy, La cuisine et la pâtisserie bourgeoises, 1899, réed 1903, J. Lebegue, Bruxelles et Paris, p. 73 : « Le même inconvénient se produit si on fait le bouillon dans un récipient qui n’est pas rempli d’eau aux trois quarts au moins. C’est la raison pur laquelle il est préférable de faire le pot-au-feu dans une casserole plutôt que dans une marmite large et basse.

 

1899 : Jean de Gouy, La cuisine et la pâtisserie bourgeoises, 1899, réed 1903, J. Lebegue, Bruxelles et Paris, p. 73 : « On met le bouilli dans une marmite profonde ».

 

Sd : Par les Dames  Patronnesses de l’Oeuvre du Vêtement de Grammont, 760 recettes de cuisine pratique, Grammont, p. 5 : « Pour avoir un excellent bouillon, il faut employer de préférence un pot plus haut que large ».

 

1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 43 : « Il faut avoir soin, en plaçant le couvercle de la marmite, de laisser une ouverture de deux travers de doigt : le bouillon se troublerait dans une marmite hermétiquement fermée ».  

 

1893 : Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, par Auguste Colombié, p. 19 : « C’est maintenant que l’on peut l’abandonner à lui-même après avoir réglé le gaz de façon à ce que le bouillon fasse moins que sourire, la température de 100°C le cuit et ne le réduit pas. Pour cela, il ne faut pas le laisser découvert  ni même fermé hermétiquement mais presque ».

 

 

Who created Molecular Gastronomy ?

Indeed the real story is that when I met Nicholas, we were immediately intimate friends, because we shared the same passion for science and cooking. After my call, on the phone, he decided to come the next week to Paris, and we shared a wonderful « poule au vin jaune et aux morilles », at Chez Maître Paul, in Paris.

Then, we exchanged almost daily, so much indeed that my boss at Pour la Science was angry at me for this.

But we went on, he came frequently, and at some point, we discussed both the organization of a workshop, and also of a « society ».

I remember very well that he advised not to do the society « now », but we decided for the workshop.

Had he had other discussions about that elsewhere ? I don’t know, but what I know that in my office at Pour la Science, we decided to call Zichichi (from Pour la Science ; if proofs are needed, one should look to phone bills !).

Zichichi was not in, so that we wrote him a letter, that Nicholas signed alone. I have probably the answer by Zichichi in files.

This answer said that if we could prove that top scientists would come (let’s say Nobel prize winners), then he would be OK. As I know very well Pierre Gilles de Gennes (he is dead, but his widow Anne Marie could confirm), I called him, and he agreed to come. Then we had other positive answers from many people.

For the organization, we did it both alone. All the letters sent by one of us were shared by the other.

Concerning Harold, as we wanted an international meeting, and as Nicholas was visitiing professors at some US univerisities, and as he knew Liz (she was really cute, not scientist at all by the way) and Harold, we decided to ask Harold to be a relay for the US.

But all the participants can tell you that Nicholas and I did all the work… and this is why we were both directors of the « school », Harold being an invited director for the first meeting. As his involvement was not needed and his work limited, we did not ask him for the second one.

I have all the papers of that probably.

Then, yes, Nicholas and I are the fathers, or creators of Molecular Gastronomy.

Yes it is science : and the proof is my PhD (Nicholas was in the jury, by the way, and I was my own director)

Yes Liz was very charming, and kind. But she did not do anything in the organization of the meetings.

And the US people should not  forget that the « prehistory of molecular gastronomy » is full of people that tried things but did not create the real science that Molecular Gastronomy is now. If you can read French (and you can) have a look to the paper that I did on Pomiane, for example.

 

Was Harold McGee also involved in first 1992 workshop molecular gastronnomy in erice?

Yes, Nicholas and I (the director) invited him to be a one shot director for this particular workshop.

If you ask me the question, it is usually because the English speaking people have the tendency to make him the founder of Molecular gastronomy, which is not true. The “name” was coined by Nicholas and me in 1988 : I proposed “molecular gastronomy”, and Nicholas proposed to add “and physical”.

Indeed, in the 1950’s, in France, Edouard de Pomiane was very famous for his “gastrotechnie”, with radio shows and best sellers. Harold and others, such as ourselves, were not the first to investigate cooking, and Harold’s book were certainly not the first on the subject.

More generally, I am making a clear point in distinguishing the “prehistory of MG”, with Pomiane, Nicholas (well before Harold), Harold and myself, others,  and the beginning of MG with Nicholas and I.

Remember also that well before Pomiane, there was Liebig, and before Liebig, there was Lavoisier!

 

 

After 20 years of molecular gastronomy, how do you see it’s development: has it surpassed your initial expectations?

I generally don’t look to the past but to the future. The result is probably : first, a lot of groups developped in all the major countries of the world, with more educational results than scientific works. Indeed our lab remains the main one for producing scientific results, and I shall have to push in this direction more than I did.

The influence on chefs was perhaps more than I could have expected... because it worked, and, indeed, I am not generally considering the summit of the mountain; I am only working, as cleverly as possible. My focus is on work, not on results... but of course the results can be appreciated.

 

What do you think have been the main contributions of molecular gastronomy to cooking?

Molecular Cooking, the trend that is born from the application of Molecular Gastronomy, is defined as the introduction into kitchen of new ingredients, tools or methods. This worked well. Even liquid nitrogen is used now. But it is probably more important to consider that “cooking by expansion” and “cooking by concentration” ideas were discarded. In many countries, the culinary curriculum was changed, because of Molecular Gastronomy.

Mind the fact that I am not so interested in the contributions of Molecular gastronomy. For a scientist, only contributions to science are important!

 

Why is it important to analyse and correct culinary traditions? This scientific approach may be seen as an attack to tradition, so how can you explain the benefits of this work?

Why it is important to analyse culinary traditions? Traditions are information. If you use right information, it’s fine, it helps you. But if you use wrong information, you will be delayed, annoyed. We have to rationalise, so that we can cook more easily, and teach better.

Moreover, I remember very well that when we began our work, many “secrets” were kept. With science, there are no secrets any longer, and anybody who wants to work and study can get the information. This is sharing a culture.

 

Why do you think there is still so much resistance and suspicion about molecular gastronomy?

There is some resistance and some fears of course, because the world is made of two kinds of people : conservative and innovative. It’s useless to fight the wrong ideas of the conservative, so that I don’t care about them, and I work.

Moreover, there are some (awful) people that use the fear of others to promote themselves. We should fight this kind of behavior.

But how can you fear molecular gastronomy? It’s as if you feared astronomy, physics, history, geography... knowledge!

 

Is there a good and bad way of how chefs should use the findings of molecular gastronomy?

Yes, there is a bad way : to make dishes that are not well done. Recently, in a famous place of the world (I shall not tell you were) the chefs had to do a “molecular cooking” menu... and the seasoning was poor. This is bad way of using molecular astronomy. Some food critics published the (wrong) idea that molecular cooking was too soft, too tender... They are wrong, because it’s a generality, but if a chef is doing well with applications of molecular gastronomy, it’s fine ; if he is doing wrong, it’s bad.

 

Some chefs see molecular gastronomy as a fast way of becoming famous. What dangers (if any) this represents for cooks, restaurants and science himself?

You probably wanted to say “molecular cooking” rather than “ molecular gastronomy”? But yes, it’s true that any trend is a way of being famous and having customers. If you show new things, the media go there, because they have to publish new information. And this makes some advertising to the chefs.

Dangers ? there are dangers if you poison your customers (I prefer the word “guest”). But you can poison people as well with traditional food and with molecular cooking. It’s funny, anyway, that some people criticizing molecular cooking for “chemicals” are indeed roasting, and they ignore that can be very dangerous, because of benzopyrenes, in particular. Many plants, also, are toxic!

 

It seems emotion and passion is a big part of the way you approach your work. How do you see the application by chefs of the findings of molecular gastronomy without a similar emotion? Will it have the same “scientific” results?

Again, we should not confuse science and cooking! Emotion and passion are part of myself... for science. And one has to consider that chefs are of two kinds : craftpeople and artists. An artist without emotion? This is no artist indeed. A craftman or craftwoman without emotion? First does it exist (after all we are all human beings, ie moved by emotion). Anyway, no chef will have scientific results, because no chef is a scientist. This is a completely other job.

More than that, we should never say that people with a scientific training and working with chefs are scientists. They are not, because they are not producing knowledge, but rather apply the results of science. They are technologists.

 

You say that molecular gastronomy still has a lot to explore. What paths do you think it will it take and what impact could it have in restaurants?

The paths that we have to use? As any recipe is made of a “definition” and of precisions (old wive tales, etc.), we have to develop both aspects.

What impact on restaurants? Really, I don’t know... but why not the development of the “note by note cooking” trend, with the use of pure chemicals in dishes?

 

Maybe one of the most controversial aspects of molecular gastronomy is the creation of artificial products. Why is it important to explore this area?

No, the creation of “artificial products” are not results of molecular gastronomy, but they are the result of applications of molecular gastronomy.

Anyway, if you have an orange (or carrot, beef, any product), you are oblige to have its flavour. Now if you make an artificial orange, you can decide for the flavour you want to give. Chefs are no grocers, but cooks!

 

How can you justify the utilization by a chef of an artificial product (for ex: artificial meat) instead of a “natural” product? What does it bring to the cook and the client?

Same question.

 

The Michelin Guide is seen by many as “classic” but, as you mentioned once, in fact it recognizes creation and artistry. What’s the role of this and others guides or awards (like the list of 50 Best Restaurants) in the evolution of molecular gastronomy?

The Michelin Guide being classic? Remember that it was one of the first to applaud to Ferran Adria, as soon as in the beginning of the 90’s.

By the way, these guides have influence on chefs, not on science. Be sure that I don’t pay any attention to the world of cooking for science!

 

Is it possible to speculate how will it be a top restaurant that uses the findings of science in, let’s say, 20 years from now? How would it be your dreamed restaurant? What is your goal?

 A restaurant of my dreams ? A different one everyday. As for music : today, we are more happy than before because we can choose between Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Debussy, Chopin, modern music... It would be awful if we had only Molecular Cooking because it would be a loss of culture. We have to enlarge the choice.

Tomorrow, I would be glad to have more “culinary constructivism” and “note by note” cooking restaurants, but also places with more innovation in the way we eat, we sit, we use tools (forks, knives, sticks, fingers), the way we see food, etc.

 

Does Hervé This loves cooking as much as science?

No, I prefer science! And this is why I am a scientist, and not a cook (I cook everyday for my family, and be sure that with a teacher such as Pierre Gagnaire and others, I am not so bad). But science! Chemistry! Physics! Physical chemistry!

 

When talking about this project, you mentioned both your interest in archiving old documents about cooking and the phrase  Agir ceder resister--the art of giving in (to the public, in this case) so that then you can resist (the public and change its desire). How does the archiving project constitute Ceding/yielding, and what is the ultimate desire you wish to generate among the public here? What is the resisting? 

OR--what are the more subversive reasons behind your encouraging the study and archiving of cooking's past?

 

Woww, a difficult question.

First of all, my interest in « culinary precisions » is based on the idea that a lot of science can be discovered through them.

Its only a secondary property that they can be used for changing the way people behave.

In the agir/ceder/resister strategy, the precisions are obviously part of « céder », and the audience has the feeling that coming back to good old cooking is at the core of the project.

Resisting ? In reality, I still have the desire to change the way people cook and I shall never give up the idea !

 

Can you talk about the idea of a museum of food? What would your ideal version of this concept look like?

A museum of « culinary precisions » ? I began here :

http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/apprendre_experimenter/gastronomie_moleculaire/une_banque_de_precisions_culinaires

 

In what ways do you think Les Alchimistes may help the general public (non-scientists, non-chefs) become more open to and understanding of the role science has played in our understanding of food?

In this very interesting text by Bonnefons, you first discover that old things can be very modern. Then it’ s a way to tell people that « someone that knows only its generation is a child », we need to know some history, we have to look to the past when we prepare the future, in particular. And there are many interesting ideas in it, but also many mistakes. We have the duty to WORK and make a filter for the next generations.

 

 After 20 years of molecular gastronomy, how do you see it’s development: has it surpassed your initial expectations?

I generally don’t look to the past but to the future. The result is probably : first, a lot of groups developped in all the major countries of the world, with more educational results than scientific works. Indeed our lab remains the main one for producing scientific results, and I shall have to push in this direction more than I did.

The influence on chefs was perhaps more than I could have expected... because it worked, and, indeed, I am not generally considering the summit of the mountain; I am only working, as cleverly as possible. My focus is on work, not on results... but of course the results can be appreciated.

 

What do you think have been the main contributions of molecular gastronomy to cooking?

Molecular Cooking, the trend that is born from the application of Molecular Gastronomy, is defined as the introduction into kitchen of new ingredients, tools or methods. This worked well. Even liquid nitrogen is used now. But it is probably more important to consider that “cooking by expansion” and “cooking by concentration” ideas were discarded. In many countries, the culinary curriculum was changed, because of Molecular Gastronomy.

Mind the fact that I am not so interested in the contributions of Molecular gastronomy. For a scientist, only contributions to science are important!

 

Why is it important to analyse and correct culinary traditions? This scientific approach may be seen as an attack to tradition, so how can you explain the benefits of this work?

Why it is important to analyse culinary traditions? Traditions are information. If you use right information, it’s fine, it helps you. But if you use wrong information, you will be delayed, annoyed. We have to rationalise, so that we can cook more easily, and teach better.

Moreover, I remember very well that when we began our work, many “secrets” were kept. With science, there are no secrets any longer, and anybody who wants to work and study can get the information. This is sharing a culture.

 

Why do you think there is still so much resistance and suspicion about molecular gastronomy?

There is some resistance and some fears of course, because the world is made of two kinds of people : conservative and innovative. It’s useless to fight the wrong ideas of the conservative, so that I don’t care about them, and I work.

Moreover, there are some (awful) people that use the fear of others to promote themselves. We should fight this kind of behavior.

But how can you fear molecular gastronomy? It’s as if you feared astronomy, physics, history, geography... knowledge!

 

Is there a good and bad way of how chefs should use the findings of molecular gastronomy?

Yes, there is a bad way : to make dishes that are not well done. Recently, in a famous place of the world (I shall not tell you were) the chefs had to do a “molecular cooking” menu... and the seasoning was poor. This is bad way of using molecular astronomy. Some food critics published the (wrong) idea that molecular cooking was too soft, too tender... They are wrong, because it’s a generality, but if a chef is doing well with applications of molecular gastronomy, it’s fine ; if he is doing wrong, it’s bad.

 

Some chefs see molecular gastronomy as a fast way of becoming famous. What dangers (if any) this represents for cooks, restaurants and science himself?

You probably wanted to say “molecular cooking” rather than “ molecular gastronomy”? But yes, it’s true that any trend is a way of being famous and having customers. If you show new things, the media go there, because they have to publish new information. And this makes some advertising to the chefs.

Dangers ? there are dangers if you poison your customers (I prefer the word “guest”). But you can poison people as well with traditional food and with molecular cooking. It’s funny, anyway, that some people criticizing molecular cooking for “chemicals” are indeed roasting, and they ignore that can be very dangerous, because of benzopyrenes, in particular. Many plants, also, are toxic!

 

It seems emotion and passion is a big part of the way you approach your work. How do you see the application by chefs of the findings of molecular gastronomy without a similar emotion? Will it have the same “scientific” results?

Again, we should not confuse science and cooking! Emotion and passion are part of myself... for science. And one has to consider that chefs are of two kinds : craftpeople and artists. An artist without emotion? This is no artist indeed. A craftman or craftwoman without emotion? First does it exist (after all we are all human beings, ie moved by emotion). Anyway, no chef will have scientific results, because no chef is a scientist. This is a completely other job.

More than that, we should never say that people with a scientific training and working with chefs are scientists. They are not, because they are not producing knowledge, but rather apply the results of science. They are technologists.

 

You say that molecular gastronomy still has a lot to explore. What paths do you think it will it take and what impact could it have in restaurants?

The paths that we have to use? As any recipe is made of a “definition” and of precisions (old wive tales, etc.), we have to develop both aspects.

What impact on restaurants? Really, I don’t know... but why not the development of the “note by note cooking” trend, with the use of pure chemicals in dishes?

 

Maybe one of the most controversial aspects of molecular gastronomy is the creation of artificial products. Why is it important to explore this area?

No, the creation of “artificial products” are not results of molecular gastronomy, but they are the result of applications of molecular gastronomy.

Anyway, if you have an orange (or carrot, beef, any product), you are oblige to have its flavour. Now if you make an artificial orange, you can decide for the flavour you want to give. Chefs are no grocers, but cooks!

 

How can you justify the utilization by a chef of an artificial product (for ex: artificial meat) instead of a “natural” product? What does it bring to the cook and the client?

Same question.

 

The Michelin Guide is seen by many as “classic” but, as you mentioned once, in fact it recognizes creation and artistry. What’s the role of this and others guides or awards (like the list of 50 Best Restaurants) in the evolution of molecular gastronomy?

The Michelin Guide being classic? Remember that it was one of the first to applaud to Ferran Adria, as soon as in the beginning of the 90’s.

By the way, these guides have influence on chefs, not on science. Be sure that I don’t pay any attention to the world of cooking for science!

 

Is it possible to speculate how will it be a top restaurant that uses the findings of science in, let’s say, 20 years from now? How would it be your dreamed restaurant? What is your goal?

 A restaurant of my dreams ? A different one everyday. As for music : today, we are more happy than before because we can choose between Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Debussy, Chopin, modern music... It would be awful if we had only Molecular Cooking because it would be a loss of culture. We have to enlarge the choice.

Tomorrow, I would be glad to have more “culinary constructivism” and “note by note” cooking restaurants, but also places with more innovation in the way we eat, we sit, we use tools (forks, knives, sticks, fingers), the way we see food, etc.

 

Does Hervé This loves cooking as much as science?

No, I prefer science! And this is why I am a scientist, and not a cook (I cook everyday for my family, and be sure that with a teacher such as Pierre Gagnaire and others, I am not so bad). But science! Chemistry! Physics! Physical chemistry!

 

Why did you introduce Molecular Cuisine in your restaurant? What’s the main individual characteristic of your guests?
 I don’t have any restaurant, but rather a laboratory. I am not cooking. Indeed, I am one of the two founding fathers of Molecular Gastronomy (gastronomy means knowledge, not cooking), and with my old friend Nicholas Kurti, it’s true also that we created Molecular Cooking… but we pushed in this direction, showing examples. He was a physicist. I am a chemist. We don’t cook professionally!

How would you describe your cooking style in molecular cuisine?
 No style, as I am not cooking

What’s the most challenge do you think in making molecular cuisine? Why?
 I don’t understand the sentence.

Where do the materials and the kitchen utensil come from?
 I don’t understand the question, but I can say that :
- Molecular Cooking is cooking with “new” ingredients, methods, tools.
- what is new in cooking (liquid nitrogen, rotary evaporator, fritted glass funnel, sodium alginate, etc.) is not new is chemistry or physics!
- my proposal is to ask : why do we cook as we do? In any regards. Then, when the objective is known, we can decide to go on with the traditional ideas, or to change.

Where do you get your inspiration in molecular cuisine from? Could you amplify the process of creating a new course by giving an example?
Again, I am not a cook. But I use new scientific ideas to make inventions, that Pierre Gagnaire is later translating in dishes.

What do you think the biggest pleasure afforded by cooking molecular cuisine? And what about tasting it? Why? What’s the most spectacular molecular cuisine cooked by other chef you have ever had?
 Pierre Gagnaire!!!!

What’s paths do you think will Molecular Gastronomy and what impact could it have in future?
 Those days, I am introducing “culinary constructivism”, and also the “note by note cooking” trends. The first entirely “note by note” dish of the history of cooking will be shown in Hong Kong next week.

Could you share your best cooking tip with a home enthusiasm trying molecular cuisine?
 The best? Try the “chocolate Chantilly” that I invented in 1995.

If you have anything to say to our Chinese readers?
Don’t confuse art and craft, technology and science, technology and technique. Avoid thinking that Nature is good. Let’s examine tradition,  let’s ask questions, let’s work hard, in order to improve cooking.

What are the concepts of “note by note cooking” and “culinary constructivism”? Can you explain them by giving us some examples?
First, culinary constructivism : it began one day while working with Pierre Gagnaire. Pierre showed me a dish made of a disk of smoked salmon, with on top a gelly of citrus. The pairing was wonderful, but there was some « heaviness » afterwards, because of the salmon. I proposed to turn it up down, and the same dish was « fresher ».
This led me to propose that cooks work in order to produce explicitly  the « laws » of culinary constructions.
Indeed, in this case, as the dish is put on the tongue, you can perceive the odor of the citrus (odorant molecules can escape the gelly and go in the oral cavity, then reach the nose) and the taste of the salmon (taste molecules have to dissolve in water, i.e. saliva). If you turn it, you perceive the odor of the salmon, and the taste of the citrus.
Another example : just put some mayonnaise sauce in a spoon, and eat it. Then, compare with the same, adding a branch of chervil on the mayonnaise : you will have to swallow, and the sensation will be much longer.
More generally, we have to build… also because when the guests perceive the building, the feel implicitly that it was built for them, so that the dishes say « I love you », and who would not love that ?
Moreover, I made an assumtion : if it something is built, it is considered as « beautiful », because it says « I built it for you, then I love you ».


Now, « note by note cooking » : any traditional food (carrots, meat, etc.) are each made of a lot a different compounds, and adding one of these food ingredient in a pan is like adding a whole mixture of compounds, with no control on the mixture. If the mixture is not right, the only possibility is to change the food ingredient, replace the carrot for another carrot, or for a turnip, etc.  Indeed chefs  know that well, and this is why they add some compounds when there are not happy with the taste of food ingredient : for example, it is frequent to add some sugar to carrots when the sugar content of carrots is not right.
Then, why not just mix compounds in a pan ? This makes a « note by note » dish.

There is first a comparison with music : a carrot, with its various compounds, is like a chord, where you cannot change the notes. Adding some sugar to a carrot is like playing a note added to a chord. And mixing compounds one by one is like playing arpegios, note by note.

There is a comparison with painting : traditionnally, chefs cooked with mixtures, like violet, brown… But it is impossible to make some yellow from a mixture of brown and violet. The « note by note proposal » is like using elementary colors : you can make all colors with them !

The idea of note by note cooking developped since I proposed it in 1994, in Scientific American (April issue). There was a first step in February 2006, when I proposed the Wöhler sauce, that Pierre Gagnaire showed at a press conference at Sketch, in London (UK). This sauce including polyphenols from Syrah was used with a pheasant « à la Castillane ». Soon after, a young chef called Christèle Gendre was (and is still) proposing it at the menu of her restaurant in Paris.

Let’s add some political considerations. Farmers suffer from the low price of their product (carrots, grapes…), and it would be a good idea to help them to fractionnate their product, and make new ingredients with added value. For example, wine is more expansive than grape. The same could be done with any other food product.
But then, how to use the new products ? One has to work in order to prepare the new market. The note by note cooking initiative is a first step in this direction.

Let’s add some technical remark. Many compounds are more « precise » than traditional ones. In particular, when you add some lemon juice to prevent browning of plant products, indeed you don’t know that only ascorbic acid present in lemon juice (vitamin C) is useful, and you suffer from the lemon flavor. Why not instead using pure ascorbic acid ?

In Hong Kong, Pierre Gagnaire will show a wonderful « note by note » dish that we designed after many months of work : it was not so easy to learn the flavour of pure compounds, and how to make a real art piece out of it. Remember that Pierre Gagnaire is not particularly interested in chemistry, and in molecular cooking ; he is only interested in « culinary art », and he never proposes a dish when it’s not up the level that he implicitly decides : the highest. Remember also that the only question of Pierre is « flavour », pleasure, happiness through dishes.

And, what’s the relationship between “note by note cooking” and Molecular Gastronomy?
Indeed there is no direct relationship. The relationship is only through me : I am doing molecular gastronomy… and aside, I also proposed the idea.

I know that Courses on Molecular Gastronomy (from experiments to calculation) are hold in many universities abroad now. How are they getting along? What’s the purpose of such courses?
The subtitle « From experiments to calculation » is only the one I use myself, for my courses on molecular gastronomy, that you can now follow on internet : http://www.agroparistech.fr/mmip/tice/agrovideo/this/
But it is true that other countries than France introduced curriculum in molecular gastronomy : Denmark, Korea, USA, Australia, Finland… How are they getting around ? I don’t know : I am not making myself these courses. But you could ask the people in charge of them. 

Could you introduce your laboratory and your team simply? Could you show us some images of your laboratory?
Introduce my laboratory and my team ? I would prefer to say "our laboratory", and "our team".

The INRA Molecular Gastronomy team is one of the teams of the Laboratory for analytical physical chemistry of AgroParisTech Paris. It is a mixed unit INRA and AgroParisTech : INRA is the main « agronomy » scientific agency of France, and AgroParisTech is the most important teaching center for agronomy in France (it is a « grande école », let’s say one of the top universities, like MIT in the US, or Berkely, or Imperial College in the UK).
Our team has a very fluctuant number of people, from 3 to 25, depending on the time of the year (now 7).

A personal question, now I know clearly that you are not a cook. However, do you cook in daily life? If you do, how are the dishes? I think many readers are so interested in it.
 Yes, I am the one who cooks daily at home. How are the dishes? Not bad, I hope… as technically, I have to problem to make very difficult  things (I can make 1 cubic meter of whipped egg white with one egg, or 10 liters of soufflé with only 300 gramms of soufflé preparation). But this is nothing. Indeed, from the art point of view, I have a very good teacher : Pierre Gagnaire!
Indeed, I was yesterday invited by him at his countryside house, and I made for all guests a kougelhopf ; in another message, I am sending a movie where he says that this was his best ;-)

I am a part of the chemistry club at my university, and think that an excellent project for our club could stem from your research.  I would like to ask you for your advice in how carry out analysis of aromatic molecules in wine, scotch, and cheeses.  I think that carrying out analysis (LC-MS) of various wine and cheese samples and coupling information about these with tasting could bring the public into closer contact with science while enjoying wine and cheese.

If you are chemist, don’t forget that science is indeed calculations, not experiment. This is why I propose to make distinctions between « chemistry technique », « chemistry technology », and « chemistry » (for the last one, adding the word « science » would make a pleonasm »).
Analyzing odorant molecules (please use odorant rather than aromatic, because one should call aromatic only when there are aromas, i.e. the odor of aromatic plant) is fine, but I would use GS MS rather than LC MS, as odorant molecules are generally hydrophobic, contrary to taste molecules.
Moreover, remember that molecular gastronomy is not  the science of food ingredients. Analysing cheese, wine, whisky is food science, but not molecular gastronomy (molecular gastronomy means « looking for the mechanisms of phenomena that occur during culinary transformations »).
Please, be also aware that in English, flavor is the overall sensation, based on a mixture of taste, odor, trigeminal sensations, consistency (different from texture), temperature..

Best regards, celebrate chemistry !

Molecular cuisine has come so far with the use of liquid nitrogen, cooking under vacuum, eating foams, jellies, etc. What next after this? Is there a peak to the application of molecular gastronomy in the kitchen? How more will it develop?

The definition of molecular cooking is « using new tools, ingredients, methods ». I hope that when everybody will have moved, we can go into new territories, such as « Culinary constructivism » or « Note by Note  cooking » (see my book Building a Meal, Columbia University Press)


Will we reach the state where synthetic food is being consumed? If so, are we really eating food per say? What might be the controversies?

The main issue is « synthetic ». What does it mean ? Indeed, when you use starch, water and sugar to make a dough, you use products extracted from raw materials, and you make food. If you mean « synthetic » this way, why not… as it is done currently.
However, if you mean all molecules being synthetized chemically, then no, certainly no : this would be nonsence… in particular nonsens economically.


The application of this science strives for change in the way people cook and eat. Therefore the use of the right usensils is very important. For example, a whisk might not be an ideal tool to produce froth, there is something more efficient. But correct me if I'm wrong, molecular cuisine is very expensive because of the high tech tools used. Therefore, how would the general public who cannot afford expensive tools or dine at these restaurants apply this science to eat and cook better?

No, molecular cooking is NOT expensive. Tools in labs have no reason to be more or less cheep. Consider microwaves ovens : their cost was about 1000 dollars, at the beginning, and you can now get them for only 50 dollars in Europe. This is because so many people buy them. It can be the same with new tools.
Concerning ingredients, I don’t see why gelling agents from algae would cost more than gelatine. In order to prvent browning, for exemple, ascorbic acid is much cheaper than lemon juice.
Etc.


A few acclaimed chefs are against the use of "molecular gastronomy" although it is clear that they are applying the knowledge of molecular gastronomy in their cooking. What is your comment on that?

No comment : dogs bark, and then ? I have so many interesting things to do !


Many restaurants now have a tendency to blow up the presentation of their food. Sometimes, one cannot even make out what he is eating. Do you think the application of molecular gastronomy using high tech machines and exotic ingredients justifies them to do so?

I am not sure to understand the question.


You started out by collecting old wives tales, saying and etc. Have you solved all of that? And how do you look for new theories to test?

I have now more than 25.000 « culinary precisions », and it takes a very long time to check correctly one of them. No, certainly no : I didn’t checked all of them !
How do I look for new theories to test ? Indeed, my daily work is not in this way. See please the attached paper. 

When did you first make the connection in your life between chemistry and gastronomy?

There were two instances really, but it was on 16 March 1980 that I decided to begin studying culinary old wives tales because of a cheese soufflé.  It was a Roquefort cheese soufflé whose recipe said to divide the yolks two-by-two.  I said, “Why do this?” so I did not prepare two-by-two; and, the soufflé was a failure. This is most fortunate, because the next Sunday other friends were over for a meal.  This was an habit that I had since a very long time: cooking for friends. For example, when  I was a student, friends were coming, we were supposed to prepare physics and chemistry exams, but indeed we worked not much during these gatherings… but we had good dinners.   Anyway I decided to make it again, the soufflé.    When I had the recipe, there was a sentence, “add the yolk two-by-two.” 
At that time I said, “Oh, perhaps this is the reason of the failure.”  If the two-by-two was not so good, I decided to do one-by-one instead of two-by-two; and, the soufflé was better!  But I know now that it was because I knew how to make this particular soufflé, and not because of the two-by-two.  The next day, the 24th of March 1980, I did not go to the office; and, I took a blue notebook and wrote my name and address like a lab book in case I might lose it.
I wrote the sentence, “It’s interesting there are old wives’ tales in the kitchen; we should collect them and make tests.”  Now I have more than 25,000 of these; I call them “culinary precisions” because you know a saying is not an old wives’ tale.  A proverb is different.  A tip is different.  A method is different.  So, in order to apply one name for all these, I proposed some years ago to call  them “precisions.” 

Is there any support within chemistry to the claim that one should allow a bottle of wine to “breathe” after opening it?  Is this a myth?

I don’t study much bread, wine, beer, cheese or sausage.  This is not cooking; this is fermentation - too difficult for me.   I’m a chemist.
Having said that, when I met my wife, there was a godfather who had a cellar that was not stolen by the Germans during the war because the cellar was in the garden, not under the house.  I was fortunate to drink a Haut Brion wine from 1931! – and this wine, when you opened the bottle you had an awful burnt rubber smell.  After some seconds this evaporated and then the wine was perfect.  So, this “breathing” is a reality.

What do you consider an important contribution or discovery that you have made within your field?

My NEXT one.  What is the use of being “proud” of something that you did? I prefer working in the hope that something very new will appear. In science, discovery is a big pleasure, but remember: lift a corner of the great veil, as said Albert Einstein! It is funny that when you make research, in a science lab, you make discoveries all the time if your mind is open to seeing what you don’t see. You can also create concepts, theoretical ones, that are like glasses that you put in front of the eyes of your mind, and that change the look that you have on the world. 
I remember a very good student, (she was well educated), crying when I told her that we don’t know what we were looking for, in science.  Of course, we have reasonable and rational programs, but if I can find something that I cannot understand, then immediately I will drop all activities and study this understandable thing. So, the next will be the most important.