Dr. This demonstrates the physics of whisking egg white.
I suspect some were disappointed to learn that Dr. Hervé This, would not be conducting a “cooking show” during his seminar on Molecular Gastronomy, presented at the HITDC in Pokfulam. In his clear words he does not pretend to be a cook. I, being a lover of science, food and cooking was delighted that one of the worlds most affable, approachable and readable food scientists would be discussing the science of cooking.
Early in his presentation Dr. This, stated unequivocally that he was not here to answer, but rather to ask, questions. He then set about asking several empirical questions about eggs (why do they foam, how does a whisk work, which whisk is better, where is the yolk inside a shell, and so on), to which he always answered, “We don’t [yet] know.” After demonstrating the first fundamental of the scientific method: to explore phenomenon without prejudice, he then demonstrated how we could find out the true answers to all those questions (and more).
We delved into both elementary physics and chemistry, and were even presented with several quasi-cooking demonstrations, (a microwave soufflé, a mayonnaise “pudding” and a egg cooked by ethanol) but our professor again quite strenuously noted that he is not a cook, but a scientist. He plainly stated that the scientist and the chef are two distinct and important vocations in the creation of food, and that while they could be the closest of friend, while they both pursued their purpose with equally vigorous passion; they had very different goals. Scientists are in endless pursuit of sublime knowledge, while cooks are in endless pursuit of the more ethereal artistry of creating pleasure through nourishment. The scientists can no more drive the actions of the cook than the cook can force the science against reality. For mutual benefit the two must work in harmony in order to increase the vast lexicon called the art and science of cuisine.
Dr. This did provide one clear and important answer to a multi-part question that is currently on a lot of chef’s minds. He stated unequivocally that Molecular Gastronomy is the scientific study of food, while molecular cooking is an adoption of certain new knowledge and modern technology to add to or enhance the established glossary of cuisine. Throughout history we see a steady progression of food knowledge while every generation or so this fundamental knowledge is punctuated by trends and specific advancements. In time the overall food compendium adopts those specifically important features of any trend, discarding the rest. Thus it is really not a choice of either/or; it is simply that the overall encyclopedia is the big picture progress of cuisine and cooking while any trend, including molecular cookery, is the temporary divergence to a small picture specialty. Exciting in the moment, but over all just one of many contributors to a much larger base of knowledge and technique.
In the end, what Hervé This tried to do was to teach chefs the scientific method, to teach chefs how to ask questions and how to devise and perform experiments that will yield factual answers rather than more of the same “old tales” steeped in mystical supposition. To that end I found the lecture a value packed two-hours of learning, and will certainly take this scientific approach into improving the understanding the facts behind my chosen vocation. Perhaps in time I can help advance the knowledge contained in the lexicon of cookery, myself.
