Personally, I view cooking as a set of physical and chemical transformations. I view MG as creativity connecting scientific applications to cooking; food science in research conducted in understanding food in it’s various disciplines of biochemistry, chemistry, biology, mat. sci., etc. Neither MG nor food science are plateauing; it is a matter of seeing non-obvious connections and applying those insights.

Look at the average cooks practices: making vinaigrette – that is an emulsion making; monitoring internal temperature of meats – that is a very technical technique; making fudge or caramels – that is changing the sugar crystals into an amorphous phase post Malliard reaction (so many chemistry & mat sci stuff going on here); salting items for browning – that is changing the water content of the surface. My point is that people cooking in their kitchen do utilize chemical and physical methods a lot without realizing it; I think the difference lies in the creativity of the cook. If they are employing more creativity, I view that as MG; where being more technical, just following instructions is utilizing food science.

If MG should not be used for the activity, as Hervé states, my conclusion of good/suitable words that could be included for this activity might be:

- cooking
- science or evidence (or research)
- enabled or based

I also like “evidence based cooking” as stated by Martin Enserink in his 2006 Science article on MG and Hervé This. Maybe is “science enabled cooking” one of the best alternatives?

On the discipline
Hugh: I agree that there’s a long way to go. It’s really surprising that the microwave hasn’t made the leap from thawing and warming fast food. However, things have moved a fair bit already. Good points by Alessio on this. I’d be somewhat surprised if we don’t see any of the results from MG/research reaching a general public soon. Hopefully, some of the less spectacular but more “relevant” or “useful” knowledge might hit the common man soon.

http://cdavies.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/molecular-gastronomy-is-part-of-food-science/

Not that I am biased or anything

So I think the we are just getting out of the “Through” caused by the fact that, pushed by the first applications of the theory, we thought that all its new application could be as spectacular.
Understanding that what has been and still is being discovered with this new approach to cooking affects us even in our home kitchen, we are entering the next phase.

I wouldn’t call it a “plateau” but more an asymptotic trend, with a moderate increasing slope. This would correspond to the phase where easy/most evident applications and advances of the theories are almost extinguished and we have just to start working for it as hard as in every other scientific field after their establishment.
The spreading of MG (intended as prof. This defines it) courses in professional environments like universities and schools, will allow the formation of more researchers, more thinking heads that will allow a continuous increase in the knowledges (this will contribute to the hopefully constancy of the progress rate).

As concerning the acception of the words “Molecular Gastronomy”, I guess that a distinction between the theoretical and practical part of it, is due to be; if not merely socially, educationally for sure.
When master in MG will be available (there are already PhD degrees available), we would like to distinguish between a chef and a scientist approach.
Astronomy is not the same thing as Astrophysics, for instance, both deal with the Universe but with different intents. So probably word like “Gastrophysics” or “Gastro Sciences” (“Sciences Gourmandes” seems more appealing though :p) should be formulated.

Juan, you make a good point about whether people refuse the word or the approach as such. I guess most people refuse the word, rather than the approach. But that of course depends on what approaches people associate with the term. I think this is where some of the problem lies. I wonder if chefs refuse the term because people tend to associate it with foams and spheres, and nothing else? Even I would refuse the term then if cooking was my profession and I wouldn’t want to be associated with gimmickery.

As a chemist I think “molecular gastronomy” is an OK term as long as we define it. It’s a concept that lives it’s life somewhere inbetween science and cooking, so I don’t think it shouldn’t be interpreted in a strict chemical sense.

Personally I’m most interested in how science can improve my cooking at home. After all this is where I eat most of my meals. The result should either be something that tastes better in a broad sense, or perhaps a more fool proof and robust procedure.

So how about: we had Classic Cooking, which was learning what would kill us and not, Ethnic cooking, which was applying various techniques and ingredients tried around the world, but now available anywhere, and Molecular Gastronomy, which is now a refinement of chemistry and physics to further alter substances for human consumption, in ways that Classic and Ethnic cooking cannot achieve. Like trying to explain M Theory to Isaac Newton.