Skip to main content

Kathryn Harkup - Four Way Interview

Kathryn Harkup is a chemist and author. Kathryn  completed  a doctorate on her favourite chemicals,  phosphines, and went  on to further postdoctoral research before realising that talking,  writing and demonstrating  science appealed a bit more than hours  slaving over a hot fume-hood. For  six years she ran the outreach in  engineering, computing, physics  and maths at the University of Surrey,  which involved writing talks on  science topics that would appeal to  bored teenagers (anything disgusting  or dangerous was usually the most  popular). Kathryn is now a freelance  science communicator delivering  talks and workshops on the quirky side  of science. Her new book is Making the Monster: the science behind Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Why science?

I know I'm biased but science really is the best. It is an incredibly powerful tool for trying to make sense of the universe around us. The more time I spend learning about science and reading about it, the more amazing it becomes. Writing books is a great excuse for reading books about brilliant science and scientists.

 Reading about scientific discoveries from two hundred years ago made me realise not just how far we have come but just how brilliant previous experimenters were. The acheivements they made, with relatively simple equipment and no concept of things like energy or atoms, is staggering. 

 Why this book?

Although the scientific aspects of Frankenstein only make up a small proportion of the whole novel, it's the bit that got me thinking. The book is credited as being the first science fiction novel and much science fiction has an unnerving scientific credibility to it. I wondered how close the science in Frankenstein came to the science, and scientific expectations, of the time it was written. I was also fascinated how a nineteen-year-old woman came up with such a concept. Mary Shelley had no formal education and was living in time when women were almost completely barred from participating in practical science (there were a few notable exceptions). I wanted to know just how well informed she was and where she could have got her inspiration from. 

 What's next?

Now I am researching another book. There will be plenty more science, and it's still a macabre topic, but it's even further back in history than Frankenstein. This time I'm going to be looking into the science of all the different ways to die in Shakespeare's plays. It's going to be lots of gory fun.

 Not only do I get to investigate new (to me)  areas of science but I get to find out a lot more about British history, a subject I gave up very early on in my school career. I love the crossover between science and other subjects, for me it makes it all the more interesting.

 What's exciting you at the moment?

It's great to see so much in the news about Frankenstein and Mary Shelley. She was an extraordinary woman living at an extraordinary time. I'm looking forward to talking about her life and work while I promote the book. 

 I am also relishing taking on a new challenge and immersing myself in researching the Plantagenets and the plague. I am loving watching Shakespeare's plays and calling it 'work'.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more