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

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...
Post a Comment
Read more

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...
Post a Comment
Read more