Skip to main content

Iwan Rhys Morus - Five Way Interview

Iwan Rhys Morus is a professor of history at Aberystwyth University, specializing in the history of science. He’s written a number of books, including Frankenstein’s Children (1998), Michael Faraday and the Electrical Century (2004), When Physics Became King (2005), Shocking Bodies (2011), Nikola Tesla and the Electrical Future (2019), and most recently How The Victorians Took Us To The Moon (2022). He studied Natural Science at Emmanuel College, Cambridge before moving on to do a PhD there in the history and philosophy of science. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and the Learned Society of Wales.

Why science and technology?

As a historian of science, I spend a lot of time trying to understand the relationship between science, technology, and culture, particularly for the nineteenth century. It’s important, I think, because our contemporary world is entirely dependent on scientific and technological systems that are often invisible to most people. We just don’t think about what makes our smartphones work, or even how the water comes out of our taps. I’m interested in getting at how this came about – how it really came about rather than repeating fairy tales about the inevitability of scientific progress. This matters, I think, because understanding the origins of techno-scientific expertise is essential if we’re to properly defend it in a world in which it’s increasingly under threat.

Why this book?

I’ve become increasingly interested recently in the history of the future – how people in the past have imagined their future – and that’s really what this book is about: the way in which the Victorians invented the future in the way that we think about it now. The book looks at the ingredients out of which the Victorian future was made, hence the conceit that the Victorians took us to the Moon. They didn’t really, of course, but they did, in the sense that they created the mindset, which we still have, that such things are technologically feasible. As with understanding the cultural origins of modern science and technology, I think that understanding the cultural origins of that way of thinking about the future matters, particularly as we face a future of existential crises.

You are critical in the book of the tie between Victorian technology and empire - do you think we would have our current level of science and technology if there had been no British Empire?

I think that’s an impossible question to answer. Without getting into questions of right and wrong, I do think that it’s important to acknowledge that our current scientific institutions and much of our ways of thinking about science and technology, have imperial roots. Understanding that is the first step towards taking a hard look at the way we do things now and deciding whether we might want to do things differently.

What’s next?

Aliens. The history of aliens and extra-terrestrial life is what’s next.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Christmas, obviously, since I’m a sucker for Christmas! Seriously, there’s been a flurry of recent advances and breakthroughs in cancer research which I’m hopeful signal a revolution in cancer therapy.

Interview by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a digest free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re