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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nanotechnology - Rahul Rao ****

There was a time when nanotechnology was both going to transform the world and wipe us out - a similar position to our view of AI today. On the positive transformation side there was K. Eric Drexler's visions in the 1986 Engines of Creation. Arguably as much science fiction as engineering possibilities, it predicted the ability to use vast armies of assemblers to put objects together from individual atoms.  On the negative side was the vision of grey goo, out of control nanotechnology consuming all in its path as it made more and more copies of itself. In 2003, for instance, the then Prince Charles made the headlines  when newspapers reported ‘The prince has raised the spectre of the “grey goo” catastrophe in which sub-microscopic machines designed to share intelligence and replicate themselves take over and devour the planet.’ These days the expectations have been eased down a notch or two. Where nanotechnology has succeeded, it has been with the likes of atom-thick mat...
Post a Comment
Read more