Skip to main content

Mark Wolverton - Five Way Interview

Mark Wolverton is a science journalist, author, dramatist, and 2016-17 Knight-MIT Science Journalism Fellow. He writes for various national and international publications including WIRED, Nature, Undark, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Scientific American, American Heritage, The Atlantic, and Air & Space Smithsonian. He has also worked with the NASA Ames History Project, Argonne National Laboratory, MIT, the Franklin Institute, and the NASA ISS Science Office. His books include A Life in Twilight:The Final Years of J. Robert Oppenheimer and The Science of Superman. His latest title is Splinters of Infinity.

Why science?

As someone who was enthralled from a very tender age by 1950s science fiction movies, television shows such as Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and The Outer Limits, and the written works of authors such as Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke, it wasn't much of a leap to become fascinated by science - the reality underlying the fiction. Although I worked as a fiction writer for years in various media, it was a natural progression for me when I decided over twenty years ago to change my focus from fictioneering to nonfiction science writing. Carl Sagan once observed that we live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. I like to think that working as a science writer allows me to make some small contribution toward addressing that problem. 

Why this book?

After writing two books in a row dealing directly with nuclear weapons (not to mention my Oppenheimer book which was at least indirectly related to the topic), I was consciously seeking a change of pace. I found the subject of cosmic rays most appealing because it had a sort of lyricism, a poetry, a beauty, and was also more "pure science" than I've done before, yet still with a historical aspect. And it's definitely more positive and uplifting, rather than the gloom and doom and darkness of nuclear war and weaponry. Plus I liked the idea of writing about astronomy and astrophysics, because I haven't had as much chance to do that as I'd like. The book also provided an opportunity to delve into the nuts and bolts of doing science, both the neat and idealized world of lab work and data collection and the messy human side of personality clashes, professional rivalries, and how it's all influenced by press and public attention.

Why did cosmic rays capture the public (and press) imagination so strongly?

I think it was something of a perfect storm of different influences coming together: the flood of revolutionary scientific discoveries ranging from the scale of the universe down to the structure of the atom, along with the burgeoning influence and prevalence of mass media, coupled with the religious sensibilities of early 20th Century America, made people both awed and intimidated by humanity's place in the universe. That all made the notion of enigmatic radiation impinging upon the earth from somewhere unknown out in space fascinating and deliciously scary. Especially when eminent scientists such as Millikan and Compton seemed to promise that discovering the ultimate source, precise nature, and behavior of cosmic rays might be the answer to just about everything. The mystery and romance of the cosmic ray phenomenon struck a strong chord in the American public mind and made it an irresistible subject for newspaper editorials, armchair philosophers, religious sermons and tracts, whimsical humor, faith healers, advertisements, medical quacks, comic books, movie serials, and every other area of popular culture. Some touted cosmic rays as a source of unlimited energy, terrible "death rays," or universal healing. Everyone, from the citizen in the street to bishops and cardinals to scholars to humorists to football coaches, had something to say about it all. The cosmic ray grip on the popular imagination in the 1920s and 1930s was comparable to the contemporary public fascination for black holes, dark matter, and quantum physics.

What’s next? 

While continuing with my usual freelance work, I'm allowing the book writing muse to lie fallow for a while. I have a few vague ideas I'm exploring, but nothing definite as yet.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I wouldn't exactly use the word "exciting," but I've been rather pleased and encouraged by the unexpected huge popularity of Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer" film. And hopeful that its success heralds a fresh interest and concern in the vital issues addressed in the movie, especially the ever-growing threat of nuclear proliferation and war. (But then again, it probably won't.)


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

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
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