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

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
Post a Comment
Read more

The Science of Weird Shit - Chris French ****

This is a highly engaging topic, but before diving into the content of the book I ought to mention two issues with its title. The first is that in this age of algorithmic censorship, the final word of the title can cause problems - the publisher had an issue with publicity emails being caught by spam filters, and I'm nervous enough about the contents of this review being pulled that I won't use it in the text. The other, more subtle problem is that it's only partially what the book is about - as the subtitle makes clear. Most of it doesn't concern the science of weird stuff, but rather the science of why many of us believe weird stuff. Those aren't the same things. Such is the joy of titles - often hard to get right. But what about the book itself? Considering it's covering what can be quite a showy field, it takes a measured approach (in fact, I'd say occasionally it's a bit too academic in feel, focused on relating facts with limited storytelling). Ho
Post a Comment
Read more

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare
Post a Comment
Read more