Skip to main content

Marty Jopson - Four Way Interview

Marty Jopson has a PhD in cell biology and builds science props, but he is best known for his regular appearances as the resident scientist on the BBC's The One Show. He does live stage performances around the UK, which involve naked flames and end in a loud bang. His latest book is The Science of Food.

Why Science:

Because it’s fun and I get a huge buzz finding out new things and then passing that knowledge on to other people. As a science communicator, it’s my job to talk to people about science on the telly, on stage and in books, so I’ve spent a lot of time considering why science is important, not just to me but to everyone. I could harp on about how science and technology have shaped our world, how medicine keeps us alive or how engineers have built everything. I could spend my time trying to communicate the science behind the deeper secrets of the mind or the darkest recesses of the universe. But in the end the audience I am interested in is the audience that doesn’t know they are interested in science. The key for me in my work is to share my enthusiasm for science. So, why science? Because it's fun.

Why this book?

Lots of reasons, but it really sprang from the first book I wrote, The Science of Everyday Life. In that I talked about quite a number of food-related science nuggets and I realised that I had so much more I wanted to say on the subject. I have spent a lot of time working on TV programmes about processed food and became very familiar with the food technologist’s subtle science. On top of that, I used to be a plant scientist and that is where some really exciting science is going on right now, but you don’t hear about it often. Lastly, I do love to cook and it was a way to marry two of my great passions - science and food. 

What’s next?

Immediately on the horizon I have a couple of new science stage shows to work on. I spend a lot of my time touring the UK going to science festivals and schools performing science shows. My shows are full of props and demonstrations and it takes a considerable while to develop each show. Lurking in my brain is a show to go with the Science of Food book, but also one on microscopy. After that, I would love to write something specifically aimed at kids and come the New Year, the BBC will be knocking on my door wanting to film again. 

What’s exciting you at the moment?

So many things! In the workshop, I just bought myself a new table saw and I'm about half way through refurbishing my massive Van de Graaf generator. On the stage show front I’m hoping to get my hands on some swanky microscopes soon for my new show, and when I say swanky - woo hoo - these are the bee's knees, but I can’t say any more right now. At home my daughter just started GCSEs this year and it turns out that for English Literature she’s doing two of my favourite books (Merchant of Venice and Lord of the Flies). I can’t wait to hear how she tackles them. Then there is the fountain pen that a friend just gave me. I’m rediscovering the joy of writing things on paper with ink. Oh and it’s my birthday in a few days and a bunch of my friends are joining me for a curry. All this excitement, I may need a lie down.

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

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i

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