Skip to main content

Kathryn Harkup - Four Way Interview

Kathryn Harkup is a chemist and author. Kathryn  completed  a doctorate on her favourite chemicals,  phosphines, and went  on to further postdoctoral research before realising that talking,  writing and demonstrating  science appealed a bit more than hours  slaving over a hot fume-hood. For  six years she ran the outreach in  engineering, computing, physics  and maths at the University of Surrey,  which involved writing talks on  science topics that would appeal to  bored teenagers (anything disgusting  or dangerous was usually the most  popular). Kathryn is now a freelance  science communicator delivering  talks and workshops on the quirky side  of science. Her new book is Making the Monster: the science behind Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Why science?

I know I'm biased but science really is the best. It is an incredibly powerful tool for trying to make sense of the universe around us. The more time I spend learning about science and reading about it, the more amazing it becomes. Writing books is a great excuse for reading books about brilliant science and scientists.

 Reading about scientific discoveries from two hundred years ago made me realise not just how far we have come but just how brilliant previous experimenters were. The acheivements they made, with relatively simple equipment and no concept of things like energy or atoms, is staggering. 

 Why this book?

Although the scientific aspects of Frankenstein only make up a small proportion of the whole novel, it's the bit that got me thinking. The book is credited as being the first science fiction novel and much science fiction has an unnerving scientific credibility to it. I wondered how close the science in Frankenstein came to the science, and scientific expectations, of the time it was written. I was also fascinated how a nineteen-year-old woman came up with such a concept. Mary Shelley had no formal education and was living in time when women were almost completely barred from participating in practical science (there were a few notable exceptions). I wanted to know just how well informed she was and where she could have got her inspiration from. 

 What's next?

Now I am researching another book. There will be plenty more science, and it's still a macabre topic, but it's even further back in history than Frankenstein. This time I'm going to be looking into the science of all the different ways to die in Shakespeare's plays. It's going to be lots of gory fun.

 Not only do I get to investigate new (to me)  areas of science but I get to find out a lot more about British history, a subject I gave up very early on in my school career. I love the crossover between science and other subjects, for me it makes it all the more interesting.

 What's exciting you at the moment?

It's great to see so much in the news about Frankenstein and Mary Shelley. She was an extraordinary woman living at an extraordinary time. I'm looking forward to talking about her life and work while I promote the book. 

 I am also relishing taking on a new challenge and immersing myself in researching the Plantagenets and the plague. I am loving watching Shakespeare's plays and calling it 'work'.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more