Where did the idea for {Science(ish)} come from?
Well, I’d always wanted to make use of my science degree at some point. Shame to let four years of university and ten grand of debt go completely to waste. And both Michael (Brooks – my co-host, and brains of the operation) and I were doing guest slots on our mutual friend George Lamb’s Radio Wolfgang podcast. We chatted about trying to do something together – we wanted to find a way of talking about the science that interests us, but in an accessible way. I find that a lot of science shows are a bit dry and, frankly, joyless. The team at Wolfgang suggested looking at the science within fiction. We liked it. And then some genius came up with the name Science(ish). That genius was me, of course. Arguably it remains my most important contribution to the show.
What do you think the most scientifically accurate popular film is? And which is the worst offender?
I mean it’s obvious but I’d have to say Interstellar. The bookcase stuff is a bit of a stretch (a huge stretch, in fact), but the visualisation of the black hole is spectacular. And famously so detailed and faithful to the physics that, off the back of it, Kip Thorne and the visual effects team have published a paper called ‘Gravitational Lensing by Spinning Black Holes’ in the journal ‘Classical and Quantum Gravity’. I must confess I’m not a subscriber but it sounds impressive. And is possibly the first time that a film has given rise to some new science. The biggest load of tosh is The Day After Tomorrow. The science is really hokey (and yes, that is a technical term). Having said that, some studies suggest that it may have increased public awareness and concern about climate change. For our ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ episode of Science(ish) we spoke to the film’s scientific advisor Michael Molitor. He has previously said “Nothing I have done in the twenty-three years of my climate change career may have a greater impact than this film.” Fair play.
How long does it take to prepare an episode of Science(ish)?
The team do a lot of the legwork, to be honest. We have a brief chat about the kind of questions we want to ask related to the source material, and they go off and find all the relevant experts. Michael bones up on the hard science. I rewatch the film or read an abridged version of the book. Sometimes I’ll brush up on my superficial understanding of the subjects. Then we get into the studio and record our bits. You’ll be unsurprised to hear that we wing most of it. All-in-all an episode takes two weeks from start to finish, I reckon.
How did you first become interested in science?
I think the two main factors that drew me to science came pretty early on. My mum has always loved animals and nature, so we spent a lot of time going to zoos. I don’t mean to brag but I was even a member of the Marwell Zoo Young Zoological Society. And ever since my mum used to set me and my dad mental arithmetic challenges on long car journeys (to the zoo), I’ve enjoyed maths. Pure maths can be a little too abstract for my liking, but I’m fascinated by the way that numbers can model and predict things in the real world. Clearly a lot of science is quite maths-y. I did maths and science A-levels, not really sure about which I’d want to pursue at uni. In the end I started off doing a maths degree but changed after a year to do Natural Sciences. I ended up specialising in Human Impact on the Environment – which encompassed climate change, population dynamics and conservation. It was great.
What do you think the major appeal of podcasts is?
I can only really answer for myself. I like podcasts because I spend a lot of time travelling about on public transport, and I find it hard to muster the concentration required to read whilst being jostled and shoved. Listening to a podcast is an easier way to both pass the time and learn stuff. And I’m a sucker for learning stuff. My favourite podcasts (I realise you didn’t ask that, but I’ll tell you anyway) are Radio 4’s More or Less (presented by the economist Tim Harford, and all about the numbers around us), Invisibilia (all about the invisible forces that control human behavior), Radiolab (a real benchmark for us at Science(ish), this is a narrative podcast that looks at big ideas in science and culture) and The Adam Buxton Podcast (where Adam has a nice chat to an interesting person).
Have any directors, writers, or production companies contacted you after you’ve mentioned a particular film, TV programme or book?
No! But a few scientists have been in touch offering to contribute. Which is nice. And I’m sure Aldous Huxley would have been in touch about the Brave New World episode.
What made you want to get involved in the British Science Festival?
We got asked! Which was very flattering. I’ve been surprised at how warmly the scientific community have received Science(ish). I thought they might dismiss it as fluff. But no. They seem to like it. At the time of writing, we’ve never done the show live – although we are doing one the week before the Science Festival in the Imax at the Science Museum – so who knows how it will go down. We might get hounded out and never invited back. But at least we will have done it.
What do you need to take into account when recording a podcast live?
I’m actually pretty relaxed about it. I do quite a lot of live events, and relish them. Knowing that things can go wrong in front of an audience of people is quite exhilarating. As I say, we haven’t done a live version of Science(ish) yet. I assume it’ll be very similar to the normal podcast, just a bit less polished. I need to make sure we don’t jaw on for hours and hours. I know that Michael is shitting himself, which obviously I find funny.
LUKE OWAIN BOULT
Science(ish) Live, Swansea Grand Theatre, Wed 7 Sept. Tickets: free. Info: www.britishscienceassociation.org