There has been an opera about Robert Oppenheimer, the ¡°father of the atomic bomb¡±, and a musical about University of Cambridge mathematician Andrew Wiles solving Fermat¡¯s last theorem. Tom Stoppard wrote an unperformed play about Galileo for the London Planetarium. Yerma¡¯s Eggs, by Anna Furse, called for ¡°projected biological material¡± for its staging, including ¡°a four-dimensional ultrasound image of a fetus in utero¡±. And cosmologist John Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge, put together a series of paradoxical thought experiments - an infinite library, a black box full of people living for ever, a universe where it is possible to leap through time - that formed the basis for Infinities, an extraordinary five-room spectacle staged in a Milan warehouse.

All are examples of what Kirsten Shepherd-Barr, university lecturer in modern drama at the University of Oxford, calls the ¡°interdisciplinary phenomenon¡± of the ¡°science play¡±. Her book, Science on Stage: From Doctor Faustus to Copenhagen, just released in paperback by Princeton University Press, offers ¡°the first full-length analysis¡± of the genre.

Although this theme can be traced back to playwrights such as Christopher Marlowe and Moliere, she said, her book focuses on the past 25 years, noting that ¡°Tom Stoppard¡¯s Arcadia [1993] and Michael Frayn¡¯s Copenhagen [1998] have become classics and taken on a life of their own. There is continuing debate about the latter and its use of history,¡± notably its fictional account of the real meeting between physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr in 1941.

Both are striking examples of ¡°plays which enact their ideas. Even if you don¡¯t care about fractals or ¡®the Copenhagen interpretation¡¯, you can see them unfold dramatically in the theatre in ways which wouldn¡¯t work in a novel or radio play,¡± Dr Shepherd-Barr said.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Playwrights have always been interested in arrogant doctors, miracle cures and the ethics and emotional upheavals of medicine. Science on Stage also traces how in the post-war years there were many plays about ¡°the pros and cons of nuclear physics¡±, and then writers turning to far less obviously dramatic themes such as ¡°uncertainty in physics, chaos theory and the neuroscientific basis of perception and memory¡±.

Although Dr Shepherd-Barr argues that ¡°the theatre has been one of the most consistently prominent sites of engagement between the two cultures (of the arts and sciences)¡±, this has also led to sniping from the scientific side.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Carl Djerassi, the inventor of the contraceptive pill who turned to playwriting in later life, has accused many non-scientific dramatists of falling back on the old cliches of scientists as ¡°just Frankensteins, Strangeloves or idiots savants¡±.

Dr Shepherd-Barr agreed that we have not seen many glamorous or heroic scientists on the stage recently: ¡°Ever since 1945, we have cast scientific knowledge in a different light. There is a general awareness and sense of accountability about what science can do. That¡¯s a public concern, and theatre is a public space.¡±

Yet plays can also be honest about science in ways that standard scientific procedures obscure. Dr Shepherd-Barr recalled how one neuroscientist she had interviewed had always been ¡°bothered by how the presentation of results can mask the hesitation and doubt behind the eventual data that get published¡±.

¡°It is good to understand the process behind the actual scientific findings,¡± she added. ¡°Most people don¡¯t see that, and the way papers are presented and refereed doesn¡¯t allow that hesitation to be shown.¡±

ÍøÆØÃÅ

matthew.reisz@tsleducation.com.