0:00:15 > 0:00:17This is the Old Bailey.
0:00:18 > 0:00:21Today, it's the central criminal court
0:00:21 > 0:00:27but until the mid 19th century, this site was home to Newgate Jail,
0:00:27 > 0:00:29the most notorious prison in Britain.
0:00:35 > 0:00:38On the morning of the 18th of January, 1803,
0:00:38 > 0:00:41George Foster was taken from his cell here in Newgate Jail
0:00:41 > 0:00:43and led down this corridor.
0:00:46 > 0:00:50The reason this corridor narrows as you walk down it is that
0:00:50 > 0:00:54as prisoners were led down here, they had a tendency to panic
0:00:54 > 0:00:59and that's because this is the last walk they made of their life.
0:00:59 > 0:01:02This was the route to public hanging.
0:01:08 > 0:01:11Vast crowds had gathered outside the jail to witness
0:01:11 > 0:01:13George Foster's last moments.
0:01:21 > 0:01:23According to one contemporary account,
0:01:23 > 0:01:27Foster died very easily as several of his friends
0:01:27 > 0:01:29who were under the scaffold had
0:01:29 > 0:01:33violently pulled his legs in order to put a more speedy
0:01:33 > 0:01:35termination to his sufferings.
0:01:35 > 0:01:39Now, Foster's hanging was an unremarkable event.
0:01:39 > 0:01:43Public executions were common in 19th century London, but what
0:01:43 > 0:01:48was unique was what happened to Foster's body after he died,
0:01:48 > 0:01:52because it was taken directly from the gallows to an operating theatre.
0:01:57 > 0:02:00George Foster's corpse was to be the centrepiece of a public
0:02:00 > 0:02:05demonstration by Professor Giovanni Aldini, a practitioner
0:02:05 > 0:02:09of the latest field of scientific experimentation...
0:02:16 > 0:02:18..galvanism.
0:02:26 > 0:02:31Galvanism was the belief that electricity was the spark of life,
0:02:31 > 0:02:35perhaps even the very essence of life itself, and this is what Aldini
0:02:35 > 0:02:41intended to demonstrate by taking a pair of electrodes and in front
0:02:41 > 0:02:46of the watching audience, thrusting them into George Foster's corpse.
0:02:51 > 0:02:53To the audience's amazement,
0:02:53 > 0:02:57the dead body in front of them twisted and contorted.
0:02:57 > 0:03:02When current was applied to the face, the dead man opened his eye.
0:03:04 > 0:03:07Aldini was hoping that, through these experiments,
0:03:07 > 0:03:11he would one day be able to bring people back from the dead.
0:03:19 > 0:03:22For many watching in the audience, this was a step too far.
0:03:22 > 0:03:25It was outrageous, immoral even,
0:03:25 > 0:03:28and ultimately Aldini was forced to leave the country.
0:03:30 > 0:03:32He's alive! He's alive!
0:03:32 > 0:03:35He's alive! He's alive!
0:03:36 > 0:03:40A few years later, Mary Shelley wrote her seminal work,
0:03:40 > 0:03:45Frankenstein, the story of a corpse brought back to life.
0:03:48 > 0:03:50And it's said that the eponymous scientist
0:03:50 > 0:03:52was based on Aldini himself.
0:03:54 > 0:03:57This image of scientists as Frankenstein's,
0:03:57 > 0:04:00meddling with powers beyond their control,
0:04:00 > 0:04:03is a vivid one that colours the public's perception
0:04:03 > 0:04:04of science to this day.
0:04:25 > 0:04:30The idea of mad scientists creating dangerous monsters has haunted
0:04:30 > 0:04:32the story of British science.
0:04:36 > 0:04:40In this film, I want to find out why.
0:04:45 > 0:04:47I'm going to visit the locations where some of the most
0:04:47 > 0:04:51controversial discoveries in British science were made...
0:04:54 > 0:04:57..and examine the impact they had on the world.
0:04:59 > 0:05:02It provided a physical explanation or heredity.
0:05:05 > 0:05:10I'll be looking at scientists whose research horrified the public...
0:05:10 > 0:05:12and I'll be meeting researchers
0:05:12 > 0:05:14whose work remains controversial to this day.
0:05:16 > 0:05:19I never had any doubts about the benefits that
0:05:19 > 0:05:22accrued from the work that I was privileged to be involved in.
0:05:24 > 0:05:26I'm not embarrassed about what I do.
0:05:54 > 0:05:58Science is one of this country's great success stories.
0:05:58 > 0:06:00We punch way above our weight.
0:06:00 > 0:06:03I mean, just look at this view.
0:06:03 > 0:06:06Over there, in Paddington, lived Alexander Fleming,
0:06:06 > 0:06:09whose discovery of penicillin transformed our treatment
0:06:09 > 0:06:12of bacterial infections.
0:06:12 > 0:06:16There, on the other side of Regent's Park, lived Michael Faraday,
0:06:16 > 0:06:20whose work in electricity and magnetism, electromagnetic induction,
0:06:20 > 0:06:24made electricity a practical and useful thing.
0:06:24 > 0:06:28And there, on Gower Street, lived Charles Darwin,
0:06:28 > 0:06:32where he first formulated his theory of evolution by natural selection,
0:06:32 > 0:06:36which transformed our view of the natural world.
0:06:41 > 0:06:44It's these discoveries that shaped modern life.
0:06:46 > 0:06:50And this from just one tiny slice of the country.
0:06:52 > 0:06:54Across the whole of Britain,
0:06:54 > 0:06:58our contribution to global science has been enormous.
0:07:25 > 0:07:28But while Britain has been the location
0:07:28 > 0:07:31for so many of science's important discoveries,
0:07:31 > 0:07:35it's also been a place where discovery can be controversial.
0:07:38 > 0:07:41A place where science, and scientists,
0:07:41 > 0:07:43can still be treated with suspicion.
0:07:45 > 0:07:48And to find the reasons for that, we need to go back
0:07:48 > 0:07:53in time to when science caught the public imagination as never before.
0:07:56 > 0:07:58In the early 19th century,
0:07:58 > 0:08:02Regency London was at the centre of an intellectual revolution.
0:08:02 > 0:08:05It was a place of great art and great architecture,
0:08:05 > 0:08:08and the rock stars at the time were the Romantic poets -
0:08:08 > 0:08:12mad, bad and dangerous to know.
0:08:12 > 0:08:15But equally famous and arguably more dangerous
0:08:15 > 0:08:20were the natural philosophers or, as we call them, the scientists.
0:08:25 > 0:08:29At the time, science was transforming the way we understood the world
0:08:29 > 0:08:33and the public were desperate to hear of the latest advances.
0:08:35 > 0:08:40Lectures given by the top scientists of the day would be sold out.
0:08:41 > 0:08:47And, in 1802, the hottest ticket in town was the Royal Institution...
0:08:50 > 0:08:54..where the star attraction was their new professor of chemistry...
0:08:56 > 0:08:58..Humphry Davy.
0:09:01 > 0:09:05Humphry Davy was a Cornishman and a brilliant scientist.
0:09:05 > 0:09:07He became professor here at the Royal Institution
0:09:07 > 0:09:09at the unlikely age of 23.
0:09:09 > 0:09:15He was good-looking, charismatic and many said, arrogant.
0:09:15 > 0:09:19He thought he was a genius and he was probably right.
0:09:19 > 0:09:21As well as being a brilliant chemist,
0:09:21 > 0:09:25Davy was also a passionate communicator of science.
0:09:29 > 0:09:31Davy was a genuine star.
0:09:32 > 0:09:36The Royal Institution theatre was packed with the great
0:09:36 > 0:09:37and the good of the day.
0:09:38 > 0:09:42They had come to witness Davy's spectacular demonstrations.
0:09:44 > 0:09:47It had all the excitement of a magic show,
0:09:47 > 0:09:51but what Davy was doing was better than magic...
0:09:53 > 0:09:55..it was chemistry.
0:10:01 > 0:10:06Davy first carried out this experiment in Italy
0:10:06 > 0:10:12and what he was interested in doing was setting fire to diamonds.
0:10:12 > 0:10:14Now...
0:10:16 > 0:10:17Hang on a second.
0:10:19 > 0:10:21They're very hard to hold in the tweezers.
0:10:23 > 0:10:29When it is white hot, as hot as I can get it,
0:10:29 > 0:10:32then I'm going to drop it into liquid oxygen,
0:10:32 > 0:10:35and what should happen is the diamond should catch fire.
0:10:40 > 0:10:43As the diamond burns, a single product is produced -
0:10:43 > 0:10:45the gas carbon dioxide.
0:10:47 > 0:10:51Through this experiment, Davy was able to deduce that diamonds
0:10:51 > 0:10:53are made solely of carbon.
0:10:54 > 0:11:00That the most valuable gems were made of the same stuff as coal.
0:11:04 > 0:11:07To Davy's audience, this was captivating.
0:11:10 > 0:11:12Here, in front of their eyes,
0:11:12 > 0:11:16he was demonstrating one of the latest scientific theories.
0:11:18 > 0:11:23That everything is made up of a limited number of elements.
0:11:26 > 0:11:30Davy was famous for doing spectacular experiments,
0:11:30 > 0:11:32in particular for blowing things up.
0:11:32 > 0:11:36In fact, it's said that he was something of a pyromaniac.
0:11:37 > 0:11:39And this is one of the experiments.
0:11:39 > 0:11:41It's involving iodine, which is
0:11:41 > 0:11:46in fact one of the elements Davy is famous for discovering.
0:11:46 > 0:11:52So, Davy mixed iodine with this liquid,
0:11:52 > 0:11:57and what happens is a powerful contact explosive is made.
0:11:57 > 0:12:01And, in one of his experiments, he temporarily blinded himself
0:12:01 > 0:12:04by doing just what I'm doing now.
0:12:12 > 0:12:15Now what Davy wanted to do was to educate his audience.
0:12:15 > 0:12:20He wanted to show them that chemistry was exciting and counterintuitive.
0:12:20 > 0:12:24This idea that you can make compounds out of other substances that have
0:12:24 > 0:12:29extremely surprising and, in this case, spectacular properties.
0:12:36 > 0:12:39Nitrogen triiodide is a wonderful compound
0:12:39 > 0:12:41for demonstrating those ideas.
0:12:41 > 0:12:45It's basically a nitrogen atom with three iodines stuck to it.
0:12:45 > 0:12:48Now, nitrogen atoms want to interact, they want to bond
0:12:48 > 0:12:52together into the very stable nitrogen molecule, but the
0:12:52 > 0:12:58iodines keep them just far enough apart that they can't interact.
0:12:58 > 0:13:01All you have to do to change that
0:13:01 > 0:13:04and make them interact very quickly indeed,
0:13:04 > 0:13:06is to give them a little tickle.
0:13:09 > 0:13:12And it really is a very little tickle.
0:13:21 > 0:13:23Whaa! Look at that!
0:13:23 > 0:13:26And that purple vapour there is iodine,
0:13:26 > 0:13:30so that was a very rapid chemical reaction.
0:13:30 > 0:13:34Nitrogen is produced and iodine is released.
0:13:36 > 0:13:38Yeah, I can see why Davy liked that.
0:13:47 > 0:13:52What Davy was demonstrating is that acquiring and applying
0:13:52 > 0:13:56scientific knowledge gives us power over nature.
0:13:59 > 0:14:02And his writings reveal how he believed our future
0:14:02 > 0:14:05lies in exploiting this power.
0:14:09 > 0:14:11"Science has bestowed upon him
0:14:11 > 0:14:14"powers which may be almost called creative,
0:14:14 > 0:14:19"which have enabled him to modify and change the beings surrounding him.
0:14:19 > 0:14:23"And by his experiments to interrogate nature with power,
0:14:23 > 0:14:27"not simply as a scholar, passive and seeking only to understand her
0:14:27 > 0:14:33"operations, but rather as a master, active with his own instruments."
0:14:37 > 0:14:42Here, Davy is echoing the language of the Romantic poets.
0:14:43 > 0:14:47When he uses the word creative, he doesn't mean the qualities
0:14:47 > 0:14:50required to write a novel,
0:14:50 > 0:14:54he's talking about being a creator in the Biblical sense.
0:14:58 > 0:15:00Of controlling nature.
0:15:03 > 0:15:07Davy is claiming for science the territory previously occupied
0:15:07 > 0:15:09exclusively by religion...
0:15:12 > 0:15:14and not everyone was so enamoured
0:15:14 > 0:15:17with the idea of scientists playing God.
0:15:20 > 0:15:22Shortly after Davy wrote those words,
0:15:22 > 0:15:26Mary Shelley wrote her famous gothic novel Frankenstein.
0:15:26 > 0:15:30And here, in the introduction to the second edition, she writes,
0:15:30 > 0:15:34"For supremely frightful were the effect of any human endeavour
0:15:34 > 0:15:40"to mock the stupendous mechanism of the creator of the world."
0:15:40 > 0:15:42I mean, here is science with a dark side.
0:15:44 > 0:15:47Frankenstein becomes a stereotype,
0:15:47 > 0:15:51a view of science as darkness as well as light.
0:15:51 > 0:15:54Scientists can also create monsters.
0:16:03 > 0:16:08At the time, Mary Shelley's fears were not widely shared.
0:16:08 > 0:16:11The majority of the public remained in love with
0:16:11 > 0:16:12science for another century.
0:16:14 > 0:16:17Just as Davy had predicted, we discovered more
0:16:17 > 0:16:22and more about how the world works, and learned how to control it.
0:16:25 > 0:16:29But as our scientific understanding increased,
0:16:29 > 0:16:31so too did the potential for that knowledge
0:16:31 > 0:16:35to reveal a dark side and unleash monsters.
0:16:42 > 0:16:4670 years ago, this nature reserve in North Wales was
0:16:46 > 0:16:48the site of a top secret military facility...
0:16:50 > 0:16:55..at the heart of both the war effort and British science.
0:16:59 > 0:17:04This was the home of the chemical warfare project.
0:17:04 > 0:17:07It's where mustard gas was manufactured.
0:17:09 > 0:17:11- CHURCHILL: - 'We are ourselves firmly resolved
0:17:11 > 0:17:13'not to use this odious weapon
0:17:13 > 0:17:16'unless it is used first by the Germans.
0:17:18 > 0:17:20'Knowing our Hun, however,
0:17:20 > 0:17:24'we have not neglected to make preparation on a formidable scale.'
0:17:26 > 0:17:30But the site housed another, more exciting, more dangerous project.
0:17:33 > 0:17:38Eileen Doxford was one of the handful of people who staffed it.
0:17:40 > 0:17:45In 1942, Eileen was just 19 when she was assigned to
0:17:45 > 0:17:50work as an instrument technician on a project codenamed Tube Alloys.
0:17:51 > 0:17:53So, this was the main building?
0:17:53 > 0:17:56Yes, it was. It was.
0:17:56 > 0:17:59Lots of apparatus in it.
0:17:59 > 0:18:01And how many people worked here?
0:18:01 > 0:18:06Er, well, there were 70 men and ten girls.
0:18:06 > 0:18:08- You met your husband here. - I did.
0:18:08 > 0:18:10If I couldn't have found one out of those,
0:18:10 > 0:18:12I would have been not much good, would I?
0:18:12 > 0:18:14BOTH LAUGH
0:18:16 > 0:18:20At one side of this building were offices and a laboratory.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26Did you know about the importance of the work
0:18:26 > 0:18:27you were doing here at the time?
0:18:27 > 0:18:30Well, to be really honest with you,
0:18:30 > 0:18:35I didn't understand what we were trying to do here.
0:18:35 > 0:18:38I quite happily did the job that I'd been given to do,
0:18:38 > 0:18:40but I didn't know.
0:18:40 > 0:18:41Oh, no, I didn't know.
0:18:41 > 0:18:45I was told that it would be helpful during the war...
0:18:46 > 0:18:49..and it would also be helpful in peacetime,
0:18:49 > 0:18:53but it would be particularly of help in wartime.
0:19:02 > 0:19:04Eileen didn't know it,
0:19:04 > 0:19:06but she was working on the project to
0:19:06 > 0:19:10create the most powerful weapon the world had ever seen.
0:19:17 > 0:19:21The origins of this weapon lay not in military research
0:19:21 > 0:19:24but in scientists' ongoing efforts
0:19:24 > 0:19:26to understand the structure of the world,
0:19:26 > 0:19:31and from some brilliant experiments performed 30 years earlier.
0:19:34 > 0:19:38The nuclear project began with this man, Ernest Rutherford...
0:19:39 > 0:19:42..who worked at the greatest university in history
0:19:42 > 0:19:48of civilisation, the University of Manchester, which is my university.
0:19:48 > 0:19:52Back in 1911, only 28 years before the outbreak
0:19:52 > 0:19:57of the Second World War, there was no nuclear physics because
0:19:57 > 0:20:01we hadn't discovered the atomic nucleus - that's what Rutherford did.
0:20:01 > 0:20:09In a series of experiments, he found that the atom itself is made up
0:20:09 > 0:20:16of a small, dense nucleus with electrons existing, or orbiting
0:20:16 > 0:20:20in some sense, a large distance away.
0:20:20 > 0:20:21But at that time,
0:20:21 > 0:20:25the nature of the atomic nucleus was completely mysterious.
0:20:30 > 0:20:35So Rutherford, one of the world's greatest experimental physicists,
0:20:35 > 0:20:37set about designing the apparatus that revealed
0:20:37 > 0:20:40the structure of the atomic nucleus.
0:20:44 > 0:20:47With little more than some dry ice, a hot water bottle,
0:20:47 > 0:20:50a squirt of alcohol and a radioactive source,
0:20:50 > 0:20:54he was able to visualise with the naked eye
0:20:54 > 0:20:59things that the most powerful microscopes struggled to detect -
0:20:59 > 0:21:01individual subatomic particles.
0:21:06 > 0:21:08Well, this is the cloud chamber
0:21:08 > 0:21:10full of supersaturated alcohol vapour.
0:21:10 > 0:21:14And you see those cloud trails,
0:21:14 > 0:21:19those are helium nuclei, alpha particles, single ones being
0:21:19 > 0:21:24emitted off the thorium on the end of that welding rod.
0:21:28 > 0:21:31It was these particle trails that Rutherford watched,
0:21:31 > 0:21:35hoping to see what happened when atomic nuclei collided.
0:21:37 > 0:21:41Now very occasionally, very rarely, they saw something extremely
0:21:41 > 0:21:44interesting happen, and we have a graphic of that here.
0:21:44 > 0:21:51So, now this is a picture, a film, of a real cloud chamber and we've
0:21:51 > 0:21:57superimposed, there, a graphic of what Rutherford and his team saw.
0:21:57 > 0:21:59The reason we haven't shown a real one
0:21:59 > 0:22:02is because these are extremely rare processes.
0:22:02 > 0:22:07Rutherford observed over a quarter of a million tracks of helium
0:22:07 > 0:22:10nuclei passing through the nitrogen,
0:22:10 > 0:22:15and his team only saw eight of these particular collisions.
0:22:15 > 0:22:17Now, at first sight, it looks unremarkable.
0:22:17 > 0:22:21There's a helium nucleus coming in, bouncing off a nitrogen nucleus.
0:22:21 > 0:22:25The interesting thing is what these two outgoing tracks
0:22:25 > 0:22:29actually are, because they are no longer helium and nitrogen.
0:22:29 > 0:22:33This one, it turns out, is oxygen,
0:22:33 > 0:22:37and this one is a single proton, a nucleus of hydrogen.
0:22:37 > 0:22:41This is an extremely important moment in the history of nuclear physics.
0:22:41 > 0:22:45It says that nuclei are not indivisible.
0:22:45 > 0:22:49Elements can be transformed from one type into another.
0:22:52 > 0:22:57It was known that, when some nuclei are split, energy is released...
0:23:01 > 0:23:06..but no-one thought it would be possible to harness this energy,
0:23:06 > 0:23:11until 1935 when a new element was discovered.
0:23:19 > 0:23:21And this is a fissure,
0:23:21 > 0:23:27a splitting of uranium 235 into krypton and barium.
0:23:27 > 0:23:34Now, uranium 235 is a naturally occurring form of uranium,
0:23:34 > 0:23:37but it has the property that if you hit it with a neutron,
0:23:37 > 0:23:41then it immediately splits up into krypton and barium.
0:23:41 > 0:23:45And the mass of those decayed products
0:23:45 > 0:23:50is less than the mass of the initial nucleus, so energy is released.
0:23:50 > 0:23:55But also, in this reaction three neutrons are released,
0:23:55 > 0:24:01and those neutrons can go on to hit further uranium nuclei,
0:24:01 > 0:24:05which will in turn trigger those to split, releasing more energy
0:24:05 > 0:24:08and more neutrons, and you get a chain reaction.
0:24:08 > 0:24:12So, this is the principle behind a nuclear bomb.
0:24:13 > 0:24:18But perhaps fortunately, this reactive isotope forms only
0:24:18 > 0:24:21one percent of naturally occurring uranium ore.
0:24:22 > 0:24:26So, you have to find a way of enriching the uranium,
0:24:26 > 0:24:31of purifying it on an industrial scale, and that, at the start
0:24:31 > 0:24:35of the Second World War, is what this place was designed to do.
0:24:40 > 0:24:44In the early years of the war, this site was used to develop
0:24:44 > 0:24:46a technique to enrich uranium.
0:24:49 > 0:24:52But in 1943, much of the work here
0:24:52 > 0:24:56was transferred to America to become part of the Manhattan Project.
0:24:58 > 0:25:02Within two years, they had succeeded in building a bomb.
0:25:04 > 0:25:06On the 6th of August, 1945,
0:25:06 > 0:25:11the uranium-powered bomb was dropped over the city of Hiroshima in Japan.
0:25:22 > 0:25:26As it detonated, the neutron-powered chain reaction
0:25:26 > 0:25:30converted 0.6 grams of matter into energy.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40The resulting blast flattened an entire city...
0:25:42 > 0:25:44..killing over 100,000 people.
0:25:52 > 0:25:55It was as though science had finally delivered on those fears
0:25:55 > 0:25:58expressed by Mary Shelley over a century before.
0:25:58 > 0:26:03I mean, here, if ever there was one, is a Frankenstein's monster.
0:26:03 > 0:26:06Science had delivered the power to destroy us all,
0:26:06 > 0:26:09and there's every indication that the scientists
0:26:09 > 0:26:13working on the bomb at the time knew precisely what they'd done.
0:26:17 > 0:26:20After he witnessed the first nuclear bomb test,
0:26:20 > 0:26:23Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the Manhattan Project,
0:26:23 > 0:26:28felt moved to quote an ancient Indian text.
0:26:28 > 0:26:32Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
0:26:34 > 0:26:38I suppose we all felt that, one way or another.
0:26:45 > 0:26:48It would be a couple of years afterwards I realised that
0:26:48 > 0:26:51I contributed to the atomic bomb.
0:26:54 > 0:26:57And I felt dreadful then,
0:26:57 > 0:27:00when I thought about all the people that had been killed.
0:27:00 > 0:27:06But my brother, who was in the Royal Navy and was out in the Far East,
0:27:06 > 0:27:09said, "Killed a lot of people,
0:27:09 > 0:27:11"but it would also save a lot of lives."
0:27:14 > 0:27:19If it helped to finish the war, which was a dreadful thing,
0:27:19 > 0:27:24yes, I feel pleased that I made a very minute contribution.
0:27:33 > 0:27:35The development of the atomic bomb
0:27:35 > 0:27:38was a watershed moment in human history.
0:27:39 > 0:27:43For the first time, we demonstrated that the products of our own
0:27:43 > 0:27:45ingenuity could destroy us...
0:27:47 > 0:27:51..and it had a chilling effect on the public's attitude to science.
0:27:53 > 0:27:57Where once the public were broadly accepting of technological progress,
0:27:57 > 0:28:01they were now suspicious and even hostile,
0:28:01 > 0:28:05some even taking to the streets to make themselves heard.
0:28:07 > 0:28:10It marked a change in attitude that's been felt ever since,
0:28:10 > 0:28:14not just by physicists, but by all scientists.
0:28:23 > 0:28:27If the first half of the 20th century was the Age of Physics and
0:28:27 > 0:28:32exploring the subatomic world, then the second half of the 20th century
0:28:32 > 0:28:36arguably was the Age of Biology, the exploration of the science of life.
0:28:40 > 0:28:44And that surely brought us closer to Davy's vision of the scientist as
0:28:44 > 0:28:50creator, as master of nature rather than merely dispassionate explorer.
0:28:50 > 0:28:55And along with that came added dangers and controversy.
0:29:05 > 0:29:10These potato plants growing in a field in Norfolk are considered by
0:29:10 > 0:29:11some people to be dangerous...
0:29:19 > 0:29:22..because they've been genetically modified.
0:29:26 > 0:29:30They were created here at the Sainsbury Laboratory,
0:29:30 > 0:29:34just outside Norwich, by plant geneticist Jonathan Jones,
0:29:34 > 0:29:37but he doesn't see these plants as monsters.
0:29:39 > 0:29:45Why would we, as a country, a civilisation, want to use GM crops?
0:29:45 > 0:29:49You can put in genes that you could not put in by breeding, and so there
0:29:49 > 0:29:53are certain genes that do something really useful, such as make
0:29:53 > 0:29:57it much easier to control disease, much easier to control pests,
0:29:57 > 0:30:00and much easier to control weeds.
0:30:00 > 0:30:01So, there's a legion of things
0:30:01 > 0:30:05that are worth doing that you'd never be able to do by breeding.
0:30:09 > 0:30:12These potatoes have been genetically modified to make them
0:30:12 > 0:30:16resistant to a disease called late blight.
0:30:16 > 0:30:19The hope is that yields will increase
0:30:19 > 0:30:22and the quantity of chemicals currently used to treat
0:30:22 > 0:30:24the disease will be dramatically reduced.
0:30:32 > 0:30:36It's remarkable that we have the ability to precisely manipulate
0:30:36 > 0:30:39and alter the genetic makeup of other living organisms,
0:30:39 > 0:30:43and that it's even possible is thanks to a revolution in
0:30:43 > 0:30:48biology that started in another part of East Anglia just 60 years ago.
0:30:59 > 0:31:03Cambridge is a town with a rich scientific history.
0:31:04 > 0:31:08This was the university of Newton and Darwin...
0:31:11 > 0:31:15..and it was here, in a building in the 1950s, that the worlds of physics
0:31:15 > 0:31:20and biology came together to transform our understanding of life.
0:31:23 > 0:31:25This is the old Cavendish Laboratory,
0:31:25 > 0:31:28an iconic building in the history of physics.
0:31:28 > 0:31:31Thomson discovered the electron here in 1897.
0:31:31 > 0:31:34Chadwick discovered the neutron here in 1932.
0:31:34 > 0:31:38James Clerk Maxwell was professor of physics here.
0:31:38 > 0:31:41But the building is also famous for one of the great
0:31:41 > 0:31:43discoveries in the history of biology.
0:31:56 > 0:32:00In the 1950s, this office was occupied by Francis Crick
0:32:00 > 0:32:03and James Watson, so it might not look like much
0:32:03 > 0:32:09but it was in here that the structure of the DNA molecule was discovered.
0:32:09 > 0:32:12That is the molecule that passes information on from generation
0:32:12 > 0:32:15to generation, the hereditary molecule, if you like.
0:32:20 > 0:32:23The DNA molecule itself had been isolated as far
0:32:23 > 0:32:28back as the 1860s, but it wasn't until the early 1950s that it was
0:32:28 > 0:32:33shown to be the carrier of genetic information in all living organisms.
0:32:35 > 0:32:39And although it was known to be made of a combination of sugars,
0:32:39 > 0:32:42phosphate groups and nitrogen-rich bases,
0:32:42 > 0:32:46nobody knew how those components fitted together to form
0:32:46 > 0:32:49a molecule that could hold the instructions for life.
0:32:54 > 0:32:58Crick and Watson's approach to finding that structure was to build
0:32:58 > 0:33:00physical models of the molecule...
0:33:04 > 0:33:07..but it was proving unsuccessful.
0:33:07 > 0:33:10They desperately needed more and better data...
0:33:12 > 0:33:17..and it came from a branch of physics called X-ray crystallography.
0:33:19 > 0:33:23This is a very famous photograph, it's called Photograph 51.
0:33:23 > 0:33:26It was actually taken by another scientist, Rosalind Franklin,
0:33:26 > 0:33:30and it's what's called an X-ray diffraction photograph.
0:33:30 > 0:33:34So, Franklin shone X-rays through a sample of DNA molecules
0:33:34 > 0:33:38and the way that they scatter or diffract off the molecules,
0:33:38 > 0:33:41the pattern they leave on the photographic plate,
0:33:41 > 0:33:45allowed you to deduce the structure of those molecules.
0:33:45 > 0:33:48The key piece of evidence is the X.
0:33:48 > 0:33:51That allowed Franklin to suggest that the molecule must be
0:33:51 > 0:33:57helical and, in fact, must have that famous double helix.
0:33:57 > 0:34:01So, this photograph, along with Franklin's suggestions,
0:34:01 > 0:34:03her interpretation of the pattern,
0:34:03 > 0:34:08allowed Watson and Crick to go away and build their model of DNA.
0:34:21 > 0:34:26This is a half-scale copy of the model they constructed in 1953,
0:34:26 > 0:34:29the first model of the structure of DNA.
0:34:36 > 0:34:41There are two strands of sugars that coil around each other,
0:34:41 > 0:34:46they interlock to form that famous double helix shape.
0:34:46 > 0:34:48They are the backbone of the molecule.
0:34:48 > 0:34:52But the information carried in DNA,
0:34:52 > 0:34:58the genetic code itself, is encoded into these pairs of molecules,
0:34:58 > 0:35:01the cross-linked pairs, which are called bases.
0:35:08 > 0:35:11There are four types of base in DNA -
0:35:11 > 0:35:15adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.
0:35:18 > 0:35:22And it's the order of these bases that's used by the cell
0:35:22 > 0:35:26as instructions to build strings of amino acids.
0:35:26 > 0:35:30The sequence of amino acids together build up proteins,
0:35:30 > 0:35:33and proteins build up the basic structure
0:35:33 > 0:35:35of every living thing on Earth.
0:35:45 > 0:35:49We used to occasionally just sit and look at the molecule,
0:35:49 > 0:35:50and think how beautiful it was.
0:35:56 > 0:35:58And I remember an occasion
0:35:58 > 0:36:01when Jim gave a talk to a little bar physics club we had.
0:36:01 > 0:36:04It's true, they gave him one or two drinks before dinner.
0:36:04 > 0:36:07It was rather a short talk because all he could say at the end was,
0:36:07 > 0:36:10"Well, you see, it's so pretty. It's so pretty."
0:36:16 > 0:36:19When Crick and Watson published their results in 1953,
0:36:19 > 0:36:23they announced them with typical scientific understatement.
0:36:23 > 0:36:26They said, "This structure has novel features
0:36:26 > 0:36:29"which are of considerable biological interest."
0:36:29 > 0:36:33But there's pretty good evidence that Crick and Watson knew exactly
0:36:33 > 0:36:36what they'd done because they ran down this street here, from the
0:36:36 > 0:36:39Cavendish just up there, into this pub here, The Eagle.
0:36:39 > 0:36:42And when they arrived, Crick walked in and said,
0:36:42 > 0:36:46"We have discovered the secret of life."
0:36:49 > 0:36:51And then they had a pint.
0:36:58 > 0:37:00Crick was right.
0:37:00 > 0:37:04The discovery of the structure of DNA was one of the great
0:37:04 > 0:37:07moments in modern scientific history.
0:37:13 > 0:37:17By the early 1970s, the genetic code had been translated,
0:37:17 > 0:37:20making it possible to identify individual genes
0:37:20 > 0:37:23and study their function.
0:37:27 > 0:37:30We now had access to the workings of life itself.
0:37:33 > 0:37:38What it did is it explained the physical basis of heredity, and...
0:37:38 > 0:37:42At the time, Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning geneticist and
0:37:42 > 0:37:46now president of the Royal Society, was just starting his career.
0:37:49 > 0:37:51Now you began working in the field in the 1970s,
0:37:51 > 0:37:55so this is only 20 years after the discovery.
0:37:55 > 0:37:59Was there disquiet amongst the public,
0:37:59 > 0:38:01but also amongst the scientists?
0:38:01 > 0:38:04Well, there was because, you know, what these technologies were
0:38:04 > 0:38:07bringing along was that you could now begin to control this
0:38:07 > 0:38:11fundamental molecule of life, and people were worried about this.
0:38:11 > 0:38:13They were worried, what if you can clone up
0:38:13 > 0:38:15pieces of DNA in a bacterium?
0:38:15 > 0:38:17Let's say you had a cancer-forming
0:38:17 > 0:38:20gene and that escaped, the bacteria escaped, would that mean
0:38:20 > 0:38:24everybody would catch cancer, just like an infectious disease?
0:38:24 > 0:38:28And, frankly, these concerns are quite legitimate.
0:38:28 > 0:38:32Everybody was imagining Frankenstein-type outcomes.
0:38:34 > 0:38:38In a post-nuclear age, there was a widespread feeling that
0:38:38 > 0:38:42scientists had once again taken a step too far.
0:38:42 > 0:38:45Now, you made the statement there's no known dangerous organism
0:38:45 > 0:38:48- that has ever been produced by a recombinant DNA experiment.- Yes.
0:38:48 > 0:38:50Now, just what the hell do you think you're going to do
0:38:50 > 0:38:51if you do produce one?
0:38:55 > 0:39:00In 1975, biologists took an unprecedented step.
0:39:01 > 0:39:03Aware of the potential dangers,
0:39:03 > 0:39:07they called a conference in California to decide for themselves
0:39:07 > 0:39:11whether the technology was safe and how they should proceed.
0:39:14 > 0:39:18What was interesting is that it was the scientists themselves who
0:39:18 > 0:39:20recognised this was an issue.
0:39:20 > 0:39:22It was the scientists themselves who
0:39:22 > 0:39:25actually put in place a level of restrictions,
0:39:25 > 0:39:30depending upon the potential danger, so it could be kept under control.
0:39:30 > 0:39:32So, it was very much led by the scientists
0:39:32 > 0:39:37as what should be done, rather than, say, the politicians or the public.
0:39:39 > 0:39:43But although the scientists took the initiative at the beginning
0:39:43 > 0:39:44of the genetic revolution,
0:39:44 > 0:39:47they haven't always been able to control the debate.
0:39:49 > 0:39:51And nowhere is that clearer
0:39:51 > 0:39:55than in the controversy over GM crops in this country.
0:40:01 > 0:40:06To many scientists, GM crops hold the key to more efficient,
0:40:06 > 0:40:10more environmentally friendly agriculture,
0:40:10 > 0:40:13but they've been unable to persuade a sceptical public
0:40:13 > 0:40:14of the safety of the technique.
0:40:19 > 0:40:24Instead, public opinion has been led by a vigorous anti-GM campaign
0:40:24 > 0:40:28that started in the 1990s and which has left many
0:40:28 > 0:40:30people dead set against GM crops.
0:40:32 > 0:40:36There are fears that the crops may contaminate the environment,
0:40:36 > 0:40:39or that they may be unsafe to eat.
0:40:39 > 0:40:42And underlying it all is a feeling that there's something
0:40:42 > 0:40:46fundamentally wrong about meddling with life at such a basic level.
0:40:51 > 0:40:56What do you think of this label, Frankenfoods?
0:40:56 > 0:40:58Yes, it's... I don't know who came up with it,
0:40:58 > 0:41:00it was probably the Daily Mail in the mid '90s.
0:41:00 > 0:41:03The thing that's silly about it is that GM is just
0:41:03 > 0:41:07a method for conferring an improvement on crops.
0:41:07 > 0:41:10You know, the crops are basically the same, so to suggest
0:41:10 > 0:41:14there's anything fundamentally different about them is just stupid.
0:41:14 > 0:41:15The suggestion is that
0:41:15 > 0:41:20because we can now put genes from an animal, let say a cow or
0:41:20 > 0:41:24a jellyfish or whatever it is, into a plant, there's something
0:41:24 > 0:41:29unnatural and therefore potentially dangerous about that procedure.
0:41:29 > 0:41:32Well, the word unnatural is a real weasel word.
0:41:32 > 0:41:36I mean, it's unnatural to treat your kids with antibiotics -
0:41:36 > 0:41:39it's natural to let them die - I know which I'd prefer.
0:41:39 > 0:41:42Agriculture is fundamentally unnatural,
0:41:42 > 0:41:45whether it's organic agriculture or high tech agriculture,
0:41:45 > 0:41:46conventional agriculture.
0:41:46 > 0:41:49We are eliminating all the trees and wildlife that used to be there,
0:41:49 > 0:41:51and planting the plants that we
0:41:51 > 0:41:55want to have there to provide the stuff that we eat.
0:41:55 > 0:41:58So, the thing we have to ask ourselves is, what's the least
0:41:58 > 0:42:01bad way of protecting our crops from disease
0:42:01 > 0:42:05and pests for reducing the losses caused by weeds?
0:42:11 > 0:42:14As a scientist working on GM crops,
0:42:14 > 0:42:17you'd expect Jonathan to be a powerful advocate for the technology,
0:42:17 > 0:42:23but his view is also backed up by a vast body of research that
0:42:23 > 0:42:25shows it to be safe and effective.
0:42:27 > 0:42:30So, if GM crops is to have a future in this country, the scientists need
0:42:30 > 0:42:34to find a better way to persuade the public to share their confidence.
0:42:45 > 0:42:48I think that sometimes many scientists, myself included,
0:42:48 > 0:42:53are genuinely baffled by the public reaction to a new scientific
0:42:53 > 0:42:56discovery or technique or piece of research.
0:42:56 > 0:43:01Because I want to believe, deep down, that if we present the evidence
0:43:01 > 0:43:05and explain it properly, then that's all you have to do.
0:43:05 > 0:43:08But, of course, it would be naive to think that that's the case
0:43:08 > 0:43:10and I think there are good reasons for that.
0:43:10 > 0:43:14One is that there is a genuine fear of the unknown,
0:43:14 > 0:43:18but also I think the idea that science is dangerous.
0:43:18 > 0:43:22Frankenstein is deeply embedded in our culture.
0:43:25 > 0:43:30The way to combat that fear is through effective public engagement.
0:43:36 > 0:43:40And perhaps surprisingly, one of the best examples of that
0:43:40 > 0:43:42comes from over 200 years ago
0:43:42 > 0:43:47and a scientist who, at the time, was perceived to be a dangerous villain.
0:43:50 > 0:43:53In the lobby of the Royal College of Surgeons stands a statue
0:43:53 > 0:43:59of John Hunter, a Scotsman and one of the fathers of modern medicine.
0:44:03 > 0:44:08In the 1780s, he started performing surgical operations that were
0:44:08 > 0:44:10decades ahead of their time.
0:44:14 > 0:44:19This is the original documentation of the case of John Burley,
0:44:19 > 0:44:24it's a really excellent example of Hunter's skill as a surgeon.
0:44:24 > 0:44:27There's a picture of a tumour,
0:44:27 > 0:44:31so that's what happens when you leave a tumour for too long.
0:44:32 > 0:44:36Says here, "It was an increase to the size of a common head...
0:44:38 > 0:44:40"..attended with no other inconvenience
0:44:40 > 0:44:42"than its size and weight."
0:44:42 > 0:44:47And then the second drawing here is after the operation,
0:44:47 > 0:44:50and it's completely cured, essentially.
0:44:53 > 0:44:55But for all his medical brilliance,
0:44:55 > 0:45:00Hunter was treated with suspicion and even horror,
0:45:00 > 0:45:03because to develop his remarkable surgical skills,
0:45:03 > 0:45:06he had practiced on human corpses.
0:45:13 > 0:45:17In the 18th century, anatomists were legally entitled to corpses fresh
0:45:17 > 0:45:22from the gallows, but even so demand comfortably exceeded supply, and so
0:45:22 > 0:45:27they had to look to another source of bodies for experimentation.
0:45:31 > 0:45:34And the easiest place to get hold of fresh corpses
0:45:34 > 0:45:37was to dig them up from a graveyard.
0:45:43 > 0:45:46Grave robbing wasn't made a crime until 1832,
0:45:46 > 0:45:50partly because of legal difficulty in defining what the crime is.
0:45:50 > 0:45:54You can't steal a body because it doesn't belong to anyone but,
0:45:54 > 0:45:57even so, it was frowned upon to say the least.
0:45:57 > 0:46:00So, it was a high risk profession.
0:46:01 > 0:46:05But anatomists were prepared to pay large amounts of money for corpses,
0:46:05 > 0:46:08and that meant that there were hundreds of grave robbers
0:46:08 > 0:46:10operating in gangs in London
0:46:10 > 0:46:13who could dig up up to ten bodies per night.
0:46:13 > 0:46:15They were even called the resurrectionists
0:46:15 > 0:46:21because they were so efficient at lifting dead bodies from the ground.
0:46:21 > 0:46:24And the best customer of all was John Hunter.
0:46:26 > 0:46:31Hunter was even known to lend a hand to the grave robbers.
0:46:31 > 0:46:36On one occasion, he was even arrested with a gang of resurrectionists.
0:46:36 > 0:46:40And these exploits made Hunter incredibly unpopular with
0:46:40 > 0:46:42the man on the street.
0:46:42 > 0:46:46Hunter revolutionised surgical techniques for the benefit
0:46:46 > 0:46:49of everybody, but I suppose not unsurprisingly,
0:46:49 > 0:46:52his work was controversial in public.
0:46:52 > 0:46:55So, even though he was working in the 18th century, I suppose
0:46:55 > 0:46:58you could say, in the modern vernacular, he had a PR problem.
0:47:05 > 0:47:07Hunter was so afraid of the adverse public reaction
0:47:07 > 0:47:13to his work that he was actually in fear of his life, but he reasoned
0:47:13 > 0:47:18that fear was born of ignorance and therefore education was the answer,
0:47:18 > 0:47:23and so he opened this museum to display his work to the public.
0:47:25 > 0:47:28His collection is still on display today
0:47:28 > 0:47:31in the Royal College of Surgeons.
0:47:31 > 0:47:34In these exhibits, people could see how Hunter was using corpses
0:47:34 > 0:47:37to learn about anatomy and physiology.
0:47:39 > 0:47:41You could even see his pioneering attempts
0:47:41 > 0:47:44at opening new fields of medicine.
0:47:44 > 0:47:46What...? What's that?
0:47:46 > 0:47:49These chicken heads were the recipients of some
0:47:49 > 0:47:52of the first transplant operations.
0:47:52 > 0:47:53Human teeth.
0:47:55 > 0:47:57What's he done that for?
0:48:00 > 0:48:03Although some of these exhibits are gruesome,
0:48:03 > 0:48:05they show how Hunter was using his knowledge
0:48:05 > 0:48:07to move medicine out of the Dark Ages.
0:48:15 > 0:48:19This exhibit marks the beginning of the end
0:48:19 > 0:48:21of the age or barbaric surgery.
0:48:21 > 0:48:25What you see here is an aneurism in the popliteal artery,
0:48:25 > 0:48:29so that's the artery that goes behind the knee.
0:48:29 > 0:48:33It's essentially a sack of blood as the artery swells up and,
0:48:33 > 0:48:37if this goes untreated then what will happen is that sack will
0:48:37 > 0:48:40eventually burst and the patient will bleed to death.
0:48:40 > 0:48:45Now, the treatment at the time for that was amputation.
0:48:45 > 0:48:50They would saw your leg off in an age before antibiotics,
0:48:50 > 0:48:52that was usually fatal in itself,
0:48:52 > 0:48:55so that was a very serious thing to happen.
0:48:55 > 0:49:00What Hunter noticed, through his work on animal physiology,
0:49:00 > 0:49:03and indeed on the dissection of human specimens,
0:49:03 > 0:49:07was that there are many other arteries in the leg.
0:49:07 > 0:49:10And he reason that, if he tied off the affected artery,
0:49:10 > 0:49:15ligated it, then the blood supply to the aneurism would be cut off,
0:49:15 > 0:49:20and he hoped that the other arteries would expand to allow blood to
0:49:20 > 0:49:22flow down the leg.
0:49:22 > 0:49:26Now, this was the leg of a coachman who had that operation
0:49:26 > 0:49:30performed on him and survived for 50 years after the operation.
0:49:30 > 0:49:32He, in fact, outlived Hunter.
0:49:32 > 0:49:36And he was so pleased with that extension of his lifespan
0:49:36 > 0:49:40that he donated his leg to the Hunterian Collection.
0:49:45 > 0:49:48As well as revolutionising medicine,
0:49:48 > 0:49:51John Hunter's approach was a model for public engagement.
0:49:52 > 0:49:56By inviting people into his museum, he was able to address
0:49:56 > 0:50:00and confront the moral objections to his work.
0:50:02 > 0:50:06And although not everyone was convinced it justified grave robbery,
0:50:06 > 0:50:10they could clearly see the benefits that his knowledge brought.
0:50:13 > 0:50:15The controversy surrounding John Hunter was different to many
0:50:15 > 0:50:19other scientific controversies, because this wasn't a scientist
0:50:19 > 0:50:22exploring the unknown in a cavalier fashion.
0:50:22 > 0:50:27He had a specific goal in mind with which no one could disagree.
0:50:27 > 0:50:30He wanted to advance medical science.
0:50:30 > 0:50:33Rather, it was the morality of his methods that was
0:50:33 > 0:50:37called into question, and today, 200 years later,
0:50:37 > 0:50:39doctors can face similar dilemmas.
0:50:43 > 0:50:47One of the most emotive issues in science today is not the use
0:50:47 > 0:50:51of dead humans in medical research, but the use of living animals.
0:50:53 > 0:50:57To many people, experimenting on animals is morally unacceptable,
0:50:57 > 0:51:00it's a line we should not cross.
0:51:12 > 0:51:17Such is the strength of feeling that there are regular protests against
0:51:17 > 0:51:21the institutions and scientists who use animals in their research.
0:51:23 > 0:51:25This is not a modern phenomenon.
0:51:25 > 0:51:30In Britain, there's been a long history of animal rights activism.
0:51:30 > 0:51:34The first Royal Commission into the use of animals in research
0:51:34 > 0:51:36dates back to 1875.
0:51:41 > 0:51:45But in the eyes of many doctors, it's a necessary evil
0:51:45 > 0:51:48because of the medical advances animal testing brings.
0:51:56 > 0:52:0013-year-old Sean Gardner had been paralysed for seven years
0:52:00 > 0:52:04by a condition related to Parkinson's Disease called Dystonia...
0:52:06 > 0:52:10..until in 2006 he underwent a pioneering procedure.
0:52:12 > 0:52:17By passing current through electrodes implanted deep in Sean's brain,
0:52:17 > 0:52:22the surgeon Tipu Aziz was able to instantly relieve his symptoms.
0:52:22 > 0:52:24He would be able to talk again.
0:52:24 > 0:52:26He would be able, hopefully,
0:52:26 > 0:52:29to participate in activities that are absolutely critical,
0:52:29 > 0:52:35like a normal education, and perhaps go out again and be a kid.
0:52:38 > 0:52:42Within weeks, Sean was standing and walking again.
0:52:42 > 0:52:45It is in many ways a miraculous achievement...
0:52:48 > 0:52:50..but this procedure remains controversial
0:52:50 > 0:52:54because Professor Aziz developed the technique by experiment
0:52:54 > 0:52:59on macaques that had been deliberately given Parkinson's Disease.
0:53:03 > 0:53:10How many primates were affected or were used in that research?
0:53:10 > 0:53:12I would say, across the groups,
0:53:12 > 0:53:16probably less than a 100 monkeys were used,
0:53:16 > 0:53:21and to date, about 100,000 have had deep brain stimulation
0:53:21 > 0:53:23for Parkinson's Disease.
0:53:23 > 0:53:28So, I suppose a common, er, public criticism of research
0:53:28 > 0:53:32in high primates is that it's somehow, um, a luxury.
0:53:32 > 0:53:34It could be done in some other way.
0:53:34 > 0:53:38It may take a bit more time, may be more expensive, but it could be done.
0:53:38 > 0:53:40So, how would you respond to that?
0:53:40 > 0:53:43Well, my response to that would be it could not be done,
0:53:43 > 0:53:48because you can't replace an animal model with a cellular culture
0:53:48 > 0:53:51or computer modelling, or imaging.
0:53:51 > 0:53:55And the advantage of using non-human primates is
0:53:55 > 0:53:58that, like us, they're bipedal.
0:53:58 > 0:54:00They're wired the same as us.
0:54:00 > 0:54:04And I never had any doubts about the benefits that
0:54:04 > 0:54:08accrued from the work that I was privileged to be involved in,
0:54:08 > 0:54:12because this problem was so pressing, you see.
0:54:12 > 0:54:16These are patients who can't walk, fall over, drugs don't help them.
0:54:16 > 0:54:18And what you see is quite miraculous,
0:54:18 > 0:54:22that these folks who are sitting in a chair trembling, rigid,
0:54:22 > 0:54:27unable to move, then you put electrodes into a target
0:54:27 > 0:54:30in the brain, and see them suddenly getting up and walking
0:54:30 > 0:54:34like a normal person, regaining their dignity as a human being.
0:54:34 > 0:54:37It leaves you in no doubt about what you do,
0:54:37 > 0:54:39and I'm not embarrassed about what I do.
0:54:49 > 0:54:54The animal testing issue reveals an uncomfortable truth about science.
0:54:56 > 0:55:00In order to generate the advances we want in areas like medicine,
0:55:00 > 0:55:04there are downsides and difficult decisions to be made.
0:55:07 > 0:55:11But it's my view that, in Britain, we get the balance broadly right,
0:55:11 > 0:55:16partly because of our long history of dissent and protest.
0:55:21 > 0:55:24The relationship between science and the public
0:55:24 > 0:55:26has always been a complex one.
0:55:26 > 0:55:31I mean, I think in general, this great endeavour to understand
0:55:31 > 0:55:35the workings of the natural world is supported and why not?
0:55:35 > 0:55:37I mean, I would argue that science is
0:55:37 > 0:55:39the foundation of our technological civilisation.
0:55:39 > 0:55:43It's given us modern medicine, it's given us telecommunications,
0:55:43 > 0:55:48computing, air travel, the internal combustion engine, you name it.
0:55:48 > 0:55:51But, even so, there seems to have been
0:55:51 > 0:55:55an underlying suspicion that there's something sinister there.
0:56:03 > 0:56:07Scientific progress is valuable, vital even.
0:56:12 > 0:56:15It might be that occasionally we reveal a monster.
0:56:17 > 0:56:22Understanding the atom did indeed give us the nuclear bomb,
0:56:22 > 0:56:25but that knowledge also opened up so many other opportunities.
0:56:27 > 0:56:30The thing about science, as with the acquisition of all knowledge,
0:56:30 > 0:56:33is that once it's out there it can't be retracted,
0:56:33 > 0:56:35and you never know where it's going to lead.
0:56:35 > 0:56:38But, having said that, even some of the most controversial
0:56:38 > 0:56:41discoveries have paid dividends in the end.
0:56:47 > 0:56:52In 1805, Giovanni Aldini was hounded from Britain for trying to
0:56:52 > 0:56:54resuscitate people using electricity...
0:56:59 > 0:57:05..but now we find machines that can do exactly that all over the place.
0:57:07 > 0:57:08This is a defibrillator,
0:57:08 > 0:57:11you'll find them in many public places around the world,
0:57:11 > 0:57:13and it's probably the best chance
0:57:13 > 0:57:16you'd have of surviving a heart attack down here.
0:57:16 > 0:57:20It is essentially a battery connected to electrodes.
0:57:20 > 0:57:22The idea is that administering an electric shock
0:57:22 > 0:57:24can restart a stopped heart.
0:57:25 > 0:57:28So, this is exactly what Aldini had in mind.
0:57:28 > 0:57:33It uses electricity to bring people back from the dead.
0:57:33 > 0:57:37Maybe he wasn't such a Frankenstein after all.
0:57:52 > 0:57:56Next time, I'll be coming face-to-face with the visionaries
0:57:56 > 0:57:59who laid the foundations of modern science.
0:58:00 > 0:58:03I'll be recreating some of their groundbreaking experiments...
0:58:06 > 0:58:12..and exploring their impact on the scientific discoveries of today.
0:58:31 > 0:58:34Subtitles By Red Bee Media Ltd