Science Britannica with Brian Cox Starts this September on BBC Two

Photographer: Peter Leonard. Image Copyright: BBC

Science Britannica with Professor Brian Cox – Photographer: Peter Leonard. Image Copyright: BBC

This September see’s the start of a new BBC science series featuring everyone’s favorite professor/pop star, Brian Cox.

Since the end of his previous series Wonders of Life earlier this year, the Prof has been largely absent from our screens but that’s now set to end with the launch of his new show Science Britannica.

The BBC Two series which begins airing on Wednesday, 18 September, 2013 will shine a light on the history of science in Britain and how it continues to effect our lives today.

Over the three episodes, Professor Brian will teach us what science really is and about the British pioneers like Sir Isaac Newton who have helped shape it over the centuries.

Episode one of Science Britannica takes a look at the scientists themselves and how they were able to put personal desires and beliefs aside in their quests to discover the scientific truths.

Episode 1 of 3: Frankenstein’s Monsters

Episode 2 of 3: Method and Madness

Episode 3 of 3: Clear Blue Skies

Lookout in the future for Professor Brian Cox’s new BBC, science based quiz/panel show, titled Six Degrees of Separation. The both humorous and educational show will take at look at some of scientific histories more interesting connections and links. Sounds pretty good, a bit like a science specific version of QI perhaps. We’ll bring you more details on Six Degrees of Separation when we get them.

The Prof will also be presenting a new five-part BBC Two science documentary, titled Human Universe.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on Twitter

  2 comments for “Science Britannica with Brian Cox Starts this September on BBC Two

  1. Shelaffs
    Thursday 26 September, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    I have just watched episode 1 after recording it last week and was really annoyed that someone who is now the public face of science should present such an unbalanced programme. Brian Cox and his team should have had a listen to The Life Scientific on BBC Radio 4 where such issues are dealt with in a balanced way by someone with a greater range of knowledge and capability who still manages to put forward a positive case for science. We have in the past had a number of series on the history of science that were pretty boring and I can understand why they would look for a different angle here. But if you are going to look at “Points of contact” between science and society it is not acceptable to present the scientific view and then present society simply as idiots who push all scientific breakthroughs away with no rational reason. They chose contentious issues, but had absolutely nothing to say about them except to repeatedly say the public is scared of science. As Clive says on GM, society is right to be cautious about the corporate exploitation of that science and the vested interests involved who view science more as a matter of power and money than wonder. I am completely in agreement with the points made at very start of the programme that Britain has made a huge contribution to science and the lack of commercial exploitation in this country of the discoveries made here is lamentable. This does not happen because of fear of science but through a lack of support mechanisms and funding. But just as Brian Cox may feel uncomfortable straying into the realms of social sciences and moral philosophy, he isn’t an economist either, so if he does not feel competent to deal with the non-scientific matters this programme concerns itself with, then this is not the programme for him.

  2. Clive
    Friday 20 September, 2013 at 3:03 AM

    The Frankenstein analogy was a really shallow interpretation of the feeling that drives people to protest against the major players in the current GM industry. Can’t an intelligent fellow like Mr. Cox see that ? No mention of ‘Terminator technology’ or ‘Round-up’ ? The trouble with scientists is they purposefully deny the validity of subjective experience, and thus tend to lose the plot, particularly when they claim to be aspiring for humanity. Beware of large unimpeachable scientific corporations bearing gifts. We see cheap plentiful food, but many a grower can’t tell their story for fear of being sued, and many others in developing countries can’t because they’ve committed suicide after being unable to purchase new seed for every crop. Many more are being forcibly removed from their ancestral lands to make way for large mechanised mono-crop enterprises, resulting in ever expanding urban slums. There are better ways to go about the business of caring that everyone has enough to eat, a livelihood, and a place where they can feel comfortable, it’s just it takes a bid more forethought and less emphasis on profit. We the relatively wealthy could start by accepting that there is a difference between need and want, and cutting down on what we consume and how much perfectly good food we waste. Some consumption statistics suggest we may even find there is already enough food for everyone, but that it’s disproportionately distributed.

Comments are closed.