Reviewed by: Science on Stage: From Doctor Faustus to Copenhagen Tamsen Wolff Kirsten Shepherd-Barr. Science on Stage: From Doctor Faustus to Copenhagen. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Pp. 264. $29.95 (Hb). In her lively new book, Kirsten Shepherd-Barr examines the intersection of theatre and science, offering the first sustained analysis of “science plays,” or drama that incorporates science thematically. After sketching the history of science on the stage, Shepherd-Barr analyses representative plays and theatrical events according to scientific fields, with chapters devoted to dramatic works that rely on physics, mathematics and thermodynamics, the natural sciences, and medicine. Her professed focus is on theatricality, and she contends that the best of the growing genre of science plays have expanded formal dramatic innovation. In making this case, the book touches on wide-ranging concerns, including the ethics, history, and cultural place of science, as well as audience reception, performativity, and speech-act theory. If this sounds like an ambitious project, it is. Science on Stage is reminiscent of an exuberantly overstuffed inaugural survey course, crowded with provocative but sometimes still embryonic ideas. Take the book’s premise that plays with scientific content have a long tradition and are now seeing an unprecedented surge in popularity. First, although the book maintains that science has been staged from the Renaissance to present, fewer than ten plays provide evidence for the first three centuries. Proof of the contemporary boom, however, is supported by the appendix, which lists over sixty science plays, musicals, and theatrical events that have sprung up since the 1998 opening of Michael Frayn’s highly successful Copenhagen. Yet on closer inspection, a good number of these [End Page 647] plays have neither been published nor produced, which weakens the case for a visible “explosion” of this work (2). Moreover, many of the plays are only marginally concerned with science. For instance, while Shepherd-Barr admits (along with the playwright) that David Auburn’s Pulitzer Prizewinning Proof has nothing to do with mathematics and everything to do with a father-daughter relationship, she nonetheless provides a reading of the play. There are several curious choices in the appendix as well: listing Angels in America because it deals “in depth with the science and medical treatment of AIDS” is one notable stretch (226). The plays under discussion naturally have varying degrees of scientific content, but it is unclear exactly what factors determine inclusion in the book. Is it the accuracy or number of scientific facts or figures? Commercial or critical success? Audience reception? Theatrical viability or innovation? Plainly much new writing is happening in this field, but in the effort to establish a “true phenomenon” of science plays, Shepherd-Barr sometimes seems ready to embrace all comers (1). Shepherd-Barr also expresses an extraordinary optimism about this newfound popularity, which is at once appealing and perplexing. (Would that it were true that the science plays of the past decade had “restored to the stage much of its former status as an influential art form”! [10].) This enthusiasm reaches its highest peak with the chapter devoted to a thorough and insightful analysis of Frayn’s Copenhagen. I’m not sure that it’s entirely fair to assert that a play written less than ten years ago – whether or not it is “the masterpiece of all science plays” (61) – has “shown itself to be a remarkably enduring piece of theater” (90). However, the example of Copenhagen helps illuminate perhaps the book’s most exciting goal: to explain “why drama lends itself particularly well to the staging of science” (9). Shepherd-Barr begins by arguing that Copenhagen demonstrates an integration of form and content that distinguishes the best contemporary science plays. For Frayn, this means enlisting complex theories of the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics while presenting three possible versions of the meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg during World War II. Despite the play’s fairly conventional dramaturgy, Shepherd-Barr persuasively makes the point that the play attempts to enact scientific ideas rather than simply to describe them. However, this argument is not consistently reinforced by other contemporary examples, coming up short for plays ranging from Margaret Edson’s Wit...