England’s Greatest Engineer: Brunel’s Great Ships

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was fascinated with the idea of building steam driven metal ships that could travel across oceans. He calculated that though the volume a ship could carry was cubically proportional to its dimension, the drag it experienced was only squared. This meant that the larger a ship was, the more fuel efficient it would be proportionately speaking. Brunel put his theories into practice with the construction of the Great Western (1836), the longest steam ship at the time, powered by the common day technology of paddlewheels and sails.  Brunel’s ship was in a race with the Sirius to make the first transatlantic trip on steam power alone. Unfortunately, a fire in which Isambard was injured, delayed the ship’s departure. Although the Great Western left port four days after the Sirius, she arrived in New York only one day behind and, unlike the Sirius which had to burn furniture, rope, and spars as fuel, the Great Western still had a third of her coal left over.

The SS Great Western by Joseph Walter
The SS Great Western by Joseph Walter

Brunel’s theories on the size of ships had been proven correct, and he proceeded to build the Great Britain (1843), the largest ship in the world, which was also not only one of the first screw propeller driven ships, but also had an iron hull. For combining these two technologies, it was considered the first modern ship. 

Model of the SS Great Britain
Model of the SS Great Britain

Finally, Brunel built the Great Eastern (1858), nearly three times the length of the Great Western and was propelled by sails, paddle wheels, and a screw propeller. All three of these ships again gave testimony to Brunel’s genius and vision at combining and applying the technology of the day through a variety of means to bring England roaring into the modern era.

The SS Great Eastern by Allan Green
The SS Great Eastern by Allan Green

 So why have I spent three post giving you a history lesson about a man who you’ve probably never heard of? In the early 2000s the BBC had a competition where they asked their public to vote for who they thought the ten greatest Britons were and they then did a one hour segment on each of them. Many recognizable names such as Newton, Shakespeare, Queen Victoria, and Churchill make the list, but Brunel who actually won second place behind Churchill is an unknown figure in America. This oversight is slightly shameful as Brunel is practically the founder of modern England and therefore by extension, America. His vision, courageously enterprising nature, and inexhaustible energy made him not only the leader, but the epitome, of the industrial revolution. Men like Brunel took on projects and works with the help of machines that had never before been tried. He had the incredible audacity to fly in the face of the limitations that man had contended with for centuries. Men like Brunel, through the industrial revolution, dramatically improved the quality of life for the average citizen. It is no wonder then that with Isambard’s resume of accomplishments and legacy that he is not only considered the greatest British engineer who ever lived but also the second greatest Briton in history.  

Brunel at the launching of the Great Eastern by Robert Howlett
Brunel at the launching of the Great Eastern by Robert Howlett

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.