Close
vintage science

England’s Greatest Engineer: The Eighth Wonder of the World

February 3, 2017

To Isambard Kingdom Brunel, January 12th, 1828 seemed like just another Saturday morning. Little did he know, it could have been his last. Brunel had only slept a mere four hours the night before, but this was typical as he had been working twenty hours a day trying to build the most daring engineering project in the world: the first-ever underwater tunnel. This tunnel under the river Thames was to be twelve hundred feet long. Brunel and the six workmen he was with that morning knew that the river had been dredged the day before and that there might have been some damage done to the river bed.  As they were walking along the tunnel inspecting the walls, the water suddenly broke through the brickwork and the tunnel flooded with river water. Tragically, the six workmen were swept away to their deaths in the disaster. Unfortunately, workplace deaths such as these were much more common as they were only beginning to develop safety standards. As for Brunel, he was knocked unconscious and flushed back to the entrance of the tunnel where, waterlogged and half drowned, one of his assistants plucked him from the water. This simple act saved Brunel’s life. The twenty two year old would go on to become the greatest British engineer in history.  

Cross-Section of Thames Tunnel Project
Cross-Section of Thames Tunnel Project

Isambard Kingdom Brunel was born to Marc Isambard Brunel, who was a well known civil engineer in his own right and patented the tunneling shield mechanism, which protected workers as they dug out individual sections. This tunneling shield’s principles are still used today. At the age of eighteen, I.K. joined his father’s company, which was  building the Thames tunnel. Due to a senior engineer quitting the venture and his father’s ill health, Brunel found himself in charge of the project.  The young engineer was working furiously and often at the front of the operations. The tunneling encountered many problems, particularly flooding. During one of these flooding instances, his swimming prowess enabled him to save the lives of a number of other workers.  

Tunneling shield invented by Marc Brunel
Tunneling shield invented by Marc Brunel

In addition to the engineering difficulties of the project, Brunel had to overcome financial setbacks as the Thames tunnel project suffered from a chronic lack of funding. He adapted and learned the social graces required to court investors. To promote and publicize the project, he turned the tunnel into a venue where he held dinner parties for curious and influential guests. After the accident on the twelfth of January 1828, Brunel spent a number of years looking for other projects and recovering from internal injuries. His time working on the tunnel, bearing such a great responsibility, had given him experience and authority when leading men.

Banquet in Thames Tunnel - George Jones
Banquet in Thames Tunnel – George Jones

Brunel would go on to make an even greater impact on English civil and mechanical engineering by building railways, tunnels, bridges, and ships which I will continue to tell you about in subsequent posts. His determination and drive in the face of projects that had never been attempted makes Brunel the perfect example of the spirit of England during the industrial revolution. I discovered this historical engineer while I was in high school, and he instantly became one of my role models and a reason why I became interested in mechanical engineering. My hope is that you too can be inspired by this daring young man who was only 22 when he took on the Thames tunnel project, nicknamed “the eighth wonder of the world”.

 

Sources:  

  1. Petroski, Henry. “Engineering: Isambard Kingdom Brunel.” American Scientist. 80.1 (1992): 15-19. Print.
  2. Buchanan, Angus. Brunel: The Life and Times of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. London, New York: Hambledon and London, 2002. Print.
  3. Pugsley, Alfred. The Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel : an engineering appreciation. London ; Bristol: Institution of Civil Engineers ; University of Bristol, 1976. Print.
0Likes
Owen Gildard
About Author

I'm a 5th year senior at Georgia Tech, pursuing a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I became passionate about engineering and physics through classic characters form history such as Archimedes, Newton, and Bill Nye.

You May Also Like

Articles, vintage science
The von Neumann Architecture
vintage science
England’s Greatest Engineer: Brunel’s Great Ships
vintage science
God does not Play Dice
Story Time, today i learned (til), vintage science
The Future of Touch: How Neural Networks are Revolutionizing Prosthetics

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.