"Once you start giving an opinion, then you express disagreement. Then they treat the whole of the subject in the same way that they treat your opinion. They might end up treating your fact-based stuff in the same manner."

The above concerns were voiced by a science teacher taking part in a research project commissioned by the Wellcome Trust. The project, carried out by an interdisciplinary team led by Ralph Levinson of the Institute of Education, aimed to discover how school science teachers approach scientific controversy. The sentiments expressed by this science teacher were echoed by many others, and highlight just one of the challenges facing the UK’s education system.

Today’s school pupils may be the first to benefit from developments arising from, for example, the Human Genome Project or stem cell technology, but they will also be faced with challenging social and ethical questions. In recognition of this fact, the Wellcome Trust’s education-based activities have extended beyond traditional support for secondary school teaching to address issues of biomedical ethics. This shift in emphasis engages the Trust in important education community discussions about the nature of science education - the extent to which the science curriculum should be geared towards providing a foundation for academic science or fostering a greater understanding of how science relates to the world we live in.

Public engagement is one of the central aims of the Trust (see Planning for the Future: The Wellcome Trust 2000-2005), and within this area the Trust’s objective is ‘to stimulate an informed dialogue to raise awareness and understanding of biomedical science, its achievements, applications and implications’. Young people are obviously a key audience, and to inform the Trust’s work (and wider discussions), researchers from the Institute of Education were asked to investigate the experiences of teachers dealing with controversial topics. Their research sought to identify the perceived value of developments in biology, to explore how much work is taking place in this area, and to highlight effective strategies for addressing socio-scientific questions in schools. In addition, the group looked for structural and other obstacles inhibiting this kind of work in schools and further education colleges.

A crowded curriculum

The research revealed a widespread conviction that these matters are important. An initial survey of head teachers, heads of science, heads of humanities and coordinators of personal, social and health education (PSHE) found that 60 per cent of teachers feel that there is currently too little coverage of biomedical ethics in the school curriculum. However, follow-up group discussions revealed that a content-dominated curriculum presents little opportunity for teachers to incorporate discussion about socio-scientific controversy into their lessons.

Science education in schools has undergone major structural change over the past decade. In England and Wales, the inclusion of science as a core national curriculum subject means that most pupils spend at least 20 per cent of their time on the subject each week. The first draft of the national curriculum, introduced in 1990, included within its 18 ‘attainment targets’ one component dedicated to issues of science in society. However, when the unworkable 18 targets were subsequently reduced to four, the societal impact of science was relegated to a ‘Programme of Study’, meaning in effect that its inclusion was at the discretion of individual teachers since it would not be assessed.

Moreover, factors such as the dominance of educational league tables as a key determinant of institutional funding have prevented state schools and further education colleges deviating much from the prescribed curriculum. The Institute of Education research confirms the view that ‘if it isn’t assessed… it won’t be addressed’.

The recent revision to the national curriculum for science states: ‘Pupils should be taught to consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental questions, including the kinds of questions science can and cannot answer, uncertainties in scientific knowledge, and the ethical issues involved.’ The regulatory body responsible for the curriculum, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), has initiated its own research into novel methods of assessing pupils’ views about science and society, thereby acknowledging the link between accreditation and the status of the subject.

Who should do the teaching?

Assessment of work in controversial areas also raises the important issue of who should be responsible for covering such topics. Science teachers and examiners, it seems, feel insecure about marking work that expresses opinion rather than fact, unlike their humanities colleagues, for whom assessing pupils’ views on controversial topics is their stock-in-trade. Indeed, the low level of confidence expressed by teachers of science when dealing with scientific controversy presents a considerable challenge to the success of biomedical ethics teaching within the school curriculum. In general, their non-science colleagues feel more secure confronting these issues. But the reluctance of scientists is due, in part, to an appreciation of the complexities of the topics under discussion. So, although humanities and English lessons may stimulate critical thinking more than science lessons, teachers’ grasp of the technical information is often inadequate to support proper analysis. Perversely, in developing critical thinking and debating skills, non-science teachers may sometimes unwittingly reinforce misconceptions.

Accordingly, the Institute of Education researchers recommend that while the scientific community should help develop the scientific literacy of non-science teachers, the most appropriate location for young people to consider the ‘power and limitations’ of science is within the science curriculum - mediated by science teachers.

A matter of relevance

A separate but related research project funded by the Wellcome Trust offers further justification for raising the profile of socio-scientific work in the classroom. Young people do value science, but for career aspiration only, conclude Jonathan Osborne and Sue Collins of the Department of Education at King’s College London. Their work highlights the fact that older pupils find the science they are taught of little intrinsic interest, citing the apparent mismatch between the excitement of controversial media depictions of science and the staid and repetitive diet of the classroom.

The project explored pupils’ and parents’ views of the science curriculum. One finding was that the compulsion on teachers to cover the entire national curriculum inevitably leads to the elimination of time-consuming activities - notably classroom discussion. The report recommends that ‘the study of some issues raised by contemporary science in any science course post-14 must be an integral part of the curriculum’. If teachers are forced to neglect the ‘highly valued and prized’ components of discussion and practical work, they will be ‘shooting the long-term interest of science in the foot’, since it is these very components that generate interest in the subject in the first place.

All this and other research are raising the question of whether the fact-laden science curriculum is providing the type of education school pupils want or, more importantly, need. Young people will have to relate to science and technology in a different way from their parents, and the education system that evolved to serve an industrial society may not be the right one for a post-industrial age. In today’s ‘information economy’, where facts have never been easier to retrieve, it may not even be the best approach for pupils destined for a career in science or a science-related discipline.

Those responsible for setting, assessing and teaching the curriculum face a major challenge: will they be willing and able to discard some of the existing content and current practice to make way for something new? At the moment, it is difficult to see how the school curriculum will be able to provide all pupils with opportunities for exciting and relevant science education that makes reference to their own experience. And without such opportunities, how will young people be able to engage in meaningful discussion about science and gain the confidence and skills to consider such issues in later life?

A summary of the Institute of Education research will be published early in 2001.

See also

• Teaching controversial issues in the classroom Lessons report (full and summary versions)
• Trust’s education-based activities: Details of resources for schools
• Human Genome Project: Details of the working draft

External links

• Ralph Levinson at the Institute of Education: Details of his research and publications
• Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA): promotes quality and coherence in education and training

Further reading

Osborne J F, Collins S (2000). Pupils' views of the School Science Curriculum, King's College: London. Download a pdf of this publication from the School of Education at KCL