---

Education: Science and Technology

My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing this timely and important debate, and to say how fascinating it has been thus far. The pace of technological and scientific advances is indeed dramatic and exciting and the impact on our daily lives dynamic, even intrinsic. Therefore, we need as a matter of urgency to educate and inspire those who could influence and drive those developments on behalf of all of us and our children as a force for good. With regard to how young people think, this generation are probably less influenced than ever before by what their parents and those adults close to them do and think. Moreover, advances in technology provide the real potential to broaden their horizons and to explore different options at various stages of their education. That said, this generation are probably more influenced than ever by the focus on celebrity, instant success, the transient and short term. In-depth skills are not the focus for many of them; however, money is. They like the technology—indeed, my teenage children and their friends would probably collapse without it—but there is a vacuum in terms of their understanding of how science and technology in schools can lead to an exciting career in industries where we excel, such as pharmaceuticals and high-tech systems engineering. That is the focus of my response to this Question. Unfortunately, in schools now the focus is on passing exams and, in the words of James Dyson, being ““groomed for university””. Dyson goes on to say that,"““we are encouraged to become middle-classed professionals and to avoid industry and manufacturing. Furthermore, the arts and science divide damages this country’s prosperity. In contrast, in France and Germany, engineering is held in high esteem and most pupils continue with some science instruction right through school. They are countries with a good vocational teaching tradition””." In June 2004 the Royal Society warned that science lessons in schools failed to prepare pupils for future careers and studies. Professor Mick Brown from the society says:"““The pressure on teachers to deliver exam results is immense. Their professional skills and time must be better utilised to teach and assess science in a way that helps pupils succeed in science careers as informed members of society as well as in exams. This means encouraging analytical skills and using an exam as a tool to help pupils learn and become enthused rather than simply as a means to a qualification””." James Dyson goes further, believing that pupils must be allowed to feel that it is okay to fail—that,"““we are too obsessed with getting things right; that it is by experimenting and getting things wrong that we learn””." I say amen to that. It does not help that, for example, only a third of teachers of physics to 14 to 18 year-olds are actually qualified to teach the subject. This situation is compounded by attempts to make GCSEs in the sciences easy, which of course in practice means making them unchallenging and uninspiring. A new science GCSE to be introduced in 2008 concentrates on topics such as genetically modified food and global warming rather than scientific theory. How can we seek out the great minds of the future unless we encourage and challenge our present school children? Instead the Government are determined to patronise young people and diminish excellence in the name of so-called accessibility. The fact is that GCSE science is being cut from 30 to 20 per cent of curriculum time. Martin Stephen, High Master of St Paul’s School, wrote recently that the new GCSE specifications look likely to be a lethal injection for science, not a stimulant. He went on to say:"““A-levels will be destroyed by stealth, by a process of dumb down and broaden out, spreading the actual scientific content so thinly that one does not need a graduate to teach it””." Professor Bernard Lamb of Imperial College, London, has echoed growing concerns that changes to GCSE and A-level syllabuses, which effectively demand less from pupils, are dumbing down education. Common sense as well as facts tells us that making subjects easier does not achieve anything. Since 1986, overall A-level entries have risen by 23.1 per cent, but the number of pupils taking A-level physics has declined by more than a third. Young people want to be challenged and stretched. This is now recognised among a number of schools both in the private and the maintained system which either have moved or are moving to the international GCSE course, which at least challenges pupils and encourages them to experiment and explore—those things that we took for granted when we in your Lordships’ House were at school. I am sure that many of today’s leading scientists will have had their interest and passion for their subject stimulated from a young age by live experiments. Children confined to textbooks are bound to be turned off. As the noble Lord, Lord Stone, has said, we must allow our children to take risks and discover for themselves. Indeed, I too am a member of the Risk Commission and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord next week. The outlook for science and technology in universities is equally worrying. Only last weekend a report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted the importance of maintaining world-class research centres within and close to our universities, to attract international R&D investment and maintain our competitive edge in the pharmaceutical and chemicals sectors. But the recent closure of university chemistry departments, including those at Exeter, Queen Mary London and King’s College London do not bode well for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is absolutely right: we must plan for the future now. Indeed, I spent some time over Easter reading a report called Towards 2020 Science, produced by the 2020 Science Group established by Microsoft Research Cambridge in association with over 30 distinguished scientists, who all contributed to the report. It concludes that a fundamental scientific revolution is under way, underpinned by advances in computing and computer science. Powerful new conceptual and technological tools in computer science now emerging are set to transform the way science is done, and will play a critical role in accelerating our ability to understand and tackle key global challenges for the 21st century, from climate change and the environment to revolutionising medicine and healthcare—and, of course, education. The report makes 10 recommendations, the second of which is,"““urgently rethink how we educate tomorrow’s scientists””." It is accompanied by a chart which maps each critical stage of this development from 2005 to 2020. It makes very exciting reading, except that at each stage we read:"““Education—how to produce ‘new kinds’ of scientists now urgently needed (computationally and mathematically highly literate)””." In essence, standards in science and mathematics continue to fall in the UK, so our cutting-edge industries are relying more and more on better qualified foreign students. This is hugely frustrating given that we know we have the raw resources in our young people. There are a number of steps the Government could take to begin to tackle this crisis. First, the Government must begin by making a practical commitment to science by offering state schools guidance to facilitate the teaching of individual science subjects up to GCSE. Secondly, much more should be done to explain to young people how science and technology qualifications can lead to interesting and worthwhile careers across a broad and growing range of fields. Thirdly, a more positive attitude towards business is crucial. We need young people with science and technology qualifications to encourage and implement investment in new as well as small and medium scientific and technological enterprises. Fourthly, practical experience can transform attitudes, thinking and approach. My 17 year-old son has just spent several days on work experience with Lonza Biologics in Slough, watching and learning as a group of young scientists carried out research in an active laboratory. Leo says that this practical and inspiring experience has changed the way in which he will approach his studies and consider his options for the future. If only there was a way that all young people could be given that chance. In addition to the Government providing tax breaks to corporations for investment in research and development, has any consideration been given to introducing further incentives for the private sector to invest specifically in the provision of work experience and student sponsorship for post-GCSE students educated in the UK? Fifthly, we must tackle a continuing lack of discipline in our schools. Practical applications and experimentation are not feasible without discipline. A survey by Save British Science found that more than three-quarters of science classes in 67 secondary schools in England had to be cancelled. In 57 per cent of those cases, the reason given was bad behaviour. Sixthly and above all, the Government must listen to the scientists and stop thinking that ““science made easy”” equals science. There are no quick fixes, but the possibilities are tremendous. Optimism must play a part, together with a bold return to rigorous standards in schools. A genuine commitment now might just help to deliver the next generation of innovators.