But the national curriculum has introduced another area of content into the science curriculum across the 5-16 age range, relating to the application of science and the nature of scientific ideas. Most science teachers would probably agree that learners should know something about these topics by the end of their compulsory education but few seem to tackle these topics in lessons.

Why does the national curriculum have this focus on the nature of scientific ideas and the application of science? An educational justification is that young people’s motivation will be improved if science is presented as relevant to real life. And a common argument for “science for all” in school is that the nation’s culture and prosperity will be improved through enhanced “public understanding of science”.

The argument goes that compulsory school science education will supply the nation’s economy with a small number of able science students for training as specialists. And all students - specialists and non-specialists alike - will become “scientifically literate” through their science education. This will facilitate communication about science at all sorts of levels: local government policy makers and scientists will be better able to communicate about environmental policies, citizens will be better placed to vote about matters such as energy policy, miscommunication between patients and doctors will be reduced. In short, individuals will be able to identify and understand the information that they need about science according to their particular circumstances.

It seems fairly obvious that this sort of “scientific literacy” is not going to come from studying topics like evolution, kinetic theory and electricity in isolation. When people need to use scientific information, they have to judge the confidence of experts in the information. They also have to decide how useful the information is in their particular situation.

Consider the claim that Creutzfeldt-Jacob’s Disease in humans can be caused by the transmission of pathogens when beef from cows infected with BSE is eaten. Currently, expert scientists are in dispute as to whether pathogens can be transmitted through beef-eating. Nonetheless all sorts of issues arise for beef-eaters and producers, such as whether beef is safe to eat, or how to reduce the risk of infection in herds.

The information available to inform decisions is at best patchy. After all, how could scientists “prove” that CJD in humans is caused by eating beef from contaminated cattle? Most experts agree that there are no cases of CJD being caused in this way, even to the extent of portraying those making the claim as cranks - and yet some have recently gone public with concerns about the safety of British beef.

Clearly, the process of selecting and using scientific information in real contexts is not straightforward. In a recent study, young people in the 9-16 age range were interviewed about their images of science*. Most 16-year olds viewed knowledge as emerging simply from readily accessible facts, which in turn leads to straightforward answers to problems. This sort of view of the nature of scientific ideas and the application of science is unlikely to help individuals to make sense of a complex issue such as the BSE controversy.

Science is an important aspect of contemporary culture, and a case can be made for science along with literature and the arts as part of a general education. The intellectual challenge involved in understanding scientific theories is an important source of motivation for some science students. But the evidence of studies from around the world suggests that few understand key concepts such as photosynthesis and energy by age 16. Frustration is common among students who are demotivated by the demands and sheer volume of secondary science curricula.

It is hard to make a case that the present curriculum is appropriate for all students. The major review of the science curriculum scheduled after the promised five years of stability presents an opportunity to reappraise the focus of a science curriculum appropriate for all students as part of a general education. Maybe the focus should move away from scientific concepts, placing more emphasis on how science might inform debates of contemporary interest, such as the BSE issue.

But can school science education ever promote “scientific literacy”? Some would argue that the task is impossible. After all, how can science teachers predict what topics students will need to know about in future, and where will they find the time to cover such a bewildering range of content? Very few expert scientists are willing to make judgements outside their immediate field - it hardly seems feasible to equip school students to do so.

Supposing the nature of scientific ideas and the applications of science were more prominent in the curriculum. Showing human aspects of science, and highlighting social relevance may serve to increase motivation among many students who currently see the subject as remote and esoteric. And students would have access to more sophisticated images of science which could be drawn upon when science is encountered in their future lives.

Teaching about the applications of science is not a new idea. Materials have been available with a “science-technology-society” focus for a number of years. But it is hard for teachers to make time for STS work in a curriculum whose content and assessment are based mainly on scientific concepts. And in covering a wide range of content, scientific knowledge is often presented as simple truth, read from the book of nature by clever individuals. Indeed, the Sc1 investigations carried out by students might reinforce this image: hypotheses are generated, variables are isolated and controlled, conclusions are drawn.

The idea of refocusing the national curriculum may strike fear into the hearts of many science teachers. After all, the Dearing review was greeted warmly, largely on the basis that no major changes in content were advocated. But most teachers would support curriculum content being chosen on the basis of its suitability to the needs of students.

As with all educational initiatives, refocusing the science curriculum to place more emphasis on the nature of scientific ideas and the application of science would have resource implications. If changes to the science curriculum are to result in imaginative and interesting teaching, curriculum development work, initial and in-service training must all be supported. Otherwise, there is the risk that this centrally controlled curriculum initiative will make no difference to classroom practice, as has so often been the case in the past.

Whatever changes are suggested for the science curriculum, we can learn from the experience of the past six years and make a more successful job of influencing change.

* see Young People’s Images of Science by Rosalind Driver, John Leach, Robin Millar and Phil Scott, published by the Open University Press. The book is to be launched at the Association for Science Education Annual Meeting at Reading University (January 4-6), where the CLIS Research Group will be offering a number of workshop sessions Dr John Leach is a lecturer in science education at The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, and co-ordinator of the Children’s Learning in Science Research Group.