Fighting back” is the rather unexpected title of a seminar being run at the Association for Science Education meeting in Liverpool by its Safeguards in Science Committee. Given that the remit of the committee is to offer safety advice to ASE members, the theme may also be unexpected, focusing on the committee’s concerns that far too many science teachers and technicians seem to think that quite commonplace activities are banned or at least strongly discouraged.

The Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services (CLEAPSS) offers a helpline to its members (see box). From September to mid-November 2001 there was an average of three calls a day from science teachers, technicians and LEA officers along the lines of:

“Surely ... is banned?”; “I’m just checking that ...”; “I’ve heard a rumour ...”. In only four or five of those cases did we say: “You are right, you cannot do or use that in schools.” In many instances we did say: “You can use it, provided you adopt suitable safety precautions,” but on a surprising number of occasions there were no problems at all. Among the more bizarre putative bans were: the use of beef extract (such as Bovril) and animal charcoal because of concerns about BSE or foot and mouth disease. Callers also thought that pond water, iron filings and Milton disinfectant might be banned.

The calls often reveal important misunderstandings. The question should not be: “Is it banned?” but rather, “How can we do it safely?” A very few chemicals and activities are banned nationally, for example by regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act; and a few more may be banned by particular education employers, for example LEAs. Employees must, by law, co-operate with their employer on health and safety and so must respect any such bans, although they are entitled to argue that they are unnecessary, unduly restrictive or just plain perverse. However, there are far fewer lists of banned chemicals than 20 years ago. Teachers sometimes express anxiety that their employer may have banned something years ago but the teacher is unaware of it because she or he only recently moved to the LEA. If, although this is unlikely, an LEA has decided that something is so dangerous as to merit a ban, then it is under a duty to provide training for its staff about the ban.

Most of the old favourites are still perfectly legal although some experiments may need to be carried out more carefully than in the past. As many of these are of inherent interest to young people and some are quite spectacular, this generation is missing out on some of the most exciting science activities. Where is the awe and wonder, so beloved of Ofsted? Does anyone now remember, from those heady days when GCSE was being introduced, that the national criteria required science to be enjoyable?

In our survey, the activity most people thought was banned was the dissection of eyes. They were perhaps misled into this because a recent Edexcel biology syllabus implied as much. However, the dissection of pigs’ eyes or those of deer, ostriches and many other animals is, and always has been, perfectly legal. The dissection of sheep and cattle eyes was completely banned for a short period but it is now permitted to dissect eyes taken from sheep less than 12 months old and cattle less than six months old. There may be problems in persuading your local butcher of this! More surprisingly, many people seem to think that the dissection of hearts, freely on sale for human consumption, is banned.

Many chemicals and reactions are commonly thought to be banned. The thermite reaction is one of the most spectacular demonstrations that students in KS3 or 4 would see. Aluminium powder reacts with iron oxide in a fountain of flame, smoke and sparks. It demonstrates the amount of energy stored in a small amount of chemicals. It illustrates the idea of a reactivity series in a dramatic and memorable way. The reaction is of practical importance, being still used to weld railway lines together. It is also an effective way of teaching pupils, as the national curriculum requires, how suitable control measures can reduce the risks from known hazards. Carried out carelessly, it can result in accidents, but there is plenty of advice available from the Association for Science Education, CLEAPSS and the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre (SSERC) on how this reaction can be demonstrated safely. Similarly, with many other chemical reactions: contrary to popular belief, teachers can explode mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen, can burn sodium in chlorine and can drop potassium into water. All of these do present hazards, so teachers need training in how to carry them out safely.

Nor is physics teaching free of alleged bans. Teachers are still allowed to make pupils’ hair stand on end using a van de Graaff generator. It is still possible to fill a can with steam, carefully, seal it and watch it collapse as the steam condenses. We did have some doubts about the school which wanted to do this using an oil drum. But at least they were thinking positively.

The secret of carrying out hazardous activities safely is to follow a risk assessment. Although many feared that the introduction of risk assessment might further limit practical work, the reverse has been the case. It has proved empowering. For a time, acting on advice from the then Department for Education and Science, many LEAs banned cheek cell sampling. When risk assessment became accepted, most LEAs rescinded previous bans and allowed cheek cell sampling provided that science departments could be reasonably sure that staff and pupils would follow a safe procedure, such as that suggested by the Institute of Biology, CLEAPSS, SSERC or ASE. The inclusion of cheek cell sampling in the QCA Scheme of Work for KS3 encouraged many schools to reintroduce this activity into their curriculum. Well done QCA.

Risk assessment is the employer’s responsibility. Most education employers have adopted various nationally available publications from CLEAPSS, ASE, SSERC and the Department for Education and Skill as model (general) risk assessments. Staff then need only to follow the guidance and consider whether any modification is needed for the particular circumstances in their school. If only teachers would look at the publications which are, for the most part, already in their departments, science teaching could be a good deal more interesting than it sometimes is. We must not deprive the current generation of those demonstrations and practical activities which excited many of their teachers and other scientists. Otherwise, we may find we do not have any teachers to teach future generations or any scientists to continue pushing back the frontiers. It’s time to fight back.

Dr Peter Borrows was a teacher for more than 20 years, chair of the ASE Safeguards in Science Committee for 21 years and is now director of CLEAPSS

MORE INFORMATION

All but one of the 180 LEAs outside Scotland are members of CLEAPSS. Hence all their teachers, technicians and officers have free access to its services, as do those working in most independent schools, colleges and teacher training establishments. Contact the Helpline, tel: 01895 251496; or web: www.cleapss.org.uk

In Scotland, SSERC has a similar role, tel: 0131 558 8180; web: www.sserc.org.uk

Institute of Biology, tel: 020 7581 8333; web: www.iob.org.uk