Letter: Course of science
I was disturbed to read Brian Matthews’s article on the National Curriculum
for science (‘A disaster for science education’, Forum, 14 July). It is
true that there are many problems with science teaching in schools at the
moment, but most of those that he quotes have been true for a number of
years. I was head of science at a comprehensive school, until recently,
and could paint a much darker picture from personal experience, if I so
wished. The curriculum has been in place for less than a year and most of
its effects lie in the future.
It is also true that it is easy to identify a number of problems and
mismatches in the curriculum, but what about the benefits? What about the
fact that all primary children have to study science from the age of five,
meaning an extra seven years of science study for most pupils? What about
the fact that children will no longer be able to opt out of parts, or all,
of science at 14, considerably increasing the number of potential science
students at further and higher levels? What about the fact that exploration
aspects of science now have to be taught in addition to the knowledge aspects?
I could go on.
But it is in his description of the purposes of Standard Assessment
Tasks (SATs) that Matthews is at his most misleading. It is simply not true
to say that ‘the primary philosophy of the National Curriculum is to lay
down set content and skills that can be tested through SATs’. SATs are moderating
devices designed to validate teachers’ judgments and to help comparability.
They can never be adequate tests of pupils’ progress in such a wide sphere
as science. The most valid and reliable judge of a pupil’s progress is that
pupil’s teacher; the SATs are being designed as aids to that process.
Even if the National Curriculum did not exist, science education in
many schools would still be in a parlous state and it is not helpful to
pretend otherwise.
Peter Gill King’s College University of London
Letter: Speaking for freedom
I have read the article ‘Chinese scientist speaks out for freedom’,
and I must point out that you have completely distorted my speech (This
Week, 10 March).
I indeed made a speech entitled ‘Striving for and making great contribution
to the promotion of scientific and technological progress’ at the third
congress of the China Association for Science and Technology. The dominant
idea of my speech was to call on Chinese scientists and technologists to
adhere to the ‘four cardinal principles’ and the policy of reform and opening
to the outside world, to fully recognise the strategic significance of scientific
and technological progress and to bring their talent and wisdom into full
play so as to make greater contribution to the ‘four modernisations’ under
the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government.
I also mentioned that the policy of ‘Letting a hundred flowers blossom
and a hundred schools of thought contend’ (a Chinese idiom meaning encouragement
of initiative and free exchange of academic ideas) must be upheld and democracy
should be called into full play in scientific research and academic activities:
academic fields of vision should be widened and academic ideas enlivened;
innovation of science encouraged; and scientific and democratic decision-making
promoted.
Therefore, I am extremely surprised that you declared groundlessly that
my statements are being seen in the West as one of the first signs of open
disagreement with the Chinese authorities. One can only assume that the
appearance of such an article comes from ulterior political motives.
Qian Xuesen, President China Association for Science and Technology
Beijing, China
Letter: Women leads
I must take issue with Ian Stewart over his review of Nightfall by Asimov
and Silverberg where he says that ‘for once the traditional female SF role
of the scantily-clad victim went unrepresented’ (Review, 7 July). Many SF
writers leave much to be desired in their treatment of female characters,
but Asimov has never been one of them.
Granted, his early work ignores women, this is not so in his later work,
and as a female scientist I would rather be ignored than patronised. Siferra
89 is a strong character in her own right, not mere love interest. Asimov
is including more strong ‘female’ characters in his books, although Dua
in The Gods Themselves is an alien and Bliss is Gaia, and we are led to
believe that Dors (Prelude to Foundation) is a robot. Eugenia and Marlene
(Nemesis) are strong characters in their own right. While I do not rate
Nightfall as one of the best books I have read, I did enjoy it and found
the allegations of sexism in the review rather misleading.
Margaret Crossman Rochdale Lancs
Letter: Animal ethics
I have been asked by the committee of the Physiological Society to express
our concern about implications in the story ‘Vets targeted in bombing attacks’
(This Week, 16 June). The article contrasts dramatically with a leading
article in Nature on the same subject: you still try to put scientists working
on animals in the dock! It is not true that scientists working on animals
are unable or unwilling to regulate themselves. Some simple research would
have revealed that Animal Behaviour is by no means unique in having ethical
standards for its articles. While most journals clearly state their adherence
to the Helsinki Declaration, the Physiological Society set up two ethical
subcommittees in 1976, one for animal and the other for human experiments.
These subcommittees advise the editorial boards on the publication of both
research papers and the proceedings of its scientific meetings in the society’s
journals. The terms under which papers would not be accepted on ethical
grounds are stated clearly in ‘The instructions to authors’ that are printed
regularly at the beginning of the journals.
The debate on animal experimentation is, as ever, distorted by unsubstantiated
or falsified evidence. If we are to make progress the evidence must be correct.
R. A. Chapman The Physiological Society University of Bristol
Letter: Safe coolants
In an otherwise well-written and researched article by Debora MacKenzie,
a number of statements were reported that I believe should not be allowed
to pass unchallenged (‘Cheaper alternatives for CFCs’, 30 June).
In his anxiety to demonstrate the advantage of propane, a highly explosive
and flammable gas, John Missenden exaggerates the reduction in refrigerant
charge that has been achieved. Although some small refrigerators may operate
on less, the normal charge of CFC-12 in a household refrigerator is 170
to 200 grams, or about 120 to 150 millilitres. This is unlikely to be reduced
much further, although there will be slight reduction in mass when a manufacturer
changes from CFC-12 to HFC-134a. The volume of a propane charge would be
similar, about 120 to 150 millimetres. This is considerably more than is
usually found in a cigarette lighter.
It is true that propane will explode at quite small concentrations in
air, 2.1 to 9.5 per cent according to ANSI/NFPA 68-1988, and this is precisely
the dangerous level likely to be caused by a leak.
The refrigeration industry, which has recently been considering HFC-152a,
also flammable, is now abandoning it for that very reason. Propane is both
easier to ignite and has higher deflagration pressure than HFC-152a: neither
can be used safely inside a dwelling. I suggest that comparison with the
known flammability of petrol is irrelevant. The refrigerant used in the
car air-conditioning system is present in the evaporator inside the passenger
compartment; the petrol tank is outside. In contrast, R-134a is non-flammable
(like CFC-12). R-134a is also not patented.
The industry has a record of responsible behaviour. It did not compromise
that reputation by using flammable refrigerants because they are cheaper.
It would be ironic, to say the least, if the industry were to be pushed
into using products that pose a risk to the consumer for the sake of very
minor, and questionable, environmental advantages.
Tom Christie Mies Switzerland
Letter: Fellow feeling
The story ‘Brussels hits opposition to cuts in basic research’ reported
discussions within the European Commission concerning possible changes in
its funding of basic science (This week, 7 July). Towards the end, it said
that ‘scientists advising the commission question whether there will be
enough highly qualified postdoctoral candidates to satisfy the demand for
over 1000 per year. . . Britain’s SERC funded only 76 postdoctoral fellowships
this year’.
The implication that the small number of fellowships awarded by SERC
indicates a paucity of potential fellows within Britain is, we believe,
highly misleading: it is the lack of fellowships available to ‘highly qualified
postdoctoral candidates’ that is frustrating the careers of young scientists
and forcing them to seek employment elsewhere.
T. J. Horne, and others University of Southampton
Letter: Sinister goings-on
In Leigh Dayton’s article on left- and right-handedness I read: ‘Nine
out of ten individuals are right-handed, and that can be traced to early
human evolution. . . You have to ask the question, what advantage would
this be?’ (Science, 21 July).
I suggest that in any cooperative behaviour, the predictability of the
actions of your colleagues is important to the success of the venture, so
increased cooperative behaviour in the human species would favour the selection
of uniformity of handedness in populations.
Imagine you are attempting to hold down a struggling antelope as your
brother or sister at your side prepares to deliver the final blow with a
spear. It might just make the difference between eating a good dinner and
suffering a fatal injury if you know instinctively from which side they
will lunge and, therefore, which way you should throw yourself at the critical
moment.
David Haines Teignmouth, Devon
Letter: Sinister goings-on
As a left-handed grandfather I am surprised that Georgia Mason cannot
see the wood for the trees (Science, 21 July). The vast majority of you
are right-handed and you may not have noticed that you tend to do the more
passive manual tasks with your left hand and the more precise jobs with
the right.
Spiral staircases in most castles are ‘right-handed’, allowing the defender
free use of the sword arm; this is not so in one clan in Scotland, where
there was at one time a preponderance of left-handed men.
The deduction that brain lateralisation may be the cause is probably
true, but only by expression through handedness.
I cradle my grandchildren on the right arm but my heart is in the right
(left!) place.
W. G. Mathews Carnforth, Lancs
Letter: Unique selling point
In reminding us of ‘the great leap forward in marketing’ of the round
teabag, Ariadne missed the crucial point that made the campaign such a triumph
(14 July). The advertisements never claimed that round teabags had any advantages
whatsoever. That’s what I call marketing.
Ian Gent Worcester
Letter: Airstrip plans
While David Drewry is right to point out that there are no penguin colonies
in the vicinity of the airstrip under construction at the British Antarctic
Survey’s Rothera Station, there are three other points that warrant reply
(Letters, 9 June).
BAS is to be commended for actually conducting a ‘comprehensive environmental
evaluation’ at Rothera, as required under Antarctic Treaty agreement. Other
nations have ignored that obligation. However, the evaluation was carried
out by two senior BAS officers, the very people promoting the airstrip;
hardly an independent assessment.
The fact that the skua population has increased by 36 per cent at Rothera
Point since the establishment of the BAS base is not evidence of ‘benefit’,
to skuas or anything else. It is evidence, surely, of the impact of the
station on the local ecosystem.
It is a misrepresentation of the facts to imply that conserving the
environment of Antarctica will interfere with the use of the continent to
‘address questions of global relevance’. These uses are part of the logic
for such protection and the ‘total banning of all human activity’
in Antarctica has not been promulgated by any group that I am aware
of.
Alan Hemmings Antarctic Policy Group University of Auckland New Zealand
Letter: Belly laugh
If the cover of 21 July was supposed to represent Adam and Eve, then
a fundamentalist blunder has occurred. The two figures have navels! I was
always led to believe that these did not come along until later.
A. J. Baczkowski Northallerton, Yorks
Letter: Shaken, not stirred
Julian Brown’s article is an example of what I call cocktail science
(‘Is the Universe a computer?’, 14 July). This occurs in discussions with
a futuristic and scientific content over the third or fourth cocktail. They
often occur in the presence of nonscientists and are as imaginative as the
cocktails but as shallow as the glasses.
Brown provides a good performance, but I would advise cocktail partygoers
to find better sources of material, as the mixture of arguments from theoretical
and practical models is distracting.
P. Rendell Coventry, West Midlands