Institute for Science Education in Scotland
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-870, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on the Institute for Science Education in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the widespread concerns about the future of science education in Scotland; believes the declining popularity of science subjects in schools and at further and higher education levels has consequences for economic development; welcomes the establishment of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland, a unique network of scientists working with science teachers to support excellence in science teaching throughout Scotland; notes that the aim of the institute is to work with the thousands of people in the Scottish science community who are determined to reverse the decline in the popularity of science at schools, colleges and universities; further notes the priority set by the Scottish Science Advisory Committee in its recent report, Why Science Education Matters, on development of the institute; notes that the institute has the support of all Scotland's universities, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; further notes the creation of a National Centre for Excellence in Science Education in England with support from the Wellcome Trust and the Department for Education and Skills, and considers that the Scottish Executive should support the development of the institute.
Science education in Scotland is vital because of the tremendous contribution that Scots have made to science. Scots are responsible for almost one quarter of all great British inventions. Was not it Watt who invented the steam engine, Alexander Graham Bell who invented the telephone, John Logie Baird who invented the television, Alexander Fleming who invented penicillin, Joseph Lister who invented antiseptic, James Simpson who invented anaesthetic, not to mention the many others who invented or helped to create such useful items as adhesive stamps, marmalade, mackintosh raincoats and even that most remarkable of mammals, Dolly the sheep?
To maintain and develop our world role in science, maximum encouragement should be given to the young people in our schools who have ability, aptitude and inclination in that direction. If we want to pass on scientific knowledge to our young people and to endorse their aspirations, it is essential that our teachers be suitably motivated, educated and supported. They must have access to high-quality resources and training opportunities.
Albert Einstein said:
"Teaching should be such that what is offered is perceived as a valuable gift and not as a hard duty."
He also said that those who know the truth have a duty to impart it and the Institute for Science Education in Scotland is trying to do exactly that through the creation of a unique network of dedicated professionals. The aims and action plans of the institute are well structured and have the valuable support of prestigious key institutions such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland, all Scotland's universities and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The Institute for Science Education in Scotland understands the enormous impact that science, engineering and technology have on everyday life and that science, engineering and technology education is crucial for Scotland's economic, social and democratic vitality. Currently, there is a decline in the number of students who opt to study science subjects at school, college and university, which ultimately presents a challenge to the Scottish Executive and to Scottish parliamentarians.
Through the consent of its partners, the ISES will be the means of co-ordinating the activities of the science community in supporting teachers and schools. The institute also hopes to act as a bridge between the science community and the Executive in fulfilling the Executive's educational responsibilities. In that respect, it is a resource for the Executive to use. That role was identified as being crucial in the excellent first report of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee, which is entitled "Why Science Education Matters: Supporting and Improving Science Education in Scottish Schools".
It has been agreed by the National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching in England that the ISES should be the body through which its links to Scotland will be managed. It is hoped that the Executive and the institute will be able to discuss with the national centre and the Wellcome Trust how that relationship can be made most effective and how it can be funded. The Wellcome Trust is probably Britain's largest charity and its commitment to research is extremely long-standing and absolutely outstanding. Gratitude is due to that trust.
Scotland, we believe, cannot afford to lose out in comparison with its counterparts. The Scottish Executive's support is vital if science education is to succeed in putting Scots at the cutting edge of technology. It should seize this opportunity by building on the creation of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland, linking with the National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching in England, and accepting the recommendations of the Scottish Science Advisory Committee's report that we should create a distinctive and imaginative Scottish solution to a vital issue for our society. We hope that the Executive will give maximum support to science education in Scotland.
It is only fair to bear in mind the fact that Concorde, whose wings were designed by a Scot—James Arnot Hamilton—will soon be visited by school parties from all over Scotland in the prestigious Museum of Flight of the National Museums of Scotland.
The role of science education should be given top priority and it should be supported by the highest in the land. We hope that the minister will do just that. Scotland deserves nothing less.
A considerable number of members wish to speak in the debate, so I will stick to three-minute speeches.
I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for initiating this debate. The fact that the Presiding Officer is already limiting the length of time members have to speak indicates the degree of commitment to the issue, throughout the chamber.
Lord James started his speech by referring to some of the contributions Scots have made to science. As I was thinking about this debate, I thought about the fact that the Institute for Science Education in Scotland takes as one of its founding precepts a leaf from the Jesuit maxim, "Give me a child at seven." The whole idea is that adult scientists should work alongside science teachers to stimulate our young people's interest in science. I reflect on that as someone who specialised in physics, chemistry and biology at school.
There is some evidence that we can do better at updating the science curriculum to help it engage young people more effectively. Youngsters today have no lack of interest in using the fruits of technology, but there may be insufficient interest in understanding where that technology comes from. By focusing on the development of the curriculum, the dissemination of best practice and continuing professional development for teachers, the institute is focusing on exactly the right age group and the challenge that we face.
I have been involved in another initiative to stimulate science education in schools: it is called the generation science club, which will be familiar to many who know about this debate. It arranges visits round Scotland. Last year, I had the privilege of joining in on one of the club's activities in my constituency—I joined two primary 5 classes talking about the ecology of the rainforest. Those primary 5s were certainly engaged in the whole science vista.
I conclude with the point with which Lord James concluded. There is no doubt an opportunity. One has to commend the Institute for Science Education in Scotland whole-heartedly for being a bottom-up initiative. That said, it has already commanded the support of every university in Scotland and of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. For those reasons, if for no other, it commends itself to the Executive for support.
Too often, this chamber finds itself bidding for more money than England or sums commensurate with those in England, so it is fair to note in passing that, in England, £25 million—which was matched by the Government—was allocated by the Wellcome Trust. To its immense credit, the Institute for Science Education in Scotland has got itself going with simply £350,000, so it is a modest contribution that will be required to make the network operate. A regional hub structure is in place. I encourage the Executive to look favourably on how the bottom-up initiative can be supported to achieve the goal of more of Scotland's young people not just moving into science education at school, but staying with it through undergraduate and post-graduate education, which will be of benefit to us all.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on lodging the motion.
We are looking to exploit, nurture and encourage the natural curiosity of children and young people about the world around them. We need to put the bang back into science laboratories. We should restore the things that make people wonder, be interested and be enthusiastic. I favour the appropriate health and safety measures that are essential for education, but we have removed much of the curriculum content that young people found interesting and cutting edge. If we do not put the bang back into science, young people will not be enthused.
Wendy Alexander quite rightly referred to a range of things that are happening, but they should not happen in schools only. I am delighted that the universities are involved, as they need to reach out—many of them do—to encourage young people at school who are interested in science to see what actually happens in universities. It is fine for us to reiterate the litany of major scientific successes that have resulted from the work of Scots, at home or abroad, but that is history. We need Scotland's science future to be as bright as its past was—and that will not happen if many of our young people continue to turn their backs on science.
We have had significant debates in recent times about population changes in Scotland. It is true that we have fewer young people. If we are to compete to engage the interest of young people so that they become involved in science, which is hard work, we will have to be more creative. Scientists should join teachers in going to schools to encourage, develop and nurture the natural curiosity of young people. I welcome the fact that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has initiated this debate.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on initiating a debate on this extremely important subject. I welcome the establishment of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland, but the debate is about the much wider issue of science education. I join those who have called on the Executive to ensure that the institute is properly supported and allowed to develop.
As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned, Scotland has made a major contribution to the development of science and engineering. It is astonishing, therefore, that we seem to have entered a vicious cycle. The decline in interest in various things feeds on itself. The proportion of school pupils taking higher sciences has dropped steadily in recent years. In 1993-94, chemistry was taken by 10.8 per cent of pupils, but that figure had decreased to 9.2 per cent by 2001-02. Over the same period, the proportion of pupils studying physics decreased from 10.4 per cent to 9 per cent and the proportion taking biology dropped from 7.6 per cent to 6.6 per cent. They are not dramatic figures, but the trend is not happy, especially when considered alongside the decline in population.
The pass rates in science subjects and a comparison with the pass rates in some other subjects are also relevant. The pass rate for higher Spanish is approximately 90 per cent and that for modern studies is approximately 80 or 81 per cent. The pass rate for chemistry is approximately 72 or 73 per cent; for biology it is 64 or 65 per cent; and for physics it is around 71 to 73 per cent. There is a marked difference between the pass rates achieved in science subjects and those in other subjects that are more popular with students.
When I went to school, which unfortunately was not yesterday, science was to some extent perceived as difficult or boring. That is astonishing when one considers that there have been many remarkable inventions in which remarkable interest could be shown. It seems surprising that science should lag behind subjects such as English or history, which I like, but which are generally perceived as less interesting. Why can we not interest people in science and get them to take it at various levels?
The differences in the pass rates at higher level are important, as they encourage people to opt for subjects other than science. We must do something about that. The answer lies in stimulating people's intelligence and interest in science, as Brian Adam discussed. The idea that is proposed is to have four regional hubs as centres of excellence and good practice—perhaps based on science centres or universities—where children can go to experience science in a more creative environment than might exist in schools. That environment could be matched by better laboratory and other science facilities, and the result could be a golden cycle of creating interest, getting more people to become involved, creating better science teachers and creating better facilities. The whole thing would go round and feed into the economy in due course. That is undoubtedly the right way to go.
The motion is highly relevant and valiant and contains a lot of important implications. I very much support it.
Like others, I very much welcome this debate on science education and I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing it. I had to laugh when I heard Brian Adam say that we need science to go with a bang. My very first science experiment in first year in secondary school involved melting naphthalene in a test tube over a Bunsen burner and watching it change from a solid into a liquid. Mine exploded. That did not put me off science, although it put me off chemistry for a while—I ended up doing higher biology instead.
It will not surprise members to hear that I propose to talk about my constituency and the very important bioscience cluster there. Over the years, Midlothian has lost more than 20,000 jobs in the coal mining industry and it is now reinventing itself as one of the most important bioscience clusters in the United Kingdom. It is also important in a world context, with world-famous research institutes such as the Roslin Institute. For a while, Dolly the sheep—sadly now departed—was my most famous constituent. There are also institutes such as the Moredun Research Institute. We have a world-class bioscience cluster in Midlothian.
The challenge for Midlothian is that although its economy currently has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in Scotland, it also has the second lowest proportion of young people going to university. Midlothian faces a major challenge if it and the people who live there are to benefit from its bioscience cluster. We need to connect people in Midlothian, particularly young people, with the scientists who work there. That is a huge challenge, but I and others in the constituency must take it up to ensure that young people in Midlothian have the range of opportunities to which they should be entitled. I look forward to that challenge and congratulate Lord James again on securing the debate, which allows people like me to make some connections and to participate.
When I was in Kenya, I was the principal teacher of a physics and chemistry department. I can assure Brian Adam that my main job was to try to keep the bangs out of science, although I admit to one experiment—which I probably should not have performed—that involved a very explosive substance. Happily, it did not come off.
I wish to cover three points, one to do with primary education, one to do with secondary education and the other to do with universities and colleges. I draw the minister's attention to some of the strengths in primary education that we should be working with. Despite some of the concerns about Scottish science, the third trends in international mathematics and science study—TIMSS—which was carried out six years ago, showed that, although 13-year-olds in Scotland came below the international average,
"13 year old Scottish pupils performed considerably better in practical tasks than in written tasks".
That is very important. People such as Watt, Baird and Kelvin were grounded in the practical side of science, such as engineering; they could make things and went on to be inventors. I am not particularly worried. We test written skills at every level in education, but the important thing is that the scientific investigative skills of pupils aged 13 in Scotland are good by international standards. We should work on and invest in that strength. That of course means that we should invest as much as possible in the idea of having a room in every primary school that is dedicated to science as well as other practical activities such as technical subjects and art, that is not a classroom and is a place where children can perform experiments, get dirty and become excited.
The problem in secondary schools is not just the difficulty of the subjects, which Robert Brown mentioned, but the fact that we do not have a culture of science in our secondary schools as we did when I was at school. I do not know how we get that back. It is important to engage the help of Careers Scotland in a dedicated and focused way to get that culture back in our secondary schools.
Last year and the year before, we had big science events that were arranged through the Parliament with universities. I was particularly concerned that the colleges were not included in them. We should raise the profile of our Scottish colleges as well as our universities; they should be included in resolving the issues around the debate and they should have been included in the events. A lot of what they do relates to science; not just the universities are involved.
I would like to say a lot more, but the Presiding Officer is indicating that I should sit down.
I welcome the debate. Although the central subject is the Institute for Science Education in Scotland, it is also very much about school science education and the problems that we face in relation to science, engineering and technology.
I was a secondary school chemistry teacher 30 years ago and I have been a teacher trainer in the area as well, so I am well aware of the work that has been done over the years to increase the number of children coming into science education and, as a result, going on to university and into industry or research. There has always been concern about the numbers studying science. Robert Brown mentioned the downward trend in the number of pupils taking science highers. The figures relating to students taking full-time science degree courses in the past five years are even worse—for example, the number of students taking chemistry degrees is down 27 per cent. Those figures are horrendous.
There has always been a concern about the number of girls studying science. Various projects, such as the women in science, engineering and technology initiative, have tried to encourage girls into science education.
Changes such as the introduction of standard grades and higher still have brought more relevance into the curriculum with topics such as pollution and socioeconomic issues. There has been an increasing emphasis on problem solving and practical skills, as well as on content.
Does the member share the enthusiasm of some of our new universities for attracting students to forensic science courses? In such courses, people who might not otherwise have done so will study chemistry and physics. Perhaps we need to bring that approach down to school level. We have to show the practical applications.
I agree entirely, which is why I said that science, engineering and technology should be grouped together, because applied science is important. As Brian Adam knows, the University of Strathclyde has led the way in providing the kind of courses that he mentioned.
Initiatives such as SATIS—science and technology in society—have tried to bring relevance to the curriculum. In the primary school sector, there has been an attempt to bring science education into the curriculum through primary teacher training. That has perhaps not been done as much as possible, but there have been recent moves to increase the amount of science in teacher training. Moreover, last year, £10 million was put into schools to change laboratory accommodation.
The thrust of the institute's approach is co-operative. As Brian Adam said, the institute tries to bring the relevance of what happens in universities and industry into the classroom and to take pupils out of the classroom to show them what is happening in industry. The institute is to be supported. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say, although I may have to leave before the end of the debate.
I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for introducing the debate. The institute is fundamental to how we progress.
If young people in education perceive science to be hard and boring, we are in real trouble, but if they see science or the pursuit of knowledge as interesting and exciting, we have cracked the problem. Parents have a role at the outset in not smothering their children's natural curiosity and fascination with the world around them. Teachers pick up and continue that role. In particular, primary school teachers have the important role of nurturing the natural impulse to explore and learn and of setting children on the right path. As primary school teachers are generalists, the support that they will gain from the tremendous new resource will enable them to teach and involve their pupils in science projects with confidence and enthusiasm. That is extremely exciting and will pay huge dividends in future.
Does the member agree that one of the big issues is that primary school teachers often have little science knowledge, given their training and background?
That is one of the big issues and it is why I find the fact that primary school teachers can access the pool of expertise so exciting. That access will give people who are enthusiastic about such subjects the confidence to teach them, because they will have expert back-up. That is important. I hope that the Executive will put a lot of effort into connecting primary school teachers with the new resource.
My experience of scientists is that they are interested in and enthusiastic about their subject. Completing the circle, by putting people who are at the far end of the education, skills-gathering and learning process in touch with people who are at the beginning, can only be to the benefit and satisfaction of all. It gives us great hope for the future that such things can be made to happen.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing the debate. I am an applied scientist, although I should point out that I had the privilege of burning the ceiling of my school's new science laboratory the first year that I went into it and that I managed to blow the circuit board at university while conducting a badly constructed experiment, which caused some difficulty for days afterwards.
Wendy Alexander mentioned the Jesuits, who do wonderful things with children aged seven. However, as Nora Radcliffe said, a child's curiosity starts at home at their parent's knee. If we can involve parents as catalysts to show science not as a subject but as a series of facts about how the world goes round, what can happen and what the reactions are, that attitude will be taken on into school. It is too much to expect schools to do everything. We should start earlier and engage mums, through the toddlers class, for example. We should not frighten parents with the idea that science is all about boffins with lots of brains, thick glasses and white coats, because science is not like that at all.
I am particularly concerned about making science entertaining for children. Can we make family days out from science? The Satrosphere in Aberdeen is about interaction with everyday life and is science based, but it is struggling for resources to stay open. There are places in Dundee and other parts of Scotland and there is the Glasgow Science Centre, of course.
We must also ask what needs to be done for Scotland's economy and its future. Members have mentioned different aspects of science, such as genetics, physics and technology relating to the petroleum industry. There is a vast range of knowledge on which we depend for the speciality style that drives our economy. We export many scientists and, as Robert Brown said, the numbers are looking pretty grim.
How can we involve people in science? Should people be incentivised to go into science and teach it? Should some degrees be incentivised? A person should have an education or training that is appropriate to their ability, but perhaps we will have to give a bit of a steer in respect of teaching science. We must make it a fun and sexy subject with which people instinctively want to be involved.
Pupils in primary schools are taught general knowledge and current affairs. Why is science not taught as part of such teaching about what goes on in the world? Teachers could use that teaching to enthuse pupils.
Scotland is beginning to have to work hard in a number of areas to import scientists, the critical mass of whom go into education. The economy is a major area, but perhaps it is not the biggest worry, as it relates to output. We must start at home—at the cradle and at the knee—to try to make science a family activity and fun for parents and children.
I was about to train to become a physics teacher when I began a political career 10 years ago through being elected to Strathclyde Regional Council. I had a place on the postgraduate certificate in education course at Craigie College. Sometimes I reflect on the relative usefulness and security that each career path offers. I therefore congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing a debate on a topic that is close to my heart. Science is extremely important to Scotland's future and science matters are not debated nearly often enough in the Parliament.
At the Labour Party conference last weekend, the First Minister stated that Scotland needed to develop "a dynamic economy" that would mean
"opportunities for Scots and resources for schools and hospitals."
However, we cannot have such a dynamic and world-class knowledge-driven economy if we do not have a supply of
"young scientists and engineers and a population that better understands and appreciates science."
That is a direct quotation from the Scottish Science Advisory Committee's report, "Why Science Education Matters: Supporting and Improving Science Education in Scottish Schools".
Robert Brown referred to the belief that science is boring and difficult. There is a genuine problem with science's image. It is also thought that it does not have much reward in the long term. Such an image is not helped by stories such as the recent story about the scientist retraining as a gas fitter because he could earn more money and have more job security if he took that career path.
Sylvia Jackson alluded to the fact that science is seen as a masculine subject, which often puts girls off it. The physical sciences and engineering in particular are seen as masculine subjects. I trained in physical chemistry and have to say that the fact that there were many blokes around made the subject rather more attractive to me. [Laughter.] This is not about a bang in the lab.
We must try to get away from the image of science as involving geeks in laboratories. I was terribly sorry about poor Beagle 2 getting lost. The gentleman who seemed to front up that project was very charming, but he looked a bit strange. Scientists need to look a bit more ordinary and try to engage more with ordinary people rather than put young people off science.
We must face the fact that a third of all science teachers are now over 50—unfortunately, I would not have helped a great deal in that respect if I had gone into physics teaching. There is a great need to attract young teachers into science. Significantly more science teachers and science technicians are needed in the next few years. Many scientists are aging and science is a rapidly advancing subject. There is a greater need for professional development to allow science teachers to keep up with recent developments in schools.
In my final few seconds, I want to advertise an event tomorrow on microbiology awareness. Hugh Pennington will be at the Hub to discuss the importance of microbiology and the biotechnology sector. I hope that members who are interested in science will participate in that event.
I congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing this debate on an important subject. I speak in support of the development of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland. It is important to establish a co-ordinated body for the many excellent science education projects that are going on throughout Scotland. As has been said, science graduates contribute not only to science research but to all aspects of life in Scotland. My researcher has a PhD in geophysics, specialising in earthquakes and volcanoes. He is now using the transferable skills that he learned in science higher education to learn about earthquakes and volcanoes in my constituency office.
The University of Edinburgh's King's buildings science site lies in my constituency. I highlight the excellent work that is done there in science education and the fostering of links between teachers and academics. It is important that the new institute encourages the replication of projects that are already working. I recently visited the chemistry department at the University of Edinburgh during science week, and I saw the work that it is doing with primary schools in Edinburgh. I had the pleasure of judging a crystal-growing competition and seeing the enthusiasm of the pupils. All those who, like me, taught science will remember growing those big blue crystals, and the children whom I met were growing something similar. I saw the enthusiasm of the staff and pupils who were involved in that work, and I was shown all sorts of things thereafter. I put on record my congratulations to the university on its promotion of that annual event. However, sadly, not as many primary schools were represented as I would have liked. It is up to us, in our unique position as elected representatives, to help to publicise such events in our constituencies and to help to foster links between schools and university departments.
Another excellent science project is the sci-fun science roadshow, through which staff and postgraduates from the University of Edinburgh take fun science throughout Scotland. They give voluntarily of their time and have travelled the length and breadth of Scotland, engaging primary and secondary school pupils. If more pupils had access to such workshops and roadshows, more children would be enthused about science. As David Davidson said, that is what we have to ensure. In 2002, during an experiment in which a Catherine-wheel was being demonstrated, a hole was drilled straight through the desk that was being used for the experiment, much to the amusement of all the kids. When I visited the roadshow last year, the desk had, unfortunately, been replaced with a metal plate; however, I assure Brian Adam that the bangs that night deafened us all temporarily.
Young kids have got to be made excited about science, as members have said. The key time when problems occur is at secondary school, when kids begin to make subject choices—to which Robert Brown referred—and science does not seem to feature. We must ensure that teachers make sure that pupils are given the opportunity to take science subjects and that those subjects feature.
The Institute for Science Education in Scotland can fulfil a key role in linking up academics and secondary school teachers so that pupils in their mid-teens can be persuaded of the career prospects and attractiveness of science. We also need to remind them about how much fun they found science when they were younger. It is true that science subjects can be hard and that science teachers have a tough job; however, I whole-heartedly welcome the institute and I support the call for the Executive to help in its development as much as possible to bring the fun back to science.
I, too, congratulate Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on securing this important debate and welcome the establishment of the Institute for Science Education in Scotland. As other members have said, it is important that we make science much more attractive as a subject to study at school.
Although I am the son, grandson and great-grandson of doctors, I am ashamed to say that science came to a grinding halt in my generation. All but one of my cousins chose the arts over science; perhaps it was partly due to an early visit to Sir James Simpson's dining room in George Street in Edinburgh, where I was shown the dining table at which he had successfully put his guests to sleep. That put me off following in my father's footsteps as an anaesthetist.
Scientific education is a necessary prelude to the study of medicine, and it is most easily and thoroughly—although not necessarily—obtained at school rather than crammed later on. Our medical schools—I am proud to say that we have one in St Andrews in my area, albeit only a pre-clinical one—are among the oldest and most distinguished in the United Kingdom, attracting students from all over the world.
Nowadays, almost 60 per cent of our entrants to medical school are female, which is very different from my mother's day in the mid-1930s when few women studied medicine. When women graduate as doctors, many naturally and understandably drop out for a while so that they can bring up their children. In contrast to Elaine Murray and Sylvia Jackson, I am concerned that more boys should be attracted into studying science at school, with the ultimate objective of going into medicine. I am sorry that I have caused such uneasy body language among the lady members who are present, but they are in favour of gender balance, so they must accept it in medicine as well as in politics.
I welcome the fact that our medical schools are so good that they attract students from throughout the world. However, it is important that we do not permanently deprive their own countries—particularly those in the developing world—of those students. We want to send them back because they are an important export for us.
I repeat that it is important that we attract more Scots into medicine—particularly more Scottish men.
I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for securing the debate, which has been very interesting. The Executive is always pleased to debate science education. I am also grateful to the members present for their contributions.
I listened to Lord James's remarks about Scotland's scientific and engineering heritage. They called to mind my grandfather, James Macfarlane, who was a noted engineer in Glasgow some years ago. I should have paid more attention to him when he told me tales of his contemporaries; I wish I remembered more of them. In the same way as Keith Raffan, who did not follow his medical heritage, I have not particularly followed my scientific and engineering heritage, although I have a great regard for all that the generation that was mentioned by Lord James did for Scotland.
The Executive welcomes the establishment of the ISES, which we have supported since its inception. The institute has the potential to play an important role in supporting science education in Scotland; that is quite clear.
The motion expresses concern about the future of science education in Scotland and about the negative consequences that a decline in science in schools would have on our future prosperity. However, we must not over-emphasise that. I have heard phrases such as "pretty grim" and "serious decline" in tonight's debate, but we should not be too pessimistic.
After English and maths, science subjects are the most popular subjects that are studied for highers. Pupil presentations for physics, chemistry and biology highers in 2003 were 9,489, 9,292 and 8,920 respectively. As a comparison, the next most popular subject was history, with 8,088 pupil presentations at higher level. Although there has been a decline in numbers, the numbers are still very high.
Robert Brown mentioned high pass rates in Spanish; in 2002, there were 919 presentations for higher Spanish and 1,045 in 2003, which is an increase of approximately 10 per cent. We must, when we use those figures, be careful not to exaggerate the position.
I will talk about the increase in acceptances to higher education courses in biological and physical sciences, of which there were 3,628 in 2001, which went up to 4,507 in 2002. There was also a 10 per cent increase in acceptances to civil engineering courses.
Wendy Alexander rightly talked about the generation science club. We offered £12,000 of support for that club in 2003-04. I agree with Wendy Alexander about the need to review the science curriculum, but our curriculum review presents that opportunity. I will certainly ensure that her comments are fed into the review.
I have much to say, but I should make it clear that members are right that science is an important driver of Scotland's future economic success. That is self-evident. The Executive's science strategy offers a vision for science in Scotland that sets challenges for the Executive and for the science community. Between 2002 and 2006, we will provide £18 million for school science. Most of that new money will go to education authorities in addition to their existing capital allocations. The money will be spent on, for example, modernising laboratories and equipment, upskilling teachers and producing updated teaching materials. On top of that, science labs are being upgraded as part of the £2 billion schools public-private partnership project, which is one of our biggest investments in schools in many a long year.
How can we encourage more young people to study science? Bearing in mind the need to keep the figures in proportion and to understand what is happening, how will we get more young people interested in science? In secondary school, pupils face other attractions. For example, information technology suites are now common in many schools—as is right and proper—so we have a challenge in showing young people why science matters and how it affects them.
Clearly, the key to inspiring young people is in the hands of their teachers. As has already been pointed out—by Elaine Murray, I think—a great deal of valuable continuing professional development is already undertaken by education authorities. As a result of the recent McCrone settlement, more opportunities will be provided for such CPD, which is very important in science teaching. I also take the point that Sylvia Jackson made about initial teacher education, of which a review is currently under way. I will feed in her remarks on that score.
The Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre has set up four consortia to provide continuing professional development for teachers of science in the five to 14 curriculum, and a fifth consortium is about to be established, which is good news. Given that primary school pupils study science as part of the five to 14 curriculum, we are trying to make that experience better and better through the curriculum review.
The science strategy funding, which has been allocated to education authorities by the Education Department, has been used well to provide resources and staff tutors. Staff development tutors improve science teaching strategies in primary schools and offer important direct hands-on support for primary teachers. We have also set up biology, chemistry and physics summer schools, which have been shown to be very effective.
We are considering how we can support science teaching in other ways. The recent Scottish Science Advisory Committee report, "Why Science Education Matters: Supporting and Improving Science Education in Scottish Schools", notes the lack of professional development support for secondary school lab technicians. We must recognise the essential work of support staff within schools, so I have asked my officials to meet education authority representatives to ensure that we address that issue, which forms part of the overall experience.
In addition, the Executive is working closely with Learning and Teaching Scotland to provide new science classroom teaching materials, which I agree need to be updated, kept modern and be refreshed. We are trying to make the materials challenging and to design them so that they engage children's interests in all types of science. We will also examine best practice in science education elsewhere in the United Kingdom and beyond to see what we can learn. In particular, I am anxious that we learn lessons from across Europe and from the United States.
Of course, only a minority of pupils will become scientists, but all young people need to be scientifically literate. If there was one part of my education that I could repeat, it would be the science subjects, so that I could be more literate in scientific matters. The curriculum review will ensure that all young people are equipped to play their full part as citizens in 21st century society, in which science and technology will have such a significant impact on people's lives. We need only consider the number of products that are available now that were not available 25 years ago to realise the importance of having an understanding of science and technology.
As members have pointed out, science in schools is, ultimately, as much about how teachers engage and enthuse young people as it is about knowing particular theories or laws. We certainly want to put interest—or what is called the wow factor—back into the science lab. Indeed, given members' comments, perhaps that should be renamed the bang factor. In that respect, I am pleased that Rhona Brankin survived the experiment that she described in her speech. Putting that wow factor back into the science lab is one of the reasons why we are funding the Scottish space school, which sends 50 young people each year to Houston in Texas and aims to inspire them to pursue careers in science. It is well worth celebrating such an imaginative and farsighted project, which is organised by Careers Scotland and supported by the Executive. In return, NASA astronauts visit schools in Scotland each June where they speak to almost 15,000 young people about their exciting and challenging work.
In further education, many colleges have experienced increased student enrolments in biological and physical sciences. For example, Falkirk College runs a very successful advanced higher course and practical workshops in biology and chemistry—it is important to emphasise that a number of other colleges are doing the same.
As I am probably well over my time, I will conclude with some comments about the ISES. As I have made clear, I hope that the ISES will be able to play an important role with us and other partners such as the Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre and Learning and Teaching Scotland in achieving our ambition of improving science education in Scotland. My officials are actively engaging with the institute to clarify the outcomes we expect from its work, although I should say that we are in the middle of those discussions and that more needs to be done. In order to agree funding, we need to be very clear about the institute's mechanisms and its impact on the quality of science education for all our young people. I stress that we value the institute's work and, as I say, we are actively engaging with it and talking to it about how we can provide support and assistance.
I close with those remarks, Presiding Officer, and I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to go over my time. I also thank members again for their valuable contributions to the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:12.