Sir, The lack of new science graduates is concerning (“ ‘Golden carrots’ to lure students to science”, August 13 ). However, looking at the existing school curriculum I am surprised that we manage to get any children interested in science, let alone get them to degree level.

I have recently started tutoring a 15-year-old girl who is keen on science despite the educational system. She has had several changes in science teachers in the past year, done very few experiments in the laboratory, and her main science resource is facile textbooks and revision guides. For example, the revision guide states: “The waste from nuclear power stations is a real pain, because some of it stays radioactive for years and years . . .” This would be patronising to a 7-year-old, let alone a teenager.

Her 12-year-old brother has had at least half-a-dozen teachers covering science in the past year with only a couple of practicals. Providing an incentive to take science at degree level will not succeed if the science taught in schools remains so simplistic, condescending and just plain dull.

EMMELINE WATKINS, Cambridge

Sir, It is not only about educating new scientists, but also about retaining them. My doctoral research on British-born scientists working in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in Boston, Massachusetts, found that they occupied disproportionately high positions within companies, but were unlikely to return to work in the UK. As far back as 1963, the Royal Society found a similar trend, with 12 per cent of PhD students from British universities leaving the UK permanently, with the majority moving to the US.

With this brain drain of British scientists continuing to take place today we should be wary of investing £1,000 a year in “golden carrots” to students studying science, technology, engineering and maths subjects if they are then going to take their skills, and our investment, abroad permanently.

WILLIAM S. HARVEY, Cambridge

Sir, The Royal Society of Chemistry welcomes the CBI’s call for greater encouragement for young people to consider careers based on science, mathematics and engineering. But it is not all doom and gloom at the moment.

The number of students starting degrees in chemistry is up by 18 per cent over the past three years, and a further increase in applications indicates that this growth is likely to continue. Recent investment in careers advice, more modern school laboratories and relevant modern curriculums are starting to change perceptions.

Through the RSC’s campaigning, industry is increasingly working with the other parts of the chemistry community to give coordinated support to teachers, students and parents. More opportunities for placements, better communication of the opportunities and careers available – and the competitive salaries – are all starting to reverse the old downward trends.

Sustaining this will require prolonged government investment, continued involvement by industry over the whole of the economic cycle, and partnerships with teachers and parents. Only by working together will we be successful.

DR NEVILLE REED, Royal Society of Chemistry, London W1

Sir, Your report’s intimation that a biology degree is a “soft” option is unfair. I graduated with a degree in biology in 1997 and in the first two years of that programme I studied chemistry, mathematics and statistics.

With the exception of particular postgraduate specialisations, I would argue that a graduate in any of the core sciences of biology, chemistry or physics can make a valuable contribution to this nation’s economy and that it is going to be increasingly difficult to measure the value of any one of these subjects in isolation as we move forward.

JOSEPH DIXON, Bournemouth

Explore Letters

• Feedback