Sir, The new science programme at GCSE (report, Oct 11) has been fully supported by leading scientific bodies, including the Royal Society, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Association for Science Education, which also helped to develop it. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority developed the new curriculum to engage more young people in science, maintaining academic vigour but encouraging more study of science beyond the age of 16.

We are also giving more pupils the chance to take separate GCSEs in physics, chemistry and biology (triple science).

LORD ADONIS
London SW1

Sir, As an academically selective school which annually sends almost half its leavers to read medicine and the sciences at the top universities, we entirely reject the criticisms of Twenty-First Century Science. The approach is challenging, rigorous and, above all, exciting. By linking science to the real world, it embodies the long overdue recognition that science is a dynamic, living subject.

At a time when our contribution to science internationally and the take-up of the sciences at British universities is in serious decline, a course capable of igniting a passion for scientific inquiry in the brightest minds could not be more timely.

CLARISSA FARR
High Mistress, St Paul’s Girls’ School

DR SARAH LINDFIELD
Head of Science

Sir, The “science elite” really ought to step down from their ivory towers. I am a secondary school science teacher brought up on a large dose of the fabled and glorious Ordinary levels. I have taught GCE, CSE then GCSE and now the new GCSE specifications.

I had an excellent retentive memory as a schoolboy and learnt my science off by heart only to pour it out on the O-level examination paper because that was all you had to do. What did I understand of the principles of the science? Nothing.

What about children today and the new specifications? Children who study for a single pass at GCSE are never going to study it at a higher level, but they will be tested on their understanding of the subject. They will enter the adult world equipped to question everything they are told, even if this takes place in the pub.

GRAHAM WRIGHT
Burgess Hill, W Sussex

Sir, One section of the science elite is clearly concerned about the new GCSE science curriculum but their stance is at odds with that recently taken by the Royal Society in its Science in Society report, which “highlighted the importance of developing individuals with a good understanding of both science and social science issues” and proposed that the society should itself invest in this area.

At base, however, this reflects a fundamental disagreement about what motivates young people to study any field at an advanced level. Do we begin by exciting their interest and then teach them the techniques or do we begin by a slog-through technique, the purpose and relevance of which is not clear until quite an advanced level has been achieved?

Science in society involves a rigorous interdisciplinary study based on collaboration between scientists, social scientists and scholars in the humanities that facilitates a mutual understanding both of the truths of science and of their limitations as an exclusive way of knowing about the world and planning effective and moral actions within it. As such it is an entirely proper subject for the schoolroom, although considerable investment will be needed to prepare teachers to deal adequately with it.

PROFESSOR ROBERT DINGWALL
Director, Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society, University of Nottingham

DR PAUL MARTIN
Reader in Science and Technology Studies

DR BRIGITTE NERLICH
Principal Research Officer, Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society

Explore Letters

• Feedback