Reflecting On Privilege In Education

Yesterday I attended the fantastic researchED 2013 conference at Dulwich College. I've been past there a few times round the South Circular (usually being towed to the Fiat specialists in Catford...), but this was my first time inside. The setting was beautiful, the conference very well organised and smoothly run - no complaints whatsoever on that front. But being inside somewhere open only to the truly privileged made my skin itch a bit.

It started when I pulled into the car park, my battered, bird-shit-covered, bumper-stickered Punto nose to tail with enormous SUVs and Jaguars. I was promptly turned round and sent back round the corner to the conference delegates' parking space, on a building site. My tyres were caked in mud and my shoes still have Dulwich College hardcore embedded in the soles. In the meantime, the car parks inside were entirely empty. There may have been a logical reason for this (gate wardens on duty only until lunchtime, perhaps), but it definitely felt like the riff-raff were being separated out. Paul, even more left-wing than I am, was grumbling under his breath for a good 15 minutes.

Then, the Master of the College referred, in his opening speech, to the sixth-formers helping with registration as "servants". I bristled at this. We often ask students to help us out with events. But we call them "ambassadors" - we place them in a position of respect and responsibility, not servitude. In the hall there were pictures of former headteachers - all men, naturally. Then again, it is a boys' school, and you'd never see a male headteacher's painting on the wall of a girls' independent school. Our walls are covered with pictures of students. It felt as though our two institutions had very different opinions of the worth of their students.

Then I saw a couple of posters in the student café, protesting the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance. I wondered how many students at Dulwich College were even eligible for EMA. When EMA was offered, getting on for one-third of our full-time students were eligible, most of which were entitled to the full amount of £30 per week.I remember very few of my students not being either EMA or ALG (adult learning grant) recipients. For the non-UK readers, EMA was basically paid because otherwise low-income students would have been unable to afford the bus fare to college, and in some cases eat. The government has now abolished it, and instead raised the participation age to "motivate" hungry students to come to college.

Now, I consider myself middle-class. My father was a teacher, and my mother, the daughter of a country GP (so pretty much high society for Shropshire), was a radiographer. Paul's father was a bank manager, and his mother is still a teacher. I attended a comprehensive school until I was 16, then won a scholarship (and the benefit of a government-assisted place) to an independent school for the sixth form. This step undoubtedly gave me a massive boost in getting to Cambridge, and well - they don't come much more privileged than a Cambridge graduate. And as both of us are teachers, that makes our family middle-class, despite the fact we can only afford to rent a one-bedroom flat.

The most frequently-asked question of me by my students is "Why didn't you become a doctor?". The second most frequently-asked question is "Why do you want to teach here if you went to Cambridge?" And I get that one from students and staff alike. For students, I turn it back to them - "Why wouldn't I? I think you deserve to be taught by highly qualified teachers, don't you?" For staff, it's been harder, but I think my response will be a shorter version of this post. I think I have a talent for teaching - the thanks, the little gifts, the continued contact with my students over the years suggests so. I cannot bear the thought of restricting that talent to the most privileged - they do not need my help. They can buy tuition, their children can have more personalised teaching, they can do amazing things (through the school) to pad out their personal statements so they're a shoo-in for the elite universities, and with the pedigree they have, they will walk into highly-paid city jobs when they graduate.

For most of my students, the four and a half hours in a class of 20 with me is the only tuition they can afford. And so I give my time outside of this willingly with no expectation of reimbursement (though a chocolate bar to share during a long session is always appreciated). Students at independent schools have access to a plethora of teachers, many of whom have Oxbridge degrees, not to mention highly literate parents - they have an advantage when writing coursework, personal statements and the like. Many of my students are the only members of their family who can speak English (making parents' evening really interesting!). They can't ask their mum or dad to look over their personal statement, or proof-read an essay. So I do that too.

I teach in FE because it's the best job in the world. I love the diversity of the students I teach and their ideas and experiences. I teach in FE because they have never asked me to apply for a job via hand-written letter, as one independent school did. I suspected if the quality of my handwriting and the choice of pen and paper used was an important consideration in an applicant, then the headteacher and I would not have got on, and so I decided not to go through with the application. I teach in FE because I far prefer being called "Julia" than "Mrs Anderson" (though a plaintive "Miii-iiiss" seems to haunt female teachers everywhere). I teach in FE because, through a combination of my brain-power and money from the government, paid through taxes, I was able to get a place at a top school and then the best university in the country. What sort of person am I if I was able to enjoy that privilege at little cost to myself, only to not pay society back by helping others to enjoy an excellent education?

I also teach in FE because I don't imagine the likes of Dulwich College would appoint me with blue hair, facial piercing and tattoos up my arms, but that is probably another issue entirely.

Summer Homework 2: Science Communication

Research the ways in which scientists can communicate with other scientists and with the general public. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method? What are the benefits and drawbacks of the existing peer-review method for academic publications? How do you feel peer-review could be improved?

Several methods of communication exist for scientists to educate others about their research. They range from the formal (journal articles), to semi-formal (conferences), to informal (newspapers, television shows, outreach programmes).

Journal articles and edited books
In general, when scientists wish to communicate their research formally to other scientists in the field, they need to subject their work to peer-review, where other scientists in the field read the work, try to replicate the results and give (hopefully) formative feedback that will improve the quality of the research. Scientific journals are considered the best way of achieving that. Scientists are assessed, especially if they work in universities, on the length and prestige of their publication record. With a few exceptions, it seems the shorter the journal title, the more prestigious it is, e.g. Science, Nature, Cell. The advantages are, no doubt, the prestige, the rubber-stamp of authority from the peer-review process, and the knowledge that the important researchers in your field will see your work. The disadvantages are the length of time it takes from submission to publication (18 months is not unusual), and the cost of accessing the articles for people who do not have an institutional subscription to the journal.

Conferences
When scientists have work in progress, a conference can be a good place to present this, prior to publication. Abstracts (short summaries) are submitted, and subjected to a mild form of peer-review (i.e. the committee decides whether the abstract sucks or not). They are then published in a conference volume. The conference takes place, and the scientists present their work either as a talk, usually between 10-20 minutes long, or as a poster in a 2-3 hour poster session.


The advantages of this are the ability to talk to scientists in related fields, get ideas, swap knowledge of specimens/techniques, and to showcase one's own talents. It's an opportunity to collaborate with others. The disadvantages are the cost of travel and accommodation, and difficulties with getting time out of teaching or other commitments. Often, the conference organisers will have a press conference, which can raise a problem of a specimen being reported in the press that has not been officially named or published in a journal. This can be awkward for all involved.

Press releases to newspapers
If a piece of work is considered worthy, then the institution or journal may write a press release. This is sent to journalists in advance of the release of the article, so they are able to research and write their own piece. Sometimes this can result in an unfortunate game of Chinese Whispers - the press release doesn't quite get the science correct, and the news report doesn't quite interpret the press release correctly, and a scientist may find, say, that they've been quoted as saying that there are only 500 dinosaur species left to be discovered (!). However, this is probably the most common means of getting information to the general public, through the popular press. And there have been some really interesting cases that have arisen from press releases and press conferences.

Blogging and outreach
With some of the issues related to press releases, many scientists have decided to cut out the middle men (the press officers and journalists) and communicate directly with the public. Science blogging is becoming more and more popular, with big organisations such as Scientific American, Wired and Discover Magazine getting in on the action. The advantages are that the scientists get to tell the public exactly what they want to say, and the public get to ask the scientists questions directly. However, the disadvantages are that, while there are many journalists that slip up on the science, there are many scientists that really don't have the communication skills to make their science sound interesting. Plus, any old nutjob can set up a blog...

Where next?
Peer-review is a pretty decent method, all told. It gives credibility to the research and shows that other scientists have deemed the methods to be accurate and the data to be genuine. Publication in a scientific journal is a chartermark of sorts. However, it is not foolproof - there have been examples where peer-review has not caught academic fraud. I'd like to see double-blind peer-review as standard - the authors don't know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers don't know who the authors are, until publication. There is evidence that this improves the representation of female first authors, so presumably removing inherent sexism and prejudice that female authors can't do science...

Journal articles are also prohibitively expensive - it can be $35 to access a short communication in a journal, rendering much research inaccessible to people who are not at a wealthy university with an institutional subscription. However, there are moves towards open access for all government-funded research (surely only fair?), and there are pretty high-impact open access journals such as PLoS, who are giving the big academic publishers a run for their money. I would like to see more online free publication of scientific journal articles, each with the means to comment on them and debate the implications of the results or conclusions. That would be awesome.

858 words

Cauli-Flowers

In January, I attended the ASE Annual Conference in Liverpool. Among all the many amazing demonstrations, talks, workshops and exhibits, I got chatting to some of the representatives from SAPS, who were showing off a new protocol for plant totipotency experiments.

For those readers for whom organisms have to have been dead for a few million years before they're worth studying, totipotency refers to the ability of plant cells to differentiate into any other cell in the plant. Our cells lose that ability a few days after fertilisation, but the few that remain are referred to as stem cells. So basically all plant cells are stem cells if you like.

Last year, we did the standard Edexcel protocol of decapitating mustard explants and growing them in agar. Despite relatively good hygiene, this was mostly an exercise in just how filthy my AS students were - you should have seen what grew in the agar, and none of the growing things were mustard explants. Little grey worm things, anyone?

Being not overly optimistic about this year's students' personal hygiene, I was keen to try out an alternative route, and SAPS had a good protocol. It's so elegantly simple. Plain agar is used rather than nutrient agar, and it's made up using Milton tablets. A fresh cauliflower should be used, but the tiniest bits can be used, so with the leftovers the technicians can have cauliflower cheese for their lunch.

About three weeks before the Easter holidays, my AS groups did the plant totipotency practical. Just before the Easter holiday it was clear the experiment had worked, as bits were turning photosynthetic, but we decided to keep the experiment running for as long as possible.


All this came out of a couple of tiny little florets, no more than 3-4mm wide. There are some proper leaves, up at the top of the plant. But this one was really impressive:


Can you see a purple patch over on the right hand side? That is a cauliflower flower!

I am so delighted with this practical - I think of all the AS and A2 ones I've done this year, this has been my favourite. Some students' cauliflowers did not take to differentiating - for some students there was a pretty obvious explanation (they suspended it halfway down the agar column, completely suffocating it but preserving it beautifully), but others just went a little brown and sat there. I had about a dozen vials across both groups, and four of them worked superbly, which is a better success rate than the old root tip squash (another old faithful A-level practical).

I'm very grateful to SAPS for their advice - they were really helpful when we were having difficulties tracking down plain agar, and they even e-mailed me when they saw me chatting on Twitter to another teacher about the protocol.

Now I'm just going to see how long we can keep these little baby cauliflowers growing...

"Why Didn't You Become A Doctor?"

Students are curious creatures. They ask a lot of questions. Many of them are personal. I answer questions about why I don't have children, because I like to show them that it's possible to have a happy and complete life without having children (many of them say they didn't realise that not procreating was an option). I tell them what university is like, including the fact that I partied a lot and nearly failed at the end of my first year. Some things are out of bounds - I refuse to answer questions about sex or drugs.


For all that though, there is one question I hate receiving, and someone from every single class I teach asks me every single year. Sometimes twice. "Why didn't you become a doctor, miss?" I loathe it. It makes me feel utterly inadequate, and I feel quite hurt by it, though I know that isn't the intention. It seems to be quite common, though usually directed at nurses, according to some of the 120,000 hits for the phrase - I bet it makes them feel like shit too.

The truth is that it never figured in my plan. From a very early age it was dinosaurs that I obsessed over. I always wanted to be a palaeontologist. I had a variety of science-themed toys growing up, including a Fisher-Price doctor's kit, but also a Salter's chemistry set, an electronics kit and a microscope. Grandpa was a GP, and I loved his study, complete with a skeleton, sphygmomanometer, and loads of textbooks. His three children all went into the medical profession - my uncle became a consultant radiologist, my aunt a theatre sister, and my mother a radiographer. It was all very interesting, but it wasn't for me.


I could have become a PhD doctor rather than a medical doctor. I tried it twice. The first one didn't work out. The second time coincided with the worst personal ordeal of my life, the start of my teaching career and the beginning of my PGCE - something had to give and it was the PhD. It has been suggested more than once that I am not intellectually capable of postgraduate study, and that's probably true.

So having "failed in the real world", I am a lecturer in an FE college. Don't get me wrong - I think my job is amazing. I get to spend my days helping students to feel as enthusiastic and passionate about science as I am. I am, for some of them, the only adult who shows an obvious interest in them and their well-being. In retrospect, if I had done a PGCE immediately after graduation rather than seven years later, I could have saved myself a lot of heartache, stopped myself from getting so much into debt, and Paul and I would probably own a house by now. I am proud of my job - I'd do it until I drop dead. My parents are proud of me. My husband is proud of me.


But the thing that is implied by "Why didn't you become a doctor?" is that being a doctor is the ultimate career. It doesn't matter that I have the chance to provide the biological foundation for 30 years' worth of medical students - doctors are better than teachers. Teaching is taking a bit of a pounding at the moment by the government, the media and the general public. It seems it has a similar reputation among my students. They share the same thoughts as the lawyer in Taylor Mali's "What Teachers Make" - what's a kid going to learn from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?

Most of these kids are from families who all want their children to become doctors or engineers. So they've just grown up with the view that if they're good at biology they become doctors, and if they're good at physics or maths they become engineers. Because I'm good at biology (hey, I'm the teacher!), then I should have become a doctor. Their question is asked innocently, but the implication is still there, that in some way my career choice is a consolation prize to becoming a doctor. I got into Cambridge University - I probably could have got into a medical school somewhere. If that had been what I wanted.

Students who want to have children are able to understand why some people may not want to have their own children. So why the lack of empathy for someone who genuinely never wanted to be a doctor? Why imply that I'm defective?

Important Announcement

At about 3pm today I finished my PGCE dissertation. I submitted it two hours later to my tutor. It was another two and a half hours before I was able to drink a beer: the longest it has ever been between submission and alcohol.

I have now rectified this.

The title is "Teaching Evolution to Diverse Groups of Students: Opportunities and Threats". It's the same as the abstract I've submitted for this year's SVP.

Sometimes my students think I have no idea how difficult it is to do coursework, to fit in everything they want to say within the confines of the word limit, and to cite their references correctly.

Even before I did this, I knew exactly how they felt. I have pulled all-nighters, fuelled by dry toast and tea (MSci project on Cetiosauriscus), and by Flavia hazelnut coffee and frosted Mini-Wheats (finishing up outstanding reports at Wash U). I've had 3,000-word, 7,500-word and 10,000-word limits, and the 3,000-word limits are the hardest to meet.

Normal service may resume on here...

Research In A Different Direction

I have fairly conclusively demonstrated that I have absolutely no talent for palaeontology (if I had any talent for it I would be heading towards tenure by now, rather than lecturing in further education). But what I do seem to do pretty well is teach palaeontology and evolution. Those who can't, teach? Maybe.

I am currently in my second year of a two-year part-time PGCE (Postgraduate Certificate in Education), and one of the assignments I have to complete is a research paper on a topic relevant to our teaching, whether subject-specific or pedagogical. For some time I have been intrigued about the different creation narratives of various religions, and how that affects students' acceptance of evolution. Anecdotally, I have noticed the most resistance to evolution from my First Diploma Applied Science students (vocational qualification equivalent to GCSEs), and the most acceptance of evolution from my A2 Biology students. Which is certainly preferable to the inverse. And so far the only students to have directly challenged me in the course of teaching evolution have been those whom I believe to be at least culturally Christian or Muslim.

Incidentally, when discussing the age of the Earth at 4.6 Ga, one of my Hindu A2 students rolled his eyes and sighed "Pffft, young earth creationist", before he could no longer keep up the straight face and dissolved in giggles.

Much of the anti-creationism material, literature, resources and guidance available to educators seems to be aimed towards objectors from the Abrahamic religions. While these certainly account for a large number of potential creationists, there are still the Indian, Taoic and Iranian religions to examine, not to mention more modern and folk religions. The religions represented in my classes are (in descending order of proportions): Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism, so I really must take account of the non-Abrahamic faiths.

I hope to identify whether a change of strategy is needed when teaching evolution and palaeontology to non-Abrahamic religious students. I plan to read up and give myself a much better idea of the creation narratives (I'd love to say myths, but I'm trying to be a little less strident in my atheism - it doesn't seem to be an attractive trait in a trainee lecturer). I'd like to feel more confident teaching evolution to non-Christian students who are struggling to reconcile their faiths with science. And I would love to learn something useful and publishable, but I don't hold my breath.

If nothing else, my wasted years of supposed PhD study have served to make me feel much more confident with research than my fellow PGCE students, given me a better grip of primary literature, and enabled me to do Harvard referencing blindfolded with my hands tied behind my back. So it wasn't all in vain after all.

MYRSFO: Scottish Qualifications

I assume that, if I had studied in Scotland and was training to teach Scottish qualifications, I would find these far less bewildering than they actually are. Fortunately, I happen to be married to a Scotsman who has been very helpful with translating for me. Rather than specifications, the list of criteria is referred to as the arrangements on the SQA website.

Standard Grade
There are general and credit levels within this (broadly equivalent to foundation and higher tiers in GCSEs), but for the sake of getting the information down, I've combined the two.

• State that competition occurs when organisms have a need for the same resources
  
• Describe some effects of competition
  
• State that a species is a group of interbreeding organisms whose offspring are fertile
  
• State that variation can occur within a species
  
• Give examples of continuous and discontinuous variation
  
• Explain what is meant by continuous and discontinuous variation

Now, what has shocked me is that at Standard Grade, there is absolutely no mention of evolution or natural selection. There is brief mention, in topic 3b, that "Pupils should be aware that selection favours those individuals that leave most surviving offspring. This sub-topic provides opportunities for pupils to investigate ways in which animals achieve this through sexual reproduction". But that is really not good at all. Paul has suggested that evolution might be covered earlier in the curriculum, during general science, but that's not really an excuse.

The Intermediate 1 and 2 qualifications listed are, I understand, more vocational in nature, and as such because I've excluded BTEC and applied science courses for the rest of the UK, I'll exclude them here too. There are some aspects of evolution included in Intermediate 2, which serves to reassure that the Powers That Be do not think that evolutionary biology is only useful to those destined for university.

Higher
Highers are equivalent to A-Levels (give or take), and are taken over one year, as far as I am aware.

• Natural selection:
  - The survival of those organisms best suited to their environment
  - The concept of the species
  - The importance of isolating mechanisms as barriers to gene exchange leading to evolution of new species
  - Adaptive radiation
  - The high-speed evolution of organisms such as antibiotic resistant bacteria and the melanic peppered moth
  - The conservation of species through wildlife reserves, captive breeding and cell banks. The maintenance of genetic diversity

There are some small bits about succession as well, but the majority of the relevant bits are covered in the module on variation and adaptation.

Advanced Higher
Back in the Jurassic period, these were Sixth Year Studies, and students took them in their final year, usually with another couple of Highers for good measure. Since neither Paul nor I really know what these are all about now, so more recent Scottish school leavers feel free to comment. Not all schools would have offered all the SYS subjects, so it is possible that this is still the case.

• Analysing the genomes of other species. Comparison of the human genome with other species reveals remarkable similarities
  
• Biotic interactions:
  - Distinction between biotic and abiotic components of ecosystem; density-dependent and densityindependent factors. Interspecific and intraspecific interactions
  
• Predation:
  - Predator/prey population cycles. The role of predators in maintaining diversity in ecosystems by reducing the population density of prey species allowing weaker competitors to survive
  - Defences against predation; camouflage (crypsis and disruptive coloration); warning (aposematic) coloration. Batesian and Mullerian mimicry
  
• Competition:
  - Exploitation competition and interference competition. The concept of fundamental niche as a set of resources a species is capable of using. Realised niche as the set of resources actually used due to competition. Resource partitioning. The competitive exclusion principle
  
• Symbiosis:
  - Parasitism
  - Commensalism
  - Mutualism
  
• The costs, benefits and consequences of interactions
  
• Changes in complexity of ecosystems
  - Autogenic succession (primary and secondary succession). The increase in complexity of ecosystems from pioneer through to climax communities. Facilitation of change in early stages. Increase in complexity shown by increase in: diversity of species, variety of habitats and niches, complexity of food webs. Changes in stability and productivity through succession
  - Reference to effects of external factors in allogenic succession and relatively short-term nature of degradative (heterotrophic) successions
  
• Evolution of behaviour:
  - Natural selection of behaviour patterns
  - Single gene effect on behaviour
  
• Feeding behaviour:
  - Predation strategies
  - Foraging behaviour
  - Defence strategies
  
• Sexual behaviour:
  - Male and female investment
  - Courtship and display

Those readers in Scottish universities, this is an absolute gift - almost all aspects of palaeontological research can be related to the specification for Advanced Higher, so knock yourselves out there. I wish that the A-Level specifications had half of this detail, as in my humble opinion this is way more fun and interesting than considering the ethics of performance-enhancing substances.

MYRSFO: A2 Biology

By A2, the students should be able to deal with some quite high-level research, and read some straightforward scientific papers. They have probably carried out some ecological fieldwork, so are used to the particular issues raised by sample size, data collection, and trying to do science in horizontal rain (why there isn't more uptake for earth science degrees, I do not know).

AQA
Unit BIOL4

• Succession from pioneer species to climax community
  
• At each stage in succession, certain species may be recognised which change the environment so that it becomes more suitable for other species
  
• The changes in the abiotic environment result in a less hostile environment and changing diversity
  
• Species exist as one or more populations
  
• The concepts of gene pool and allele frequency
  
• The Hardy-Weinberg principle. The conditions under which the principle applies
  
• Differential reproductive success and its effect on the allele frequency within a gene pool
  
• Directional and stabilising selection

CCEA
Unit A2.1
Students should be able to:

• Understand how populations grow
  
• Distinguish between r- and K-selected species
  
• Understand the ways in which populations may interact

Unit A2.2

Students should be able to:

• Understand the concept of the gene pool
  
• Understand the Hardy-Weinberg equation and apply it to calculate allele and genotype frequencies in an outbreeding population
  
• Understand selection and its contribution to the maintenance of polymorphic populations and evolutionary change in populations
  
• Understand the concept of species and the process of speciation

Edexcel
Unit 4
Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• Describe the concept of succession to a climax community
  
• Describe how evolution (a change in the allele frequency) can come about through gene mutation and natural selection
  
• Explain how reproductive isolation can lead to speciation
  
• Describe the role of the scientific community in validating new evidence (including molecular biology, eg DNA, proteomics) supporting the accepted scientific theory of evolution (scientific journals, the peer review process, scientific conferences)
  
• Describe how DNA profiling is used for identification and determining genetic relationships between organisms (plants and animals)

OCR
Unit F215
Candidates should be able to:

• explain why variation is essential in selection
  
• use the Hardy–Weinberg principle to calculate allele frequencies in populations
  
• explain, with examples, how environmental factors can act as stabilising or evolutionary forces of natural selection
  
• explain how genetic drift can cause large changes in small populations
  
• explain the role of isolating mechanisms in the evolution of new species, with reference to ecological (geographic), seasonal (temporal) and reproductive mechanisms
  
• explain the significance of the various concepts of the species, with reference to the biological species concept and the phylogenetic (cladistic/evolutionary) species concept
  
• explain, with examples, the terms interspecific and intraspecific competition

WJEC/CBAC
Unit BY5

• Genetic and environmental factors produce variation between individuals
  
• Variation may be continuous and discontinuous; heritable and nonheritable. Inter and intra-specific competition for breeding success and survival
  
• Selective agencies (e.g. supply of food, breeding sites, climate). The gene pool and genetic drift
  
• Selection can change the frequency of alleles in a population
  
• Isolation and speciation
  
• Separation of populations by geographical, behavioural, morphological seasonal and other isolation mechanisms. Hybrid sterility
  
• Darwin's theory of evolution that existing species have arisen through modification of ancestral species by natural selection
  
• Principles of succession as illustrated by the change from bare rock to woodland
  
• Use of terms primary and secondary succession, pioneers, sere and climax community

A2 Biology is much more concerned with ecology, speciation and reproductive isolation. Some new examples of evidence for speciation, co-evolution of parasites, or even a tame scientist with a collection of cichlid fish, will go down very well indeed.

MYRSFO: AS Biology

After the somewhat vague and bewildering GCSE specifications, we settle down a little with the post-compulsory qualifications. A-Level is divided into two: AS and A2. It seems natural to stick with this division here, and to go with AS Biology first.

AQA
Unit BIOL 2

• Candidates should be able to analyse and interpret data relating to interspecific and intraspecific variation
  
• Candidates should appreciate the tentative nature of any conclusions that can be drawn relating to the causes of variation
  
• The principles and importance of taxonomy
  
• Classification systems consist of a hierarchy in which groups are contained within larger composite groups and there is no overlap
  
• The phylogenetic groups are based on patterns of evolutionary history
  
• A species may be defined in terms of observable similarities and the ability to produce fertile offspring
  
• One hierarchy comprises Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species
  
• Candidates should be able to appreciate the difficulties of defining species and the tentative nature of classifying organisms as distinct species
  
• Courtship behaviour as a necessary precursor to successful mating. The role of courtship in species recognition
  
• An index of diversity describes the relationship between the number of species and the number of individuals in a community

CCEA
Unit AS.2
Students should be able to:

• Understand that organisms are adapted to their environment
  
• Understand that ecological factors have an influence on the distribution of organisms
  
• Understand the role of selection in maintaining the adaptiveness of populations of organisms in their environment
  
• Understand that biodiversity involves variation among living organisms at all levels of biological organisation
  
• Measure species diversity and appreciate that genetic diversity can be measured
  
• Understand the principle of taxonomy
  
• Understand the concept of the species
  
• Understand the other taxa within which species can be grouped
  
• Understand phylogenetic taxonomy as a means of classifying sets of species according to ancestral relationships
  
• Appreciate the five kingdom system of classification

Edexcel
Unit 2
Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• Explain the terms biodiversity and endemism and describe how biodiversity can be measured within a habitat using species richness and within a species using genetic diversity, e.g. variety of alleles in a gene pool
  
• Describe the concept of niche and discuss examples of adaptation of organisms to their environment (behavioural, physiological and anatomical)
  
• Describe how natural selection can lead to adaptation and evolution
  
• Discuss the process and importance of critical evaluation of new data by the scientific community, which leads to new taxonomic groupings (i.e. three domains based on molecular phylogeny)
  
• Discuss and evaluate the methods used by zoos and seedbanks in the conservation of endangered species and their genetic diversity (e.g. scientific research, captive breeding programmes, reintroduction programmes and education)

OCR
Unit F212
Candidates should be able to:

• define the terms species, habitat and biodiversity
  
• explain how biodiversity may be considered at different levels; habitat, species and genetic
  
• define the terms classification, phylogeny and taxonomy
  
• explain the relationship between classification and phylogeny
  
• outline the binomial system of nomenclature and the use of scientific (Latin) names for species
  
• discuss the fact that classification systems were based originally on observable features but more recent approaches draw on a wider range of evidence to clarify relationships between organisms, including molecular evidence
  
• define the term variation
  
• discuss the fact that variation occurs within as well as between species
  
• describe the differences between continuous and discontinuous variation, using examples of a range of characteristics found in plants, animals and microorganisms
  
• explain both genetic and environmental causes of variation
  
• outline the behavioural, physiological and anatomical (structural) adaptations of organisms to their environments
  
• explain the consequences of the four observations made by Darwin in proposing his theory of natural selection
  
• define the term speciation
  
• discuss the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, with reference to fossil, DNA and molecular evidence
  
• outline how variation, adaptation and selection are major components of evolution
  
• discuss why the evolution of pesticide resistance in insects and drug resistance in microorganisms has implications for humans

WJEC/CBAC
Unit BY2
All organisms are related through their evolutionary history:

• Biodiversity is the number of different organisms on the planet. Biodiversity varies spatially and over time
  
• Biodiversity has been generated through natural selection and adaptation over millions of years. Adaptive radiation e.g. Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos
  
• Organisms are classified into groups based on their evolutionary relationships. Classification places organisms into discrete and hierarchical groups with other closely related species. The need for classification and its tentative nature. Characteristic features of Kingdoms: Prokaryotae, Protoctista, Plantae, Fungi, Animalia
  
• Animal biodiversity is classified into over 20 major phyla and several minor ones with each phylum containing organisms based on a basic blueprint. Basic features of: Annelids, Arthropods, Chordates. Arthropods are subdivided into four groups (details not required). Some phyla contain many more species than others
  
• Physical features and biochemical methods can be used to assess the relatedness of organisms. DNA ‘genetic fingerprinting’ and enzyme studies show relatedness without the problem of morphological convergence
  
• All organisms are named according to the Binomial system. The species concept

At AS, OCR seems to be the most comprehensive (although many of the exam boards make up for it at A2). AS is mostly concerned with biodiversity and natural selection - more complex ideas of speciation are to be left until A2. Some boards mention phylogenies (morphological and molecular) at this stage, but you'll find others wait to A2. I particularly like WJEC's statement for the module, that "all organisms are related through their evolutionary history".

MYRSFO: GCSE Biology

Here are the relevant parts of the GCSE specifications for evolutionary palaeobiology. GCSE Chemistry contains some aspects of climate change, and GCSE Physics has some astrobiology and the evolution of our atmosphere, but this'd be a humongous post if I included all that.

AQA
Unit B1
Candidates should use their skills, knowledge and understanding of how science works:

• to suggest how organisms are adapted to the conditions in which they live
  
• to suggest the factors for which organisms are competing in a given habitat
  
• to suggest reasons for the distribution of animals or plants in a particular habitat
  
• to suggest reasons why scientists cannot be certain about how life began on Earth
  
• to interpret evidence relating to evolutionary theory
  
• to suggest reasons why Darwin’s theory of natural selection was only gradually accepted
  
• to identify the differences between Darwin’s theory of evolution and conflicting theories [Yes, this does mean they have to look at Lamarckism...]
  
• to suggest reasons for the different theories

There really isn't much more about evolution. I'm not a fan of AQA, either at GCSE or at A-Level. The GCSE course does not really deal in depth with anything (although GCSE Chemistry has a pleasing amount of geology in it), and the A-Level exams are an exercise in obfuscation (you may remember some outcry about the infamous "shrews" paper of January 2010.

CCEA
Pupils should:

• learn that living organisms are adapted to survive in the environment, for example, adaptations to life on land, and in water
  
• understand how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction, including:
  - natural selection as variation within phenotypes and competition for resources leading to differential survival
  - the implications of natural selection for the concept of evolution as a continuing process

Of all the boards, this has the least evolutionary content. The role of the fossil record as evidence for evolution is not on the Northern Ireland Programme of Study, whereas it is for England and Wales. This is disappointing, but not surprising. The students are, however, expected to be able to identify and classify a large number of plants, animals and fungi, so with any luck they should have good taxonomical knowledge.

Edexcel
Unit B1
Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• describe how organisms in an ecosystem compete with each other for resources
  
• explain population data in terms of predator-prey interdependence and intra-species competition
  
• demonstrate an understanding of how computer models can be used to study populations, and show an awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of these models compared with real data
  
• demonstrate an understanding of the principles of natural selection, to include:
  - how individuals within a species can have characteristics that promote more successful reproduction (survival of the fittest)
  - how, over generations, the effects of natural selection result in changes within species and the formation of new species from genetic variants or mutants that are better adapted to their environment
  - how species that are less well-adapted to a changing environment can become extinct
  
• explain how fossils provide evidence for evolution
  
• discuss why Charles Darwin experienced difficulty in getting his theory of evolution through natural selection accepted by the scientific community in the 19th century
  
• explain the principles of classifying organisms and the difficulties encountered in attempting to do so, as illustrated by the five kingdoms, the use of phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and the main characteristics of the five vertebrate groups

Unit B2
Students will be assessed on their ability to:

• explore the principles of interdependence, adaptation, competition and predation and explain how these factors influence the distribution and population sizes of organisms in a given terrestrial or aquatic environment
  
• interpret data on environmental change
  
• describe the special nature of some extreme environments, notably deep sea volcanic vents, the Antarctic and high altitudes

Unit B3
At the end of this unit students will be able to describe and explain the following statements and carry out the tasks indicated:

• vertebrate herbivores may feed in large groups or herds, and they may do so for protection in numbers. This is a successful evolutionary strategy, even though some members of the herd may be killed
  
• some animals, in particular birds and mammals, have developed special behaviours for the rearing of young, since they display parental care
  
• parental care is a successful evolutionary strategy; although it involves risk to the parents, it can increase the chances of survival of the parental genes

I like the final section that deals with behaviour and ethology, but it does rather skirt over evolution - it's something that can be covered in a double period if the teacher feels like it.

OCR
Module B3

• recall that the many different species of living things on Earth (and many species that are now extinct) evolved from very simple living things
  
• recall that life on Earth began about 3500 million years ago
  
• understand that evidence for evolution is provided by fossils and from analysis of similarities and differences in DNA of organisms
  
• recall that the first living things developed from molecules that could copy
  themselves
  
• understand that these molecules were produced by the conditions on Earth at that time, or may have come from elsewhere
  
• recall that evolution happens due to natural selection
  
• understand the process of natural selection in terms of variation, competition, increased chance of survival and reproduction, and increased number of individuals displaying certain characteristics in later generations
  
• understand that variation is caused by both environment and genes, but only genetic variation can be passed on
  
• explain the difference between natural selection and selective breeding
  
• interpret data on changes in a species in terms of natural selection
  
• recall that changes can occur in genes (mutations)
  
• understand that mutated genes in sex cells can be passed on to offspring and may occasionally produce new characteristics
  
• understand that the combined effect of mutations, environmental changes and natural selection can produce new species
  
• understand that if the conditions on Earth had, at any stage, been different from what they actually were, evolution by natural selection could have produced different results
  
• when provided with information about alternative views on the origin of life on Earth, or the evolutionary process:
  - can identify statements which are data and statements which are (all or part of) an explanation
  - can recognise data or observations that are accounted for by, (or conflict with), an explanation
  - can identify imagination and creativity in the development of an explanation
  - can justify accepting or rejecting a proposed explanation on the grounds that it accounts for observations; and/or provides an explanation that links things previously thought to be unrelated;
  -can identify a scientific question for which there is not yet an agreed answer and suggest a reason why
  - can suggest plausible reasons why scientists involved in a scientific event or issue disagree(d)
  - can suggest reasons for scientists’ reluctance to give up an accepted explanation when new data appear to conflict with it
  
• recall that the evolution of a larger brain gave some early humans a better chance of survival
  
• understand human evolution in terms of a common ancestor, divergence of hominid species, extinction of all but one of these species
  
• when provided with additional information about human evolution, can draw valid conclusions about the implications of given data for a given theory, for example:
  - recognises that an observation that agrees with a prediction (derived from an explanation) increases confidence in the explanation but does not prove it is correct
  - recognises that an observation that disagrees with a prediction (derived from an explanation) indicates that either the observation or the prediction is wrong, and that this may decrease our confidence in the explanation
  
• understand that a rapid change in the environment may cause a species to become extinct, for example, if:
  - the environmental conditions change
  - a new species that is a competitor, predator or disease organism of that species is introduced
  - another organism in its food web becomes extinct
  - understand that species have become extinct (or are in danger of becoming extinct) and that this is likely to be due to human activity;
  
• recall two examples of modern extinctions caused by direct human activity, and two caused by indirect human activity

The real issue I have with OCR is that they are still pussyfooting around the issue that evolution may not be true. I'd like to see the chemists having to hedge their teaching about collision theory on the grounds that, while there is a lot of evidence, this does not prove that collision theory is true and that there may be an alternative explanation that allows people to continue worshipping their invisible sky fairy without questioning their belief that Homo sapiens is different in some way...

WJEC/CBAC
Biology 1
Candidates should:

• know that organisms that have similar features and characteristics can be classified together in a logical way. Understand the need for a scientific system for identification and scientific as opposed to 'common' names.
  
• use local first and/or second hand data/ICT simulation to compare the variety of organisms which live in particular habitats, and investigate how the organisms in an area are affected by other organisms
  
• explore information about the morphological adaptations shown by organisms which enable them to survive in their environment
  
• understand that new genes result from changes, mutations, in existing genes and that mutations occur naturally at random. Mutations may be beneficial or harmful and are increased by exposure to radiation and some toxic chemicals
  
• variation is the basis of evolution
  
• examine evidence and interpret data about how organisms and species have changed over time. Suggest reasons why species may become extinct
  
• consider how individuals with characteristics adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and breed successfully. Consider the uses and limitations of modelling to illustrate the effect of camouflage colouring in prey and predator relationships
  
• know that the genes which have enabled these better adapted individuals to survive are then passed on to the next generation. This is natural selection
  
• consider the process of data collection, creative interpretation and deduction that lead Charles Darwin to propose the theory of evolution. Discuss the controversy surrounding the acceptance of the theory. Discuss evidence that evolution is ongoing such as data on Warfarin resistance in rats

This isn't too bad, but Edexcel and OCR still show more evolution discussion. So some examination boards are rather detailed when discussing evolution, extinction and adaptations. Speciation is, however, skirted around at best and actively ignored at worst. It's worth remembering when pitching outreach to these students, that only the CCEA require their students to know the major phyla and groups within the vertebrates, and I doubt even my current A2 students would know what a bryophyte was if I smacked them about the head with one. New species are not going to be very exciting for this age group (unless it's a big toothy dinosaur), but any discovery that demonstrates adaptation, new observations of behaviour, or perhaps transitional forms/two new gaps in the fossil record, might be worth pitching to a GCSE group.

Making Your Research Suitable For Outreach

Last Tuesday I was able to catch up with good friend Dave Hone of the Archosaur Musings blog. He mentioned that grant application forms are more frequently asking (nay, demanding?) applicants to demonstrate how they will engage in outreach relating to the specific research project for which they are applying for funding, something he later posted about on his blog.

Dave said it was no simple task, given the complexity and perhaps obscurity of [insert name of Dave's project here]. Nonsense! said I. And I grabbed a copy of the A2 Biology textbook for my exam board and shoved the pages about evolution, speciation and adaptation in his face. What came out of that discussion was that a) very few researchers have a scoobies what criteria are examined in high school qualifications, b) knowing this would certainly make grant applications a little easier, and c) it would be awesome if a fantastic, selfless and damn sexy lecturer-blogger could put together the details. They weren't available, so I said I'd do it.

Of course, this will be of absolutely zero interest to any researchers outside of the UK, and for now this will be simply those assessment criteria relevant to evolution, ecology and palaeontology. If there are sufficient requests from readers for other fields (e.g. biochemistry, physiology, inverts etc) then make them known.

There are three English examining boards: Edexcel, OCR and AQA. Additionally, there is one Welsh board, WJEC/CBAC and a Northern Irish board, CCEA. All five of these offer GCSEs, sat at age 16, and A-Levels, sat at age 18. There are other qualifications, such as baccalaureates and BTECs, but they are not as common, nor, have I found, is there as much opportunity for the discussion of evolution and palaeontology. There is also a Scottish examining board, SQA, of which the most common qualifications are Standard Grades and Highers. I'll try to tackle SQA as well, with the caveat that I am not as familiar with these examinations as I am with GCSE and A-Level.

Rather than looking at each board individually, I intend to divide as follows:

• GCSEs
  
• Advanced Supplementary (AS) Level
  
• Advanced (A2) Level
  
• Scottish qualifications

When I've finished each, I'll update the links.

References And Resources

A very interesting discussion is going on via the Dinosaur Mailing List (it's also on the Vert Paleo Mailing List, but there isn't a nice linkable archive for that one). How to cite information in Wikipedia? As such threads are wont to do, it has become more a discussion of whether Wikipedia is reliable, and whether it should be allowed by lecturers and teachers in students' work.


I teach three main groups of students: A-Level, GCSE and BTEC. I expect my GCSE students to be able to use information from my lecture notes, their textbook and any extra handouts I give them. For A-Level students, with the exception of their coursework, that's pretty much the same situation, although I like them to use a range of textbooks if they can. The biggest issues I have are with the BTEC students, on a 100% coursework programme, and when I'm doing coursework with the A-Level kids.

Wikipedia is sometimes an absolute blessing for teaching. I have found high-resolution images of hazard symbols, beautiful human anatomy diagrams, and superb chemical formula PNG files, which fit very nicely into my lecture notes. Used correctly, it is an excellent first port of call, and the key is to look for the sources cited on the Wikipedia page in question, before directing one's attention there.


To this end, for A2 coursework, where the students carried out independent fieldwork, they were banned from citing a Wikipedia source. AS and A2 students are required by the syllabus to evaluate their sources, and so an opportunity presents itself very early on to discuss some of the pitfalls of using Wikipedia. I recall seeing an article some time ago stating that the Spartans won the Battle of Thermopylae due to their use of superior laser weapons^[*].

However, I have not, up to this point, made such a restriction on my BTEC students. Perhaps this is because, in general, the A-Level students have grasped the idea of Harvard referencing and reliability of sources more quickly (had it not been for safeguarding, I could have hugged the few BTEC students who, by the end of their first year, had managed to correctly cite a textbook). In reality, I suspect it's been down to laziness on my part. I have to mark one 3000-word paper from each A-Level student each year. I have had to look at, on average, 25 pieces of work from each BTEC student, and I've had double the number of students on the BTEC course. It takes energy to remind students each and every time that Wikipedia is not an unquestionably accurate source.

This is no excuse, of course. And to this end, I am contemplating placing a restriction on my BTEC second year students for this year. I think, however, that I will allow them to use material on Wikimedia Commons, as much of this is original material not available elsewhere.

As for how to cite things, I have found Neil's Toolbox to be a great website for helping students make their Harvard references. I put it in all my Moodle course pages, and spend time with all the students checking that they have the hang of the system. My A2 and BTEC students have all cited primary literature too, which is quite an achievement at this stage. I can't say I'd have known the first thing about primary literature when I was doing A-Levels, let alone be able to cite it.

^[*]If you don't know why this is so utterly wrong, then there is no hope...

Dinosaurs In Space: How Not To Get Kids Into Science

Unless you have have been in a coma for three months or you rely on getting all your world news from Fox, you will know that we in Blighty have a new party (parties?) in power and a new prime minister. With this, we also have a new science minister, David Willetts MP. He made his first big speech last Friday, in which he said:

"The two best ways of getting young people into science are space and dinosaurs. So that's what I intend to focus on."

Really, David? Really? You are currently battling against a tide of derision and mistrust of scientists spearheaded by the tabloid newspapers. Your predecessors brought in tuition fees and top-up fees that are putting bright students off going to university. The top universities for science in the country are contemplating even higher fees. There are bugger all jobs for scientists in the UK. And a depressingly large number of people still believe in astrology, homeopathy, psychics and detox products. And getting kids more into dinosaurs and space is the way to heal the festering wound that is Britain's disdain for science and scientists?


Don't get me wrong. I bloody love dinosaurs. I am happy as the proverbial pig when I'm in dinosaur country out in the western USA, or visiting a museum, or having them indelibly inked onto my body. But it's rather a western thing, or, dare I say, rather a white thing. I teach a lot of refugees and immigrants in my GCSE classes - very few of them know what dinosaurs are. Yet many of these young people will make excellent scientists, and they need to be encouraged too. They are unlikely to find dinosaurs inspiring.

I think space is pretty awesome too. Ten years ago I would have said you would be hard pressed to find a child who was not either dino-crazy, space-crazy or both. I don't see that anymore. Sure, I took my National Diploma students to the Science Museum a few weeks ago, and the young men in my group would have happily spent all day looking at the various rockets, probes and landers in the space gallery.

Do they want to be astronauts now? No. One of my students said during the previous term that she wanted to be the first Muslim woman in space, until she found out that someone has beaten her to it. I have directed her to my friend Brian Shiro's website, Astronaut For Hire, where she has been reading about some of the amazing projects he has participated in, and I hope I can encourage her to follow her dreams.

But here's the rub - no teacher would say it is sufficient to just expose students to space and dinosaurs. It is not enough to get students to say "Wow - that's cool!" unless they then follow that with "I could do that!". It's all about helping children realise that science is something that people like them do. It's about showing them that scientists are not all old, bald men in white coats, as the Fermilab project "Drawings Of Scientists" has shown.

I have some modest suggestions (you knew I would, right?).

1. Talk to students about stereotypes of scientists - the images we see in the media, what their own thoughts are.
   
2. Get them interacting with real scientists: take them on behind-the-scenes visits to scientific laboratories, or get them involved in the superb I'm A Scientist event. Show scientists in a good light, and for the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster STOP CALLING THEM BOFFINS!
   
3. Take every opportunity to help them find out about scientists from their background and culture. Yesterday was the birthday of George Washington Carver (despite the Wikipedia suggestion to the contrary). My students have learnt about Neil deGrasse Tyson, Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, Rosalind Franklin, Henrietta Lacks, Stephen Hawking, and other scientists or people involved in science, who are not from privileged white male backgrounds (I'm always looking for more inspirational stories of minority scientists, so please drop me a line if you have more to add).
   
4. Let students touch science. When covering plant tropisms, all my A2 students (over 18 years old) declared that plants were the Most Boring Things Ever. Which is when I presented them with a Mimosa pudica and changed their minds. They've cut up sheep's hearts, climbed trees, stroked newts and articulated skeletons.
   
5. Remember that there are all sorts of science-based careers. My students aspire to study medicine, dentistry, radiography, physiotherapy, sports science, psychology, biochemistry, forensic science, biomedical studies, engineering, chemistry, ecology, palaeobiology and genetics. I doubt many of them were inspired by space or dinosaurs (well, except the palaeobiology student, obviously).

In the end, what David Willetts said about dinosaurs and space is at best, simplistic and naïve, and at worst, downright patronising to the students. Can't we encourage a curiosity in the natural world, the rewarding of intellectual endeavour and the restoration of science to its rightful place as a desirable profession?

More Cuts In Palaeontology

When I was an undergraduate, there was one subject that could fill me with dread (at least once I'd dropped all the hard rock geology and left myself the option of working on nice, soft rock stuff). It was micropalaeontology. I despised the practicals. The only thing that made spending two hours picking those pissy little foraminifera (forams) up with a moistened paintbrush bearable was knowing that the next week I'd be able to watch them being crushed up and shoved through a mass spectrometer. Result.


It took some time for their significance to sink in. But to put it very simply, forams in particular are very good at telling us about the environment in which they were living. The proportions of ¹³C and ¹²C, and the proportions of ¹⁸O and ¹⁶O, which they absorb as they form their shells, are related to the temperature of the water at that time. You want to know what the deep ocean temperature was? You need to pick out species of benthic forams. What about the surface temperature? Find certain species of pelagic forams. It's okay, you can crush them up later in revenge. Some species only lived in shallow seas. Some species only lived below a certain depth.

Microfossils are essential if we are to understand past climates and environments and to react to how our climate is changing at the moment. And although it makes me sick up a bit to say it, microfossils are more important than dinosaurs in terms of the range of information obtained and their use to different geoscience disciplines. Sorry dinosaurs. You're still more awesome.

How do you tell the difference between them all? Buggered if I know. That's why there are micropalaeontologists. And they are ace. Not only because they can pick forams (and count the little buggers) for twelve-hour shifts if necessary, when I was bellyaching after half an hour of staring down the microscope, but because they can look at two seemingly identical blobs less than 1mm across and tell which one is Globigerina bulloides and which one is Globigerina glutinata...

 
Images from University of Southampton
So it is distressing to see that the Natural History Museum is closing its Micropalaeontology Division. It was announced just under a fortnight ago via the PaleoNet listserver. It's also troubling to see that the person who made the decision is Norm MacLeod, the Palaeontology Department Keeper, who is... a micropalaeontologist.

There is a Facebook group. There is a petition (doing pretty well at 1069 signatures as of the point where I signed). Can widespread dismay across the community do anything to reverse the decision? Really, can any action do anything to reverse the decision? I'm hoping so, which is why I'm posting these links. I have, on a good day, over 250 subscribers. If you all kicked up a fuss, that would add a decent amount of weight to the campaign.

Voting For Science

I am a self-confessed bleeding-heart liberal, and it's coming up to election time. So prepare for some hand-wringing and political posturing (those of you unfortunate to follow me on Twitter will already have seen that starting to crank up to speed).

Science and its status in society and education is a big issue for me, so it's time to look at the political parties' manifestos now that the Big Three have published theirs (sorry Green Party, you've got great ideas and all, but since I don't even know if you have a candidate in my constituency I'm guessing you're not really trying this time round). In alphabetical order:

Conservatives

Sticking on the auto-search to wade through 131 pages of the Tory manifesto, we get to this:

• encouraging the establishment of joint university-business research and development institutes
  
• initiating a multi-year Science and Research Budget to provide a stable investment climate for Research Councils
  
• creating a better focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects in schools
  
• establishing a new prize for engineering

Okay, I like the bit about focusing on STEM in schools. That's worthwhile. Onto more about education:

• pay the student loan repayments for top Maths and Science graduates for as long as they remain teachers, by redirecting some of the current teacher training budget

Personally I like that - I'd very much appreciate not have to pay £100 a month of my student loan when I'm earning a full-time salary. But I'm not okay with having the teacher training budget diverted. Retention of excellent teachers is very important, but you also need to train new ones.

• allow all state schools the freedom to offer the same high quality international exams that private schools offer – including giving every pupil the chance to study separate sciences at GCSE

How about rather than the opportunity to study separate sciences making it compulsory to study at least one science? I saw countless students at enrolment last year who did not have any qualification in any kind of science. A level of scientific literacy should be as vital as other basic skills.

Labour

The current government's manifesto is really difficult to read, but they at least have a sub-section entitled "Investing in science and research", from which we can glean these points:

• We are committed to a ring-fenced science budget in the next spending review
  
• We will provide focused investment for Technology and Innovation Centres, developing technologies where the UK has world-leading expertise
  
• We will also support university research through the Higher Education Innovation Fund, and through the development of a new University Enterprise Capital Fund

So a pledge to protect science funding is a great thing, and an injection of cash into academic research is also much needed. However, I can't help but wonder why Labour have spent the past 13 years cutting money going to science and research... On to education:

• More young people will be able to study single science subjects and modern foreign languages
  
• In the coming years, priority in the expansion of student places will be given to Foundation Degrees and part-time study, and to science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees

As opposed to more funding for bullshit "degrees" in tourism for people who want a job in a travel agents. About time.

Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems make it very easy indeed to find their science policies with a whole section devoted to it:

• Respect the convention that the science budget, once allocated through the Comprehensive Spending Review process, is not used for other purposes
  
• Ensure that the decisions on the funding of research projects are made on the basis of peer review not Whitehall interference, while recognising the need for government to identify broad strategic priorities in a transparent manner
  
• Ensure that all state-funded research, including clinical trials, is publicly accessible and that the results are published and subject to peer review
  
• Reform science funding to ensure that genuinely innovative scientific research is identified and supported, instead of basing funding decisions on narrow impact factors
  
• Tackle the gender gap at all levels of scientific study and research to help increase the supply of scientists
  
• Safeguard academic freedom and the independence of scientific advisers by amending the Ministerial Code to prevent government from bullying or mistreating advisers and distorting evidence or statistics

Did you see that? Third point down - they're pledging open access publications!! What do you think to that one, oh Open Source Paleontologist? And there's more - the Lib Dems seem to be the only party promoting science for science's sake, treating the pursuit of science as a worthwhile career. There is an intellectual curiosity among the Lib Dems that I do not see in the other two parties - in much the same way that Barack Obama shows intellectual curiosity whereas George W Bush showed fart jokes.

And heading into the education section:

• First to attract more top graduates into teaching. We will improve training for existing teachers over the course of their careers to keep them up to date with best practice. We will seek to ensure that science at Key Stage 4 and above is taught by appropriately qualified teachers
  
• Give 14–19 year-olds the right to take up a course at college, rather than at school, if it suits them better. This will enable all children to choose to study, for example, separate sciences or modern languages at GCSE, or a vocational subject

Speaking as someone who narrowly missed being taught chemistry by a teacher who did not have A-Level chemistry, I'd be down with having qualified science teachers! And college can be the making of a student - I have several students who came from schools where they were disruptive and not applying themselves, and they've settled into college life and become my top learners.

To be honest, I think the Lib Dems win this one hands down, despite some common points. I find it very difficult to see any other option for anyone involved in science. And that's before we get onto any of the other subjects close to my heart (reproductive rights, immigration and asylum, human rights and healthcare). Ian Hopkinson has already spoken of his reasons for voting Lib Dem, and he points out their not-so-secret weapon in Dr Evan Harris, the science spokesman. Now if only more people knew about him...

Sometimes Humanity Sucks

The Natural History Museum isn't just the South Kensington site - its bird collection, for example, is housed north of London in Tring, Hertfordshire. Many of the non-British readers might have been unaware of this; unfortunately the thieves who broke into the collection on 24th June and stole several rare bird skins were not ignorant of this fact.

A statement from the Museum is online here. Professor Richard Lane, the Director of Science at the NHM, said:

"The birds that were stolen formed part of the nation's natural history collection, painstakingly assembled over the last 350 years. The 70 million specimens looked after by the Natural History Museum are a resource of international importance in the development of scientific knowledge. Our ornithological collections are amongst our most heavily used and are consulted by researchers throughout the world, who either visit Tring or request loans from us. The knowledge gleaned from these collections can help protect endangered species and answer questions about the biodiversity of the world around us."

In this technologically advanced age, Hertfordshire Police now have an official YouTube channel, and released this video:


I didn't know we had a National Wildlife Crime Unit, but I'm pleased they exist and are involved in the investigation. One thing is clear - this is not the sort of thing that opportunistic burglars steal. These bird skins haven't been nicked in order to fund a crack habit. To my mind (uneducated as it is in criminology) this is far more organised - stealing to order, for rich private collectors perhaps. If that is the case, then perhaps there will be more leads than one gets with the average house burglary (although as I discovered, not even the irrefutable DNA of the burglar left in our house could make up for the incompetence of Ealing Police - ask me about that sometime...). I'm sure we'll all be hoping to hear shortly that the birds have been found and the thieves caught.

Palaeontology Benefitting The World

As I have frequently ranted about on here, palaeontology is often seen as a frivolous pastime of no real benefit to the rest of science, let alone the world at large. Some people feel the same way about the Space Race, teflon frying pans notwithstanding. But here's an example, in New Scientist today:

How to digitally iron out chewed-up photos
A sophisticated imaging technique used to enhance fossils and ancient engravings may soon help you erase rips and creases from old photographs, using just an ordinary flatbed scanner. Tom Malzbender of Hewlett-Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto, California, and his colleagues pioneered a method of taking scores of digital photographs of a textured object from slightly different angles to create a computer model of the object's bumps and ridges.

There you go, a technique developed in the course of palaeontological and archaeological research could be a mainstream feature of flatbed scanner software in years to come.

Scientists Not Involved In Policy

It probably comes as no surprise to most scientists that they have been excluded from scientific policy decisions by the Government, according to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Parliamentary Committee (IUSS Committee hereafter):

Scientists "kept at arm's length"

The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Parliamentary Committee is a cross-party committee whose official remit is:

To examine the administration, expenditure and policy of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, including further education, higher education, skills and the Government Office for Science which has responsibility for science across all Government departments.

Of course, now that DIUS has been disbanded and mostly shifted over to DBIS one assumes this will be updated soon enough.

On the subject of this, one of the IUSS Committee's main concerns is the way that the Government Office for Science has been passed around departments like a hot potato (maybe I should be in science policy...), which gives the impression that it doesn't give a pair of foetid dingoes' kidneys about science.

And here's something that American scientists have had to put up with for the duration of the Bush Administration (possibly before that? Grateful for any further information from the Old Guard), which has been suspected for some time in the UK, but which looks damn scary written down:

The committee said that too often advisers came under intense pressure to agree with the government's stance on an issue.

It's things like this that make me very glad I work in a discipline that is unlikely to need to have a major input on Government policy. I don't know whether this "intense pressure" is merely that senior officials in institutions like the Royal Society are leaned upon to make statements that fit with policy, or whether (as reported in the USA in Top Scientists Want Research Free From Politics in February 2008):

"Government scientists have had their findings subjected to censorship and misrepresentation," said Kurt Gottfried, professor of physics at Cornell University and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The public and Congress have often been deprived of accurate and candid scientific information."

Perhaps the IUSS Committee should check whether British scientists are having Research Council funding cut for "inconvenient" research projects. I really hope they're not; I have a very high opinion of the Research Councils and the work they do in the face of having their own budgets cut. I fear if there is such funding pressure it's happening in agencies such as FERA, which, given their research areas, could be quite detrimental to public health and the environment.

Dropping The Hot Potato

Once upon a time there was a Department of Education and Science. This worked pretty well for over 30 years, but one day they decided that they didn't fancy the Science bit so they passed it on to the Department of Trade and Industry and became the Department for Education. Then the Department for Education merged with the Department of Employment to become the Department for Education and Employment. Six years later they decided they didn't like the Employment bit much either, so gave it to the newly set up Department for Work and Pensions and rebranded themselves the Department for Education and Skills.

Then one day Gordon Brown became prime minister, and he decided to abolish the Department for Education and Skills, and instead split Education two ways between the new Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). He also made the Department of Trade and Industry into the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and decided that DIUS could bloody well have Science back.

Non-European readers may be unaware that we've had elections to elect MEPs, or Members of the European Parliament. Just before the elections (which were combined with a lot of local council elections in the UK), a lot of senior government ministers jumped ship, leaving Gordon Brown with a much larger Cabinet reshuffle than he'd obviously planned. Today is the first time since Barack Obama was elected that I have watched a streaming news channel, because there's rather a big movement afoot.

John Denham has been transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government, but no successor has been announced. There have been rumours all morning on Twitter that DIUS (yup, still sounds like a contraceptive) is being abolished, with the Innovation going to the care of Sir Alan Sugar (yes folks, he's our Donald Trump...), Science going to BERR, and who knows where Universities are going (probably absorbed into DCSF).

So science policy will be decided by a load of businessmen. I've already said why I think that it would be bad to try to run science as a business, that it just is not possible to just fund "economically viable" research. The research councils will almost certainly be part of BERR too. The research councils are our equivalents of NSF (we have arts and humanities, economic and social sciences and medical research councils as well as four science research councils).

I'm awaiting the statement that will apparently be released this afternoon stating the full reshuffle, but in the meantime I am shitting bricks at the thought that the awful Lord Mandelson is going to be in charge of NERC funding. NERC supports, among other institutions, the British Geological Survey and British Antarctic Survey. We'll get no more penguin poo research with him running the show.

16:14: Dr Ian Gibson MP has resigned as an MP with immediate effect. Given his extensive experience with science on parliamentary committees, it's difficult not to read more into his resignation than is being divulged at the moment. Still waiting on a statement from the PM.

17:12: Shit. Yes, BERR and DIUS are to be merged to form the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS?). The whole sorry situation is up on the Downing Street website. As I feared, it's going to be all about economically viable science:

Continue to invest in the UK's world class science base and develop strategies for commercialising more of that science.

Some science just isn't open to commercialisation. And I have a horrible, sickening feeling that these topics are going to suffer badly in the next few years.

How We Know

I used to listen to Radio 2 in the morning. The breakfast show was, and still is, presented by "national treasure" Terry Wogan. The 8:00am news bulletin was always where the big palaeontology discoveries were reported, usually in the "and finally" slot. Invariably, immediately following this, Terry would, with absolute incredulity, complain: "How do they know?".

And "How do they know?" is a question palaeontologists often have to deal with. You can explain the scientific method all you like, about testing hypotheses, observation, interpretation and conclusion, but knowledge is a weird concept, and philosophically we will never know about dinosaurs the way we know about pure mathematics.

But sometimes we can get a bit closer. Until a few years ago, most constructions of theropod dinosaurs showed them with palms facing downwards, or ventrally. A couple of studies of the wrist suggested that, in fact, theropods held their arms such that the palms of their "hands" faced towards each other - a palms-medial manual posture. Or think of it another way (as commonly quoted in the last few days): holding the basketball, not dribbling it.


With anything a little abstract (or at least abstract to the general public) like functional morphology, it's hard to avoid the "How do they know?" comments. So it's nice to have other evidence to back up one's conclusions. Which is where the really cool dinosaur above comes in.

The Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, St George, UT, is home to some of the most impressive dinosaur tracks I have ever seen (see a depressingly young-looking Ethical Palaeontologist at Johnson Farm back in 2005):


And the palaeontologists that work with and for the Site have made a whopping discovery. The trace of a crouching theropod at rest with its forelimbs on the substrate. Firstly this is awesome because it shows an Early Jurassic theropod in a bird-like squat. Secondly this is even more awesome because the forelimbs are resting pinkie-side down. This dinosaur is holding the imaginary basketball.


Spot the red outlines in the diagram above right, labelled "lm" for "left manus" and "rm" for "right manus". It also looks as though this is another example of Neffra Matthews' excellent work on digitising trackways with photogrammetry, but I confess I have only had time to scan the paper so far.

So we have prints made by an actual living dinosaur (at the time, obviously) confirming the functional morphology work already carried out. There is the caveat that the functional morphology work has only been done on Late Jurassic and Cretaceous theropods, and we could really do with some good Early Jurassic functional morphology, which would of course require some good Early Jurassic forelimbs. But I don't want to detract from just how exciting it is to find a resting trace of a dinosaur, not least one that can give us so much information. Nice work.

Milner, A.R.C., J.D. Harris, M.G. Lockley, J.I. Kirkland, N.A. Matthews. 2009. Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4591. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004591