Education: Science and Mathematics

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on a most eloquent and effective speech. One of the key recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee report to which he referred was that the curriculum should have rather less early specialisation and should be more broadly based for those of 16 years and older. If there is one point that I would like to take some exception to in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, it is that I do not think this is just a question of economics. It goes to the heart of the question of what constitutes a civilised society. I shall deal with this subject in a broad way. Over 40 years ago, CP Snow wrote his famous essay about the two cultures. He complained that somebody could not be called civilised if he did not know the works of Shakespeare, but he could if he did not understand the second law of thermodynamics. I partly disagree with that because I do not think it is essential that people should know the second law of thermodynamics, but I do think it is essential that people should have some idea of how science works. They should understand the importance of the evidence-based approach and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge. There are examples of the ignorance about this all around us. Not long ago, I heard one of the most intelligent presenters of the ““Today”” programme—and they are all extremely intelligent—talk to a scientist and say, ““You believe that””. He had to be pulled up and it had to be explained that scientists do not base their opinions on belief—one belief among many systems of belief—but on the evidence. Later on, in the course of an interview on food additives after a study suggested that they have carcinogenic effects, the same interviewer said, ““Do you not accept that it is now beyond doubt that these additives have a deleterious effect?””. He should have been pulled up on that because the idea that scientific knowledge establishes facts beyond doubt is totally ignorant of the way in which science works. There are very few hypotheses that can be regarded as facts. It is true that some become so well established that they are accepted as facts. We accept as facts that the Earth goes round the Sun, the laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics. I would go further and say that evolution is no longer a hypothesis; it is so well established that it no longer has the status of just one of many hypotheses. Unfortunately, there are other, much more serious signs that we do not necessarily accept and understand the basis of science. Many of the vice-chancellors of our universities clearly do not understand what science is and how it works, because 17 of our universities offer degrees in alternative medicine. They offer scientific degrees in courses that include homoeopathy, reflexology, aromatherapy and even Ayurveda. I am not sure that people quite understand what Ayurveda, for example, means. There is a very good book about bad medicine written by Christopher Wanjek, who writes: "““When you place your trust in a proponent of Ayurveda, you are also placing your trust in someone who likely claims to be able to levitate, read minds, foretell the future, reduce crime and end war through meditation, or heal with chanting, cow dung and spit””." Courses in Ayurveda are offered to qualify for a degree in science—so-called science. Let us consider homoeopathy. The doctor of homoeopathy says that the more you dilute a substance, the more effective it becomes. When a substance is diluted, as is common, to the extent of 10 to the power of 30, nothing of the original substance is left. If you really argue that this can have a scientific effect, other than as a placebo, that is simply a belief in miracles. I know that a lot of people swear by it, but a lot of people used to swear by witchcraft and a lot of people swear by astrology. Why not have courses in astrology? Indeed, one eminent university has established a chair for the paranormal. Representations made to the vice-chancellor have been ignored. These courses are justified and are said to be based on rigorous testing. What is the UUK doing about that? I hope that the chief executive of the UUK will look at that and take universities to task who offer pseudo-science and pretend that it is a degree in science. What is the Quality Assurance Agency doing about that, if it has any function whatever? Representations to it have been ignored or the indefensible has been defended. In some respects, the Government are not much better in their support for a rigorous scientific approach. At a time when there is an enormous shortage of funds for the National Health Service, it still finances homoeopathic treatment, which cannot be shown to be effective, except as a placebo. The NHRA recently allowed efficacy to be claimed for a homoeopathic products simply on the basis of homoeopathic provings, totally disregarding the whole scientific base that it ought to be supporting. Indeed, the Government still provide subsidy for conversion to organic farming, which is based on the totally untenable proposition that, somehow, synthetic chemicals are bad and natural chemicals are good. There is no scientific basis for that whatever. The director of the Soil Association, giving evidence to one committee of this House some years ago, explained that the merits of organic farming, which could not be proved scientifically, were beyond the present state of science to detect. It is very important, therefore, that we should institute some recognition of what science is about and that our education system should recognise the importance of instilling at least some knowledge of how science works. That is not the case at the moment and it is high time that it was recognised by our official authorities.