Do ordinary fruit and vegetables contain genes? Most Europeans probably still think not. Successive Eurobarometer studies in 1996 [1], 1999 [2] and 2002 [3] put the question “Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do. True or false?” The respective percentages of correct answers - i.e. “false”- were 35%, 35% and 36%. No change had occurred in 6 years of sometimes frenetic public debate on the very subject of genetic modification technology. “Education” is not the right angle to take when addressing the topic of informing the general public, rather information provision, consultation and dialogue; through these mechanisms, it is theorised, greater public understanding arises. True, it often does. So the question remains as to why a general awareness that genes (and nucleic acids) are present in all living organisms had not grown in the popular consciousness. One could theorise that the work of non-governmental pressure groups and certain discrete worrying events had contributed to a kind of demonisation of DNA via its scheming manipulators (technologists mainly in industry), making it seem almost logical that natural products contained no DNA or genes. However, it transpires that in general the people who did not think that ordinary tomatoes contained genes were also those who were most supportive of GM technology [4]. Then perhaps it was partly a quirk of linguistics in some countries that led GM products to be known as “gene-food” (gene-tomatoes etc.). Whatever the reasons, the message is clear: imparting scientific literacy and the tools to analyse topics of relevance to our lives is most easily done early in life (in the relatively uncomplicated environment of the school); later things can become much more difficult, people fall into so-called “hard to reach” groups, and the task of providing objective information against a tide of uncontrolled and un-peer-reviewed information becomes fraught with problems.

Scientific literacy may be defined as the capacity to use scientific knowledge to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity [5]. In testing this practical ability, rather than more academic indicators of school education, the PISA study [5] (Programme for International Student Assessment), co-ordinated by the Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development is the most important so far. Furthermore, it tested the degree to which students developed the skills to become life-long learners. In an ever faster changing world, this is particularly important. Though one may not have learnt a subject at school, the ability to get up to speed when it hits the headlines is a must if one wants to play a constructive role in the public debate.

But understanding science also includes possessing a grasp of how scientific progress is made, the nature of scientific results (especially in non-precise subjects such as biology), the time scale involved in the emergence of applications from research discoveries, and essentially what doing research at the bench is all about. This is where the link between school teachers and research institutions is crucial. The school laboratory is a special place where young people get their first taste for the excitement of a scientific experiment; it must not be left to moulder in a quagmire of purely descriptive science and experiments that demonstrate classical knowledge in recipe style. Increasingly, however, other sources of educational material and practical experiences in molecular biology are threatening to take the focus away from the school laboratory, threatening its important role. This also neglects the creativeness of teachers, and the many good resources that they and scientists have developed for the school laboratory. What is currently lacking in most European education systems is an infrastructure in which the dissemination of such resources can take place, and in which the teaching and scientific support necessary to build the practical skills and confidence among teachers are provided. And what is lacking above that is a mechanism for generating universally higher standards in science (not just biology) education across Europe by integrating the diversity of good materials and best practise that we have scattered across our continent.

Though the precise results of the first PISA study, published in 2001, may be a dim memory for most, or a dull embarrassment for some, the general picture of fragmentation and widely varying standards among European countries remains as a striking feature of our educational systems. In science research, we observe that, taking all disciplines together, a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP per capita correlate extremely well with scientific output [6]. However, there is no such obvious link between a country’s wealth and its standard of education [5]. In Europe, fragmented as we remain at many levels, this is our greatest hope for building the foundations of a scientifically literate, critical and engaged population, and for producing the talented minds of the future. It means that whatever a country’s misfortune in economic terms (much of which is often historical) its potential to produce highly educated citizens is not primarily an economic matter. Furthermore, viewed as an evolving organism, Europe has an envious degree of diversity of ideas and concepts resulting from its cultural and linguistic diversity. Via exchange of such ideas and experiences it should be able to profit from the best, hence increasing its classical fitness. At the same time, it must be careful to preserve diversity at all levels of education; most importantly at the level of the individual teacher, who must be given the freedom to develop continuously throughout his/her career, introduce new ideas into the classroom, and in the natural sciences more truly experimental work. To harness such diversity rather than suffering from its drawbacks, however, it is necessary to convene the “movers and shakers” in the national systems at regular intervals at international level.

What can be said of the diversity in Europe, can also be applied to global diversity. Here again, PISA has set some interesting pointers for further developments and exchanges of experiences. Scientific research these days is an increasingly global venture depending on international collaborations, exchanges and centres of excellence. Very few laboratories on the planet do not profit from international exchange. At present, very few school do.

The European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) has established a successful platform for training and exchange among teachers from across Europe (and beyond). The annual international practical workshop for teachers accommodates 120 teachers, typically from over 20 countries, for 2 days in Heidelberg, Germany. At the workshop, they have the chance to do hands-on practical experiments in molecular biology, browse an exhibitions of some of Europe’s best teaching resources, visit the research labs of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, and hear talks from leading scientists. The workshop model was extended in 2003 and 2004 via an EC grant to 8 other locations in Europe and Israel, hence further expanding the network of teachers who are benefiting from international exchange. These workshops form part of the larger project co-ordinate by EMBO, “Continuing Education for European Biology Teachers” CEEBT), in which the European Molecular Biology Laboratory plays a major role. Oversubscription of the Heidelberg workshop in particular points to a growing realisation that international exchange is seen as important by biology teachers. EMBO gives access to teaching materials from these workshops via its European Network for Biology Education web page [7], which hosts a database of good teaching resources in biology worldwide. It has also produced a DVD mini-documentary and guide to help others organise a similar event.

Dissemination of the best materials and experience are key to raising standards uniformly in Europe, while preserving the diversity of Europe. But it is also important to have knowledge of national systems and their constraints. EMBO gathers this information by interacting with teachers in its network, and is able to bridge the gap between school and research through scientists in the EMBO membership (around 1.300 in 25 member states), EMBO fellowship holders and Young Investigators, and many other scientists. In our experience, the interaction of teachers and scientists can not be left to chance. It may seem logical that they should interact, and one might expect interactions to result as a natural consequence of meeting at a teachers workshop. However, there are considerable “activation energy” barriers on both sides. Scientists in general do not understand well the context in which teachers work, what they can and cannot do, and how a laboratory experiment needs to be adapted in order to be performed in school. Teachers may not have the time or confidence to visit a scientist, and may not know where to start in terms of asking him or her for help.

Likewise, our experience shows that apparatus pools, if established from decommissioned items by research institutes, do not suddenly take off and circulate happily among teachers. Major legal constraints and resulting inhibitions largely prevent this, despite the fact that the financial realities of most schools make it impossible to buy brand new equipment. This results in fewer than 30% of the schools in Europe possessing even the simplest apparatus to demonstrate rudimentary molecular biology. Uncertainty or lack of confidence among teachers (especially older ones) that they can actually use and maintain the equipment properly compounds the problem. Researchers must reach out to teachers, and help them build the confidence they need to interact more with research institutes and departments, and perform simple experiments in their classes.

However, it is not as if these measures on their own would improve the teaching of practical science in schools. Objections to the logic that more practical work in molecular biology must be incorporated into school timetables are: that not enough time is available given that biology is just one among many subject, and that timetables only allow short slots for practical work. Clearly, many simple experiments can be done in a short time period, but more interesting ones require project based practicals, a luxury that few schools in Europe, notably the European and International Schools, have. More project based learning opportunities are needed in all the sciences if students are to learn the method and way of thinking of science, rather than learning it as cookery-style recipes.

All teachers at EMBO international workshops would like to do more practical experiments and projects in “real” molecular biology. Experiencing practical molecular biology cannot be left to one-off visits to research institutes; it must become an integral part of teaching. Workshops in molecular biology are clearly necessary and in demand in greater numbers across Europe. Introducing the latest research via talks from the researchers themselves, hands-on practical experiments, and an exhibition of diverse teaching resources all give teachers the tools and material they need to inspire pupils. Furthermore, the great creativity of many teachers should be given the dimensions of resources and time in which to work in order to prevent the wasted opportunities that currently mar the current education systems.

A problem facing all biology teachers regardless of country is a lack of motivation on the part of the pupils. This is the kiss of death, for without interest, learning is a temporary and forced exercise associated with distant school days. Teaching is certainly a dynamic and stimulating profession, because it essentially combines learning with the creative act of communication. At EMBO workshops, as at many others, it is evident that for highly-motivated individuals it is a rewarding challenge, a profession that deserves to continue attract the best, and a profession that must be supported properly at international level by the scientific community and policy makers. After all, our joint futures are shaped by an increasingly internationally mobile consumer society and an already highly internationally mobile pool of researchers. Addressing education at international level, therefore, is not for the future; it is for now.