There is a good old tradition (as good and as old, in fact, as Plato and Aristotle) which demands that those who tackle a problem and propose a new solution should first give a critical account of its history. The majority of this paper is therefore a historical review of the development of biotechnology education in England and Wales. It sketches a decline in the coverage of biotechnology in the school curriculum from the mid 1980s, when the UK was (albeit very briefly) an acknowledged world leader, to the present.

Biotechnology entered the school curriculum (principally the biology curriculum) in England and Wales during the early 1980s. Three influential reports stimulated this. In 1980, a report from a joint working group of the government-funded Research Councils (commonly known as the Spinks’ Report [1]) defined biotechnology as “... the application of biological organisms, systems or processes to manufacturing and service industries”. This broad definition, encompassing both traditional and ‘new’ biotechnologies, was also adopted the following year by a Royal Society review of biotechnology education [2]. The Royal Society’s report encouraged teachers to include relatively simple practical work (such as food fermentations and basic microbiology) in their courses. The UK’s approach contrasts with that initially taken in other countries, such as the United States of America [3] and Denmark [4], where biotechnology was regarded as synonymous with recombinant DNA technology. Genetic modification was rarely mentioned in a school context in the Britain at this time [5], essentially because it lay beyond the knowledge and experience of all but the most recent graduates and was thought to be too dangerous or costly to be studied practically in schools [6].

In 1984, a UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) survey of the awareness of biotechnology among school teachers [7] concluded that while many biology teachers appreciated its economic importance, there was little educational incentive for them to incorporate biotechnology into their teaching, because the topic was seldom mentioned in examination specifications. Furthermore, few teachers had the appropriate training or experience to do this.

John Grainger at The University of Reading was already well aware of the problem highlighted by the DTI research. In 1983 he had persuaded the Society for General Microbiology (SGM) to fund a project in the Department of Microbiology at the university to further the teaching of practical biotechnology and microbiology in schools. The resulting book and collection of 30 photocopyable workcards, Practical microbiology and biotechnology for schools [8], proved popular and on publication it was referred to by most post-16 biology syllabuses, although the pack was aimed at younger students.

In September 1984, the DTI followed the SGM’s lead by establishing (under its first director, Paul Wymer, who was the author of the SGM publication) the National Centre for School Biotechnology (NCSB), also in the Department of Microbiology at Reading. Nobel Laureate James Watson, who at the time was involved in trying to set up a similar ‘DNA Learning Center’ at his Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, remarked: “Your National Centre for School Biotechnology represents the first national commitment to update pre-university teaching to take into account the dramatic rise of DNA science”.

The Centre’s main rôle was to encourage and support the teaching of biotechnology in schools and colleges. To achieve this, an extensive library of educational resources (books, video recordings, 35 mm transparencies, computer programmes, etc.) was built up. Teachers could visit the library or telephone the NCSB to ask for help and advice. Several computer databases were developed so that the Centre could put teachers with an interest in biotechnology in contact with one another (at the time this was fairly revolutionary as desktop computers had only just been introduced). The Centre also published a newsletter which was distributed free-of-charge to all secondary schools in Britain and to many people overseas. Thus, to begin with, the Centre’s activities focused on bringing together like-minded enthusiasts and informing teachers about the educational resources that were available to help them.

In recognition of the importance of in-service teacher training in biotechnology, the Manpower Services Commission (then a branch of the UK Department of Employment with particular responsibility for training) funded the secondment of a teacher (John Schollar) to the NCSB for three years from 1986. His task was to develop a package of in-service training materials for teachers, and to organise and run practical training workshops on location in school laboratories throughout the UK. Other DTI-funded projects followed at the universities of Sheffield, Surrey, and at the (then) South Bank Polytechnic in London, with the NCSB loosely co-ordinating the four initiatives.

Several teachers were seconded to the Division of Education at the University of Sheffield for three years. This project studied teaching methodologies and paid particular attention to how the seconded teachers’ experience affected their classroom practice, using the teaching of controversial issues as a vehicle for studying this. Surprisingly, biotechnology at the time presented few concerns, and the group resorted to tackling fears about food additives that were then widespread [9]. This reflects what little consensus there was about the definition of biotechnology within the education community at the time. The Sheffield project was more interested in educational research into continuing professional development for teachers rather than in biotechnology education per se and lacked a relevant scientific input.

Technology buses became popular during the mid-1980s, particularly as few schools were then equipped with computers and other resources needed for teaching technology. A ‘biotechnology bus’ was based at the University of Surrey, and in-service courses for teachers were run throughout southern England by ex-biology teacher Anne Riggs. The bus was not purpose-built, but the interior was converted to form a small laboratory for 10–12 teachers. With little support from elsewhere, Anne devoted considerable enthusiasm and dedication to the project, but its impact was limited. Firstly, the bus was old and required frequent repairs: compared with the purpose-built ‘computer buses’ its image was hardly high-tech. The overheads of the project were also comparatively high. Secondly, the space on board was cramped, and provided little or no advantage over working in a normal school lab alongside which the bus was often parked. It may also inadvertently have given the impression (although not to teachers attending courses) that special facilities were required before practical biotechnology could be attempted in schools.

The London project, based at the (then) Polytechnic of the South Bank, but officially hosted by The London Centre for Biotechnology (a consortium of the polytechnics of Central London, The South Bank and Thames) ran several residential in-service training courses for teachers from across Britain between 1986–8. These were well-received by the participants, who were often engaged in a major DTI-funded curriculum development (the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative, TVEI). Initially, the courses centred on traditional applied microbiology, at a slightly higher level than might usually be encountered in a school. Subsequent courses covered a broad range of biotechnology, introducing, for example, a microbial fuel cell which has remained popular in schools ever since. These courses, run by Irena Oljenik and the staff of the polytechnic, genuinely inspired many teachers. The project had, however, no means of disseminating its good practice further afield or, crucially, of supplying schools with the specialist materials that were necessary for much of the practical work to be replicated in the classroom. A few years later the consortium that formed The London Centre for Biotechnology was dissolved.

These developments were taking place against a backdrop of substantial curriculum innovation, through the implementation of the TVEI in some regions of the UK, the introduction of novel methods of formative and summative assessment (such as records of achievement to supplement formal examinations) and the implementation of early internet-based support services (such as NERIS, the National Educational Resource Information Service).

The arrival of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE, generally studied between the ages of 14 and 16, which replaced the former two-tier system of ‘O’ Levels and CSE examinations) in 1988 afforded an opportunity for wider, more mainstream curriculum innovation, although the earlier ‘16+’ examinations which had effectively been pilot studies for the GCSE had also incorporated aspects of biotechnology. Several GCSE courses of the late 1980s featured considerably more biotechnology than is found at present. For example: a Modular Science GCSE included an eight-week ‘Enzyme Technology’ module; the ‘Suffolk Science’ GCSE included compulsory practical plant tissue culture; and the Warwick Process Science Project had a substantial biotechnology module. Several local education authorities, often under the auspices of the Secondary Science Curriculum Review and the TVEI, developed courses and published biotechnology resources, notably in Staffordshire, Sheffield and Strathclyde (these Scottish materials were seized upon and used by teachers throughout the UK) [10, 11]. At the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, biology teacher Dean Madden was developing resources for Cumbria’s TVEI programme, and contributing to the development of NERIS as well as several other initiatives.

From our current perspective it is hard to appreciate the scale and range of the innovation undertaken by teachers at the time. Even the Association for Science Education had a Biotechnology Working Party, which published resources and advice for schools [5, 12]. There was little agreement, however, between education professionals about the extent to which biotechnology should feature in the secondary school curriculum, if at all. ‘Biotechnology or basics?’ was a typical headline in the educational press [13].

To try to achieve a consensus, the MSC funded a national conference at the University of Kent at Canterbury in 1986. It was greatly oversubscribed and attracted 280 delegates, bringing together teachers, local education authority science advisors and representatives from industry and universities. Similar meetings had previously been held in Cardiff and London. One of the architects of the recently-proposed National Curriculum, Professor Paul Black from King’s College London, warned the Kent meeting that school biotechnology needed to define itself more precisely if its place in the curriculum was to be assured, and particularly if it was to be capable of being assessed for examination [14]. Sadly, although some understood his words, few appreciated their prescience and fewer still were in a position to influence the development of the National Curriculum.

As the ’80s drew to a close, the DTI’s support for education was rapidly wound down and the Department for Education and Science (DES) reasserted its authority over schools and the curriculum.

In 1989, the UK government imposed the National Curriculum in England and Wales, dictating what was to be taught to every child between the ages of 5 and 16 years. The death thoes of the old system were prolonged however, as the introduction of the National Curriculum was phased, with the first examinations at Key Stage 4 (that is, at the age of 16) taking place in 1994. The first version of the National Curriculum [15] incorporated many aspects of biotechnology. For example, students had to:

This list is not exhaustive. However, compared with some GCSE Science courses, the National Curriculum represented a considerable reduction in the explicit coverage of biotechnology. In addition to introducing a legally-binding curriculum, the government made other significant changes to the ways in which schools were run, including local financial management of schools, inspection of schools by private companies and the publication of examination league tables. One consequence was a reduction in the influence of local education authorities (LEAs) and of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools (HMI) in England and Wales. In the new circumstances, co-operative curriculum development (which had often been fostered by LEA science advisors and promoted by HMI) became a rarity. Schools were now in effect businesses competing with one another. The focus shifted increasingly towards the specific content that was demanded by law and more importantly, the associated national tests. Virtually all of the innovation and debate about biotechnology education ceased.

As the DES asserted its authority, the DTI withdrew entirely from the school sector. Products of gene technology (e.g., enzymes and drugs from GMOs) began to reach the market, and nervous companies were increasingly reluctant to bring their products to the attention of the public. Opposition to biotechnology was developing. In 1989, the emplyers’ organisation, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) proposed restrictions on public access to information on releases of GMOs into the environment “... until understanding is more widespread”.

A Greenpeace consultant, writing in the Summer 1987 issue of the NCSB newsletter, had rejected the idea of “... insensitive or inaccurate opposition to the whole phenomenon”, suggesting instead that “we must apply ourselves to the task of educating and informing about this new technology, with neither panic nor blind faith in progress.” A few years later attitudes had changed, particularly those of Greenpeace. DTI support for the various biotechnology education initiatives ended in 1990 or shortly after. The NCSB’s staff, now joined by Dean Madden, made plans to become self-funding by charging for the newsletter and courses. The Centre also changed its name to the National Centre for Biotechnology Education (NCBE), with the aim of providing services to a wider range of clients such as businesses and members of the public. None of the other DTI-funded projects were able to make similar arrangements, and all of the other biotechnology education initiatives therefore ended.

In 1990, following advice from a DTI business consultant, the NCBE established a ‘Biotechnology Club’. Schools joining the Club received a teachers’ newsletter and discounts on the limited range of products supplied by the Centre (such as small quantities of industrial enzymes). Unfortunately, the lower circulation of the subscription newsletter curtailed the income from advertising and opportunities for sponsorship dried up as recession bit. Economic recession in the early- to mid-1990s contributed to many biotech start-up companies either ceasing to trade or being taken over by larger concerns. Businesses within the sector became less accessible to schools and consequently the pool of resources (both financial and informational) that schools could draw upon diminished. Things looked bleak and in 1991 the Centre’s director departed for another job. John Grainger nominally took over as Director, but the Centre was now run by the two Assistant directors, John Schollar and Dean Madden.

The NCBE’s ‘Biotechnology Club’ continued for two years but eventually the cost of administering the collection of thousands of cheques from individual schools made continued production uneconomic. Similarly, Pergamon Press was unable to achieve a high circulation for the academic journal Biotechnology Education, which had been started by and was still edited by the now-departed Paul Wymer. The title was sold to another publisher, but it did not prove a success. Like the NCBE’s newsletter, the journal ceased publication in 1992.

A major consequence of the National Curriculum and other changes in education was to stifle creativity and innovation. Because few teachers would risk going beyond the bounds of what it was legally required of them to teach, few publishers produced books covering material that was not required by the curriculum. Unsurprisingly, the regular stream of visitors to the NCBE’s ‘resources room’ slowed to a trickle then ceased altogether. Innovation by British educational suppliers was also restricted. In 1990 there were two main science education suppliers in the UK: Griffin and George and Philip Harris Education. The early 1980s had seen the introduction by both firms of numerous simple ‘biotechnology kits’. Philip Harris’s were all developed in-house, while Griffin also imported kits, unmodified, from the USA. By 1983–4, there were about 40 different biotechnology ‘kits’ on the UK market, and both of the main suppliers produced specialist biotechnology brochures. But by 1992 Philip Harris had closed its biological sciences research and development subsidiary (Philip Harris Biological) and shortly afterwards Griffin shut down a large part of its biology-related business.

By now, the NCBE’s remaining staff was on monthly contracts and some had left. It looked as if a combination of economic recession, growing opposition to gene technology and an inflexible curriculum would kill biotechnology education in the UK.

Although there are no specific qualifications in biotechnology in secondary education in England and Wales, almost all post-16 (‘A’ Level) school biology courses provide opportunities for students to study aspects of biotechnology. By the early 1990s the (then) eight ‘A’ Level examination boards in England and Wales covered a broad range of biotechnology [16]. This content was mainly in the optional sections of biology and human/social biology syllabuses so it was not necessarily covered by all students. Biotechnology and microbiology options were, however, the most popular ones on offer with more students and teachers selecting these for study than all the other options combined. For example, when the first cohort of ‘A’ Level Biology students sat the (then) new University of London examinations in June 1992, 56% chose to answer questions on the Microbiology and Biotechnology option, compared with 13% and 31% for the other two topics on offer.

In partnership with the far-sighted biology secretary, Erica Clark, at the London examination board and subsequently with other organisations, the NCBE ran numerous teacher training workshops, which not only provided a direct income, but also helped to boost the sales of the materials that the Centre provided. In 1992, this was restricted to a limited range of enzymes, a simple ‘bioreactor’ or fermenter and copies of Paul Wymer’s Practical biotechnology and microbiology workcards. By September 1993 these were joined by inexpensive DNA gel electrophoresis equipment and a Practical biotechnology for schools booklet [17] that had been devised by the Centre’s Assistant directors. Throughout the 1990s, industrial and government support for the Centre was almost non-existent but by the mid-1990s it was obtaining a regular income from training courses for teachers and increasingly, post-16 students, plus sales of equipment and materials. No doubt this was aided by the vacuum created by the closure of biology research and development by the UK’s main school suppliers.

Another factor that contributed to the Centre’s survival was its decision not to create a prestigious laboratory and visitor centre with the associated overheads that such a facility would incur, but to focus instead on running courses on location, in school laboratories and at other venues. In part this policy was determined by financial constraints and the lack of sponsorship available in the UK, but it was also informed by the experience of the ‘biotechnology bus’ at Guildford and observation of similar projects elsewhere.

Against the odds, the Centre has continued to prosper and is well-known to schools in the UK and further afield. In contrast to many other initiatives throughout Europe and the USA, the NCBE’s aim has always been to bring biotechnology to as many students as possible, by fostering capability amongst teachers and providing low-cost training, equipment and materials.

It has gained an international reputation for the development of innovative educational resources: its materials have been translated into many languages including German, Swedish, French, Dutch and Danish. The NCBE was a leading founder member of EIBE, the ‘European Initiative for Biotechnology Education’ (www.eibe.info), an EC ‘Concerted Action' which ran until 2000. A national poll conducted for The Wellcome Trust in 1999 showed that biology teachers considered the NCBE the best science education organisation in the United Kingdom.

NCBE equipment is sold to more than 30 countries world-wide, including North America, where several items are licensed to a major educational supplier (Carolina Biological). The NCBE remains, however, part of The University of Reading and a not-for-profit organisation. The Centre’s patented equipment for DNA gel electrophoresis was granted ‘Millennium Product’ status by the UK Design Council and was one of three biotech-related items to be taken on a prestigious Science Museum tour of Japan (the others being Watson and Crick’s DNA model and a sweater made from the wool of Dolly the cloned sheep). Independent research has shown that through the provision of materials and training courses, the NCBE is successful in ensuring that these new procedures are adopted by teachers in the classroom: over 500,000 sets of NCBE electrophoresis equipment have now been sold world-wide.

The NCBE’s Web site (www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk) was started in January 1995 and is recognised as a valuable source of information. It has featured in Nature Biotechnology and attracts more than 100,000 connections per week. The Centre also deals with written and telephone enquiries from teachers, students and members of the public each day, particularly on safety and practical project work.

The NCBE has become Europe’s principal provider of in-service training for school biotechnology and has run courses in eight EU member states, mainly for teachers, student teachers and post-16 students. On average, more than two courses a week are run by the Centre during term-time (about 4,000 people attend NCBE courses per year). For the last 11 years, the Centre has run residential summer schools in Sweden, organised in association with and accredited by the University of Göteborg.

Curriculum change has continued unrelentingly throughout the 1990s and to the present day. With major revisions in 1995 and 1999 [18] the content specified by the National Curriculum was further reduced. The only elements of biotechnology mentioned at Key Stage 4 (ages 14–16) in 2004 are:

These most recent changes have been made as the shortcomings of a rigid, centrally-controlled science curriculum have become increasingly apparent over the last decade [19]. It is hoped that from September 2004, the limited requirements at Key Stage 4 will permit greater flexibility and possibly the inclusion of novel content once more.

In September 2000, the introduction of a new A/S-A Level structure significantly reduced the opportunities for studying aspects of biotechnology at that level, compared with the content specified in the previous ‘A’ Level modules. Several topics have been lost completely, such as ELISA and other aspects of immunology. Discrete ‘modules’ of work in the new post-16 courses have contributed to a lack of coherence in the way some topics are dealt with, particularly inter-related ones such as biochemistry, genetics and microbiology. The modular structure also makes it difficult for students to carry out longer-term practical investigations, which were a characteristic of some courses under the older system. These shortcomings and many others of the new post-16 examinations are now widely-recognised and a thorough review has been ordered by the UK government under Mike Tomlinson, a former head of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

Although some preliminary proposals have been aired it is not currently known (in September 2004) what will replace the current A/S-A Level arrangement. In England, the number of examination boards (now called ‘awarding bodies’) has shrunk from eight (in 1990) to three (in 2004) and they have all become businesses, loosing their former affiliations with universities. Chief examiners (who devise the courses) now tend to be drawn from the ranks of older and more experienced teachers, which has lead to perhaps excessive concentration on well-established topics and only cursory treatment of modern biology, even though its importance is recognised by teachers and their students [20]. For example, the human genome project receives a single line if it’s mentioned at all in the current A/S-A Level specifications, and bioinformatics is nowhere to be seen. These and several other factors have stifled curriculum innovation post-16, and have no doubt contributed to the decreasing popularity of science studies that seems to be an international phenomenon.

With this in mind, in October 2004 a new Ł51 million national network of nine Science Learning Centres for teachers will open in England, followed by a larger National Centre in 2005 (www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk). Their sponsors, the government’s Department for Education and Skills and The Wellcome Trust, hope that the new centres will inject new life into science education in the UK. The NCBE will be involved in offering courses at these venues, and will continue to help teachers provide innovative, up-to-date and stimulating bioscience education for their students.