Of course, no one would want to encourage the drinking of beer. I am delighted that the ASA has such a rigorous policing policy. But I’m not sure that anyone will have been misled here – ask most people and I think the odd drink ’will have bolstered most people’s confidence’ at some time or another.

So humour is well and truly dead at the ASA. Pity then that they don’t take their roles more seriously over the 100% chemical free fertiliser. The £1 million prize is still on offer – perhaps a pint of courage might help the ASA to admit they’ve got their earlier decision wrong. Ever thought about 100% chemical free beer? That’s got no courage at all!

Stephen George, from Australia, sent us by FedEx these sample vials, containing semiconductor nanocrystals in toluene solution:

CdSe/ZnS Core Shell nanocrystal quantum dots in toluene - not exactly 100% chemical free but the best we've had yet!

Mr George’s claim is based on the exciton confinement properties of such nanocrystals – they create a so-called  “quantum dot” where electrons are restricted in three dimensions.

The claim was that an “electron is not a chemical and that the solution/matrix is just a container.” Like other less well thought out claims we’ve heard, the necessity of the container rules this entry out from winning the prize. Mr George’s contention that a material’s properties are defined by its electrons only was also in dispute.

Having said all that, Mr George set about this challenge in a scientific manner, not regurgitating the same nonsense the advertising companies do, but methodically assessing the best candidate based on his own research. His entry is clearly streets ahead of claims of “100% chemical free organic olive oil” that I have received!

The following day I had an invoice from FedEx for the postage. In recognition of Mr George’s enthusiasm and creativity, although his entry is not eligible for the £1 million, I will reward him by paying the FedEx bill of £42.44. Not a bad second prize, but I won’t be giving out any more.

Thanks again to Stephen George for his creative entry.

So the RSC’s petition and Five-Decade Challenge report have made an impact at the highest level. We’ve managed to start the debate about what we assess in exams and what is needed for the UK to remain internationally competitive.

Science minister Lord Drayson

Nearly 5000 people have signed our online petition. There have been comments for and against our stance. One of our RSC members has resigned, to my sadness, but many others have written to thank the RSC for what it has done. We’ve had support from teachers, scientists and the public. We have people picking holes in how we’ve done it.

But no one, absolutely no one, has said that it was wrong to ask the question – to challenge the current perceived wisdom and the status quo. Our members want the RSC to campaign and that’s what we’ve done!

So what do we want next? We, like Lord Drayson, want our young talented scientists to be stretched. We want well provisioned, modern laboratories – with technical support in schools. We want well supported science teachers to nurture and develop the next generation of citizens, some of whom will become scientists of tomorrow but all of whom will use science in their everyday lives.

For this we need a modern curriculum – and we need a better assessment framework that demonstrates abilities in problem solving, critical thinking and the application of mathematics. It’s not a lot to ask. Let’s get all sides – teachers, industry, examiners and other experts together to make it happen.

Maybe Ofqual could take the lead…

Much of the UK media has taken interest – see today’s BBC News Online, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Daily Mail and Times.

But all this is making me feel old – I’m making the transition from ‘young turk’ to ‘boring old fart’ because I remember writing a letter of complaint some 22 years ago about the consequences of getting rid of ‘O’ level and CSE [don’t worry about what these are] and moving to the new modern GCSEs. It’s enough to say that GCSEs examine the whole of the 16-year-old cohort, while the former pair focused on either high ability [‘O’ level] or mid to lower ability [CSE]. And before anyone gets upset by this, I am the proud owner of a CSE for my performance in mathematics – although I can’t remember where my certificate is.

So let’s cut to the chase. What’s this petition all about? Well it’s not about attacking teachers or pupils. Pupils are working hard and learning new skills and knowledge. Teachers are teaching an ever broader range of skills and knowledge often without adequate material resources, in inappropriate teaching rooms and without the necessary technical support. More investment in our schools and to support our teachers and pupils are at the top of list of our demands.

No, what this petition is about is the examination system. A system that has moved from showing what students can’t do to showing what students can do has fallen into a dangerous trap. If you set the achievement bar too low – that is set the level that must be passed to receive a top grade too low then the very able are not stretched. You then have to try and fix the system by adding a new top grade A* beyond A.

But this doesn’t really solve the problem because very able students like the challenge of hard questions: questions that are not structured, that need thought, logic, problem-solving and are mathematically challenging: this is what employers want but as well as and not instead of communication skills and team working. Our challenge is to design an examination system to achieve this: what we have now doesn’t.

Earlier in the week I was at a seminar organised by Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association on the ‘Chemical Conundrum’ – with some of their key stakeholders, customers and critics. I was struck at how some people saw themselves as victims of critics of chemical use or manufacturers, or being put down or harmed by chemicals. One vocal group didn’t think that life expectancy had increased due to scientific advances – clearly medicines and health care weren’t important to fight their disease! Again several people commented about the ASA decision and numerous emails have come in from RSC members saying at long last, someone is addressing the issue that we live in a chemical world!

The CTPA have launched a great website, thefactsabout.co.uk, which sets the record straight on some of these chemical myths.

The last thing I want is to be seen as a pedant. So my offer of £1m still stands but I now want a ‘hall of infamy’: I want to see if we can compile a gallery of the worst use of science in advertising and marketing. It should be easy – they are all around us! If the ASA doesn’t have the courage to act to ensure that the public is not misled maybe the RSC can step in to help them. Here’s one to start you off…

Our first exhibit; notice top-left corner: "100% chemical free!" Amazing.

If you find any others, please let us know! Link us through a comment or send a pic by email to edwardsj at rsc dot org; we’ll feature good ones in our gallery.

To say it was a surprise was an understatement. As I read a set of papers at my desk in the Royal Society of Chemistry office an advert for a product that was ‘100% chemical free’ glared out from the page. This from a company that sells products to make things grow in the garden. Just what were people supposed to be buying? Or more importantly what was being sold? Was it a con? Surely not, because the adverts were in the mainstream media. And if you check now using Google or your favourite search engine, you can find the web page that proudly announces that the product has ‘100% chemical free ingredients’.

So it’s a puzzle then. Nearly everyone would know that plants need nutrients to grow but if these are not chemicals what are they? Have the laws of nature been circumvented by a company whose achievements have yet to be recognised by the Nobel Prize committee?

Digging deeper, a sadder story emerges. Somehow, and in the face of the intelligence of the UK public, the company is single handedly seeking to redefine the subject of chemistry. Just think of all of those text books that will have to be scrapped; exam certificates burned and the cost of re-educating all those teachers.

Wow! I’m now looking forward to ‘100% chemical free table salt’ – that’ll solve the heart health problem in the ‘West’. In search of sanity I turned to my 12 year old daughter, Alexa. This young member of the public told me, ‘it’s stupid ‘D’ for that is what she calls me, everyone knows materials are made of chemicals, so it can’t be 100% chemical free.’

In search of some official balance on the ‘100%’ chemical free problem, I turned to the Advertising Standards Authority. Maybe they could temper the definition so that the public are not misled, nor be sold an item on the basis of poor science or at the very least an inaccurate description? You can guess the answer – the ASA ruled that this description was fine and would not mislead the public because people would know that 100% chemical free didn’t mean that – it meant something else. It meant ‘all things are chemicals except things that are 100% chemical free which are made of 100% recycled or naturally occurring materials’.

As I checked my calendar to ensure it wasn’t the 1st of April, I consoled myself on how wrong I was to worry about this. Perhaps I should offer the ASA a million pounds to put in my hand a material that is ‘100% chemical free’: what a staff incentive scheme that would be! But what is the point if they don’t understand the science or the implications of getting it wrong. Thinking about it more, I’d be happy to give the money to the first member of the public who could bring me any material I consider 100% chemical free – but of course they won’t enter because it’s patently impossible!

Where does all this get us? Well, it looks like misleading the public is fine and the subject of chemistry is being redefined. So let the re-education in our schools begin and let’s not worry about building a knowledge based economy in the UK. Let’s stick to intangible services and exotic financial products that no one understands until it’s too late. These sit well alongside 100% chemical free fertilizers that help things grow.