No longer should the government be paying 18-year-olds to start courses on celebrity journalism, drama with waste management, or international football business management. These courses should be kicked into touch, especially at a time when the UK is desperately short of funding research into Alzheimer’s and other diseases of ageing, alternative energy sources and wider, more effective health care provision, all of which depend on leading-edge work in the fundamental sciences.

Massive cuts in the science budget have already been announced in this country at a time when President Barack Obama is seeking $66bn, an increase of 5.9% over 2010 levels, to address the strategic priorities on the other side of the Atlantic.

The number of undergraduates studying chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics here had stayed relatively constant over many decades, and the enormous expansion witnessed in tertiary education was largely in the non-science sector. This sector, too, played a vital role in the development of the country, and our future relies on exploiting the synergies provided by a workforce with a wide range of skills, but we now need some realism over the way ahead.

We need a population with an enduring set of skills, such as an understanding of the physical world around us, literacy and communication, numeracy, how to function and continue to learn in a complex society, and above all creativity, rather than an ability to satisfy some ephemeral demand that in ten years time will be viewed as a curiosity.

To take a leaf out of the US’s book, that means that science must not be cut in the same proportion as other subjects at university, but its central role for the future of this country recognised, and funding effectively ‘ring fenced’, so that in effect it becomes a more dominant component.

This is not a question of pleading a special case; such a move is essential if we are all to enjoy the lifestyle we have become accustomed to, and to ensure that we are prepared for the changes that will affect us all in the future.

The RSC is in the news very regularly and with significant impact. There are two strands to the media output of the RSC press office, one being what tends to be described as lightweight, the other as heavyweight. These words are rather misleading because in my view, as a veteran professional, lightweight stories are remarkably effective in establishing an organisation’s reputation.

If members of the public were asked to comment upon the RSC they would probably raise some of the famous “stunt” based work such as the Italian Job that straddled 2008-09 and which reached around the world. They might also mention two or three stories that have been featured on the Have I Got News For You programme in the past 14 months, such as the science of Yorkshire Puddings and why gravy should contain soy sauce. The impact of such stories has been very significant in projecting the image of the RSC as novel, humorous and pioneering. Evaluations show that to achieve equivalent coverage in 2009 through advertising would have cost the RSC in excess of £1.5 million.

Whether or not they have played any part in persuading the young to study chemistry or the middle aged to look upon it differently is another matter. For the RSC to divine the exact consequences of the stunt based work we would have to spend a lot of money and time assessing the impact through surveys. I would certainly be interested in the results.

But the light-hearted press coverage does appear to win the awareness of journalists. By associating chemistry with Yorkshire puddings, for example, the RSC has advertised its link to food and we seem to experience more media enquires on more serious food-related issues as a result.

So far this year we have launched two lightweight stories. the first, in which we sought heroes of the snow, made two national Radio 4 news programmes. The second, seeking a can of unopened Party Seven Beer, generated interviews with the Today programme and 15 local BBC programmes. It also made The Times newspaper. The cost of such lightweight raids is minimal. Therein lies the beauty of this kind of PR. It is cheap, easy to deliver and usually highly productive.

Serious notes

I would stress that we ensure that running parallel to the lighter work is the more serious, important policyrelated activity. This usually reflects RSC views and stances on vital issues   such as standards in school science, the issue of the science diploma, and funding for research.
In this more sombre work we aim to project as widely as we can the importance of chemistry to the challenges of today and tomorrow in addressing climate change, food security, energy, and health provision.

Journalists often turn to the RSC media office for authoritative comment on science and education policy

I cannot emphasis too strongly our wish to get the voice of the RSC heard in the very crowded PR arena. PR is a thrusting, loud business in which hundreds of organisations try to get their messages across. It is remarkably hard to do it successfully.
But again, the RSC, thanks to its boldness, has shoved to the front of the throng to be heard by government and Whitehall, and time and again makes it into newspapers,   radio news and even on national television news.

So potent has been the RSC PR that five times in seven years it has attended Park Lane national PR awards ceremonies as a short-listed competitor. I believe that no other organisation could match this record and it has been achieved by two elements: readiness to speak out at the right moment and readiness to come up with headline-catching stories that make good pictures and fun reading.
But it is vital that the novel PR and the political run parallel at the same time.

A perfect demonstration of this was last year when on one page of the Daily Telegraph there was a large picture story about the Italian Job competition while inches from it a story with comments from Richard Pike, RSC Chief Executive, on science education. That is how it should work and that is what we will continue to try.

One last thought: we have had to plough our own furrow to some degree as most university chemistry departments and commercial chemistry-based concerns have sophisticated PR machinery that picks up, or should pick up, research-based stories. If the RSC tried to grab those stories – with the exception of those published in its own journals – it would fail as it is forbidden territory.
But where we can make a mark is by being active on national issues and in generating novel PR. That has worked so far and I think it will continue to work to the benefit of the RSC and chemistry more generally.

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…

I’m very concerned about the disappearance of problem-solving, critical thinking and mathematical manipulation from school science examinations, and am campaigning to raise awareness of, and ultimately reverse, this unacceptable trend.

In June 2008, we launched a competition - The Five Decade Challenge – to test school pupils’ ability to answer chemistry questions from the 1960s to the present day. As it happens, the older questions involve a number of steps for their solution, although the individual steps might be quite simple. The real challenge was to get pupils to think logically. This contrasts with current questions that are often single-step, and have clues to the solution (eg what is the metal in sodium benzoate? – with Na given in the formula).

The results showed a serious deficiency in the problem-solving and mathematical abilities amongst pupils in UK schools. This adds to a growing body of evidence that dedicated teachers are working under a system which encourages teaching to the test and which fails to meaningfully differentiate pupils’ performance.

I have set up an electronic petition on the 10 Downing Street website to demand that the government reverse the decline in standards of school science examinations.

The report and the exam challenge it is based on are contentious issues, and have attracted much praise and criticism. Below I’ve decided to post some of the feedback as comments to this post – both the good and the bad.

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.