TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Is science teaching undermined by religious instruction in some state-funded faith schools? | Dr Evan Harris The evolution-creationism debate in schools must be about religious education lessons not just science lessons. This is my blueprint for better REFrom time to time there are concerns raised that some state-funded religious schools teach creationism, or intelligent design, in their science lessons.The last Labour government and the Conservatives in opposition have always denied this is a problem and have always said that they will not stand for the teaching of creationism in science lessons. Ministers always say that creationism can't be taught in science lessons Whenever this issue cropped up in parliament I was always concerned that the debate was missing the point. It is no good teaching about evolution (which is a scientific fact) in a science lesson at 9am then at 10am, in a religious education lesson, instructing pupils not to believe it. The whole problem with RE lessons is not that they exist but that they amount to religious instruction in some schools. There is no basis for allowing state-funded schools to indoctrinate their pupils, even if that is what their parents want. They can provide this in optional after-school (or lunchtime) classes or clubs. They could even have something on a Sunday where children are taught to be believers. They could call it Sunday School! The recognition that RE lessons can be proselytising is reflected in the right that parents have to withdraw their children from these lessons. In contrast, they can't withdraw their children from biology lessons even if they have profound religious objections to their being taught about sexual reproduction or evolution – these subjects are recognised as non-proselytising. Secularists like me believe that RE is a valid subject for study in the curriculum but should be about what different religions (and other world views like humanism) believe; it should not be about what ought to be believed. So Catholic schools should be allowed to use RE lessons to teach that the Catholic church opposes contraception and believes that homosexuality is a sin, but not that the children ought to believe those things. The lessons should set out contrasting views on that subject. It is reasonable that a school with a large proportion of children of parents with a particular religion might spend more time learning about the beliefs and practices of that religion, but not to the exclusion of other beliefs. At the moment, however, all RE falls outside the national curriculum – for no good reason. In schools other than voluntary-aided faith schools the curriculum is set by a local Standing Advisory Committee on RE (SACRE) made up of religious representatives. Many faith schools can decide their own RE curriculum and it is not subject to Ofsted inspection but by an inspector of their own religion. This is hardly a bulwark against instruction and indoctrination. There is no requirement to have a humanist or atheist on such committees. And many refuse to have them even as non-voting members let alone as full members as the religious members are.10 commandments – sorry, suggestions – for RE teaching1)Religious education should be about what different people believe, not what pupils should believe.2)It should be in the national curriculum and inspected by Ofsted.3)Non-religious people should not be excluded from helping to draw up the curriculum. Under current arrangements of local determination non-religious people should be included equally and allowed to be full members.4)It should teach about a range of world views, both religious and non-religious. 5)It should not pussyfoot around controversial religious views (on sex and gender, for example) but tackle them head-on. Pupils should learn what the doctrine is but be encouraged to question and debate it.6)In those communities with a high proportion of children whose parents are of a particular religion, the curriculum can be skewed towards more coverage of that – but not to the exclusion of other religions and world views.7)End the right of withdrawal from RE classes, which would no longer be needed because the subject would be academic not proselytising.8)Offer optional religious instruction classes after school if parents want that from a particular school. 9)End collective worship in state schools.10) Worship opportunities made available on an optional basis for children if they or their parents want it.All ten of these proposals were in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election. It remains to be seen if any of them emerge intact from the coalition, and if so whether the plans survive attacks from the Labour opposition and from the bishops in the House of Lords.This article was amended on Tuesday 31 August 2010. The original implied that the problem of RE being effectively religious instruction affected all faith schools. This has been corrected. It has also been made clear that some SACREs exclude non-religious people altogether, and that many faith schools set their own RE curricula because some follow the SACRE ones. Please see Evan's comment below.Evan Harrisguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
As Europe Kicks Coal, Hungarian Town Suffers The European Commission is fighting a complicated battle against an influential but polluting industry. feeds.nytimes.com |
Fire detection technology goes high-tech Fire detection technology originally developed for the NASA mission to Mars has been successfully trialled in the Tumut area. abc.net.au |
Rocket with US-Russian crew blasts off By NATALIYA VASILYEVA 2010-10-08T16:51:55ZBAIKONUR, Kazakhstan (AP) -- A Russian rocket with a U.S. astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts onboard blasted off successfully early Friday for the International Space Station, with flame-haired Russian spy Anna Chapman making an unexpected appearance at the cosmodrome to wave them goodbye.... hosted.ap.org |
Blood group can affect fertility, study reveals A woman's blood type could affect her fertility and influence her chances of getting pregnant, scientists have foundA woman's blood group could influence her chances of getting pregnant, scientists have found.Those with blood type O may struggle to conceive due to a lower egg count and poorer egg quality, while those with blood group A seem to be more fertile.More than 560 women with an average age of 35 undergoing fertility treatment took part in the research, led by experts from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and Yale University.Blood samples were taken to measure levels of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), a known marker of fertility.FSH levels greater than 10 suggest a woman will have more difficulty conceiving than those whose levels are under 10.A high FSH level indicates a diminished ovarian reserve, which refers to both egg quality and the number of eggs left available for fertilisation.Ovarian reserve tends to decline significantly as a woman reaches her middle and late 30s and faster in the early 40s.The study found that women who were blood type O were twice as likely to have an FSH level greater than 10 as those in any other blood group. The findings held true even when a woman's age was taken into account and the fact the women came from two different clinics.Meanwhile, those with blood group A were "significantly less likely" to have an FSH level greater than 10 than those who were blood group O.Some 44% of the UK population are blood group O and 42% are type A.People with blood group A carry the A antigen, which is a protein on the surface of the cell, but this is absent in people with O type.Dr Edward Nejat, from the department of obstetrics and gynaecology at Albert Einstein College, is presenting his findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference in Denver.He said: "In both groups of women that were seeking fertility treatment, those with blood type O were twice as likely to have an FSH level over 10 than those with blood types other than O."We found that women with A and AB – women with the A blood group gene – were protected from this effect of diminished ovarian reserve."From the population we studied, and the fact it was two different centres and there was a good mix of patients ethnically and racially, we can say that blood type O was associated with an FSH level greater than 10 in women seeking infertility evaluation and/or treatment."Patients with blood type O seeking infertility evaluation at these centres have a higher likelihood to be diagnosed with elevated FSH and hence manifest diminished ovarian reserve."Nejat said FSH levels were just one marker of fertility and more studies were needed."A woman's age remains the most important factor in determining her success of conceiving."The baseline FSH gives us an idea of the quality and quantity of a woman's eggs."Tony Rutherford, chair of the British Fertility Society, said: "This is the first time that I'm aware of that researchers have shown a link between blood group and potential for fertility."However, he said there were other hormones that predicted diminished ovarian reserve which were also important to assess."This is interesting and it shows a potential link but we really need to look at it with these other, more up to date tests of ovarian reserve."Rutherford said a bigger study would need to be carried out in the general population to see if blood group caused potential problems for all women trying to conceive."We need to look at a prospective group of women to see if blood group affects your chance of getting pregnant," he said. "This needs further exploration."Fertility problemsHealthMedical researchPregnancyParents and parentingHealth & wellbeingFamilyWomenguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |