Is this proper science?

The item that made me go back to it twice was about plant hormones.

Artificial auxin is still used as a selective weedkiller because it only makes plants with broad leaves (like daisies and dandelions) grow out of control and die… Farmers can kill all the weeds in a field of a cereal crop without affecting their crop.’ (GCSE Science Student Book)

And then:

Hormones… can stop seeds developing in the fruits. They can also make the fruit grow larger. Many people prefer large seedless fruit so they are worth more money.’ (Edexcel Science Revision Guide)

I’m not qualified to dispute any of these ideas. What’s missing is any other point of view.

Can weedkillers have any unpleasant side effects on plants, animals, the environment? Should we really be tampering with the natural way fruit grows by growing them without seeds?

Ethical questions are raised in other topics such as transplants and drugs: why not when learning about the way we grow food?

In this topic, there’s no discussion, no other point of view put forward. Why not? Is this good science?

I’m not a scientist, I studied history. But this is the equivalent of a textbook (the only textbook available mind) stating that capitalism is a positive and useful way of operating. Or that the British Empire brought only good to Britain and its dominions. And worse.

There can’t only be one idea propounded.

I’m now wondering whether GCSE Science is more about brainwashing than teaching in the broad sense. We’re teaching our young scientists not to think. That’s dangerous.

I’ve yet to tackle the rest of the Science curriculum (kingdoms, the solar system, earthquakes…I’m finding it all riveting) and just hope I don’t come across this frightening omission of discussion and debate in other topics.

If anyone out there has taken Science to a higher level, does it change? Do students get more opportunity to explore and debate? Is there more balance?

I suspect (without having delved into it at all) that it could be a governmental issue where feeding the world and its growing population has only one solution: use chemicals. We can’t therefore afford to teach our young that there are other options. (Hey! Invite a farmer with an organic smallholding to give a talk – the children will love it.)

It’s not even that I consider myself above eating food that’s been manipulated by chemicals; no, we eat it all right (less each year though).

I’d just like to see future GCSE textbooks offer a more considered approach to this topic. There are disadvantages, there is another opinion, let’s hear it.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here