rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what account they are taking of the impact of fast-moving advances in science and technology on how young people think and learn in planning future education policy.

My Lords, the 21st century is offering society an unprecedented raft of challenges. All at once science is now delivering a diverse range of information technology, nanotechnology and biotechnology, with a speed and convergence that we could never have predicted even a decade ago.

For example, one recent survey of eight to 18 year-olds claimed that children were now spending on average 6.5 hours a day using electronic media. Most recently, the trend to multi-tasking—that is, using one or more devices in parallel—amounted to an effective 8.5 hours a day. Could this screen and multimedia culture impact on thinking and learning? The journalist Kevin Kelly summed up the issue very well:

"Screen culture is a world of constant flux, of endless sound bites, quick cuts and half-baked ideas. It is a flow of gossip tidbits, news headlines and floating first impressions. Notions don't stand alone but are massively interlinked to everything else; truth is not delivered by authors and authorities but is assembled by the audience".

When we of the 20th century read a book, most usually the author takes you by the hand and you travel from the beginning to the middle to the end in a continuous narrative series of interconnected steps. It may not be a journey with which you agree or that you enjoy, but none the less as you turn the pages one train of thought succeeds the last in a logical fashion.

We can then of course compare one narrative with another. In so doing we start to build up a conceptual framework that enables us to evaluate further journeys, which in turn will influence our individualised framework. One might argue that this is the basis of education—education as we know it. It is the building up of a personalised conceptual framework, where we can relate incoming information to what we know already. We can place an isolated fact in a context that gives it significance. Traditional education has enabled us, if you like, to turn information into knowledge.

Now imagine that there is no robust conceptual framework. Imagine that you are sitting in front of a multimedia presentation where you are unable, because you have not had the experience of many different intellectual journeys, to evaluate what is flashing up on the screen. The most immediate reaction instead would be to place a premium on the most obvious feature, the immediate sensory content—we could call it the "yuk" or "wow" factor. You would be having an experience rather than learning. Here sounds and sights of a fast-paced, fast-moving, multimedia presentation would displace any time for reflection or any idiosyncratic or imaginative connections that we might make as we turn the pages and then stare at the wall to reflect.

Navigation on the internet is wonderful if you have a conceptual framework in which to embed the responses that flash up. We should not assume that all children nowadays will be so well equipped. The UK Children Go Online investigation by Sonia Livingstone at the London School of Economics found that 92 per cent of nine to 19 year-olds have accessed the internet from a computer at home or at school, but 30 per cent have received no lessons at all on using the internet. Only 33 per cent of regular users of the internet have been taught how to judge the reliability of online information. We now have access to unlimited and up-to-date information at the touch of a button, but in this new, answer-rich world surely we must ensure that we are able to pose appropriate, meaningful questions.

Does this mean that young people are acquiring different skills? According to the National Literacy Trust, who I would like to thank for their help, there is currently no conclusive evidence that reading standards are deteriorating. On the other hand, there is evidence that the enjoyment of reading has declined in the last five to 10 years. Also, children perhaps have more interests competing for their time. They may be spending a lot less time just playing or doing nothing. Of course, doing nothing would presumably include thinking and letting your imagination roam free.

The Literacy Trust pointed out that reading from the screen was just as legitimate as reading from a book, but we might ask how long this trend will continue. Already the visual icon is often substituting for the written word. Soon the spoken word will be increasingly available. If we soon have voice-interface computers—such computers are in the near future—embedded in our clothing or personal effects, you might simply need to ask your watch for the date of the Battle of Hastings.

Memory, for example, may no longer be as essential as it was for those of us who had to remember such dates or had to learn reams of Latin grammar. Along with the ability to read and the need to remember, surely we are at risk of losing our imagination, that mysterious and special cognitive achievement that until now has always made the book so very much better than the film. If one is always working with directory trees, where menus are offered with fixed numbers of options—where to get to another action one has to plod up and down various branch-lines of thinking—would that not impose itself on how we think in general?

In this regard, Futurelab—until recently part of NESTA, but now an independent charity based in Bristol—is doing some excellent work. The new organisation is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and aims to incubate new ideas from the lab into the classroom, offer hard evidence and practical advice, support the design and use of innovative learning tools, communicate the latest thinking and practice in education IT, and provide space for experimentation and exchange of ideas between creative technology and education sectors.

Perhaps Her Majesty's Government should be not only harnessing but amplifying the work of Futurelab by placing it in the wider landscape of a society already under the powerful and unprecedented influences of electronic multimedia. In particular we need a meta-analysis that is nationwide, one of shifting trends in the whole portfolio of learning and thinking skills. I am sure that many parents and grandparents would welcome hard statistics on critical factors such as hours spent in front of a screen, critical age ranges, mitigating influences of other activities, and above all what abilities such as creativity may now be lost and what may now be gained with this new way of processing information compared to those of us educated in the last century. Perhaps the increase in prevalence of hyperactivity might be explained by sustained exposure to an unsupervised IT environment where only short attention spans were ever needed and where the child had no way of practising long periods of paying attention. That is a speculative idea but one that I think should at least be tested.

I am not proposing that we become IT Luddites but rather that we could be stumbling into a powerful technology, the impact of which we understand poorly at the moment. The new technologies are also convergent, embracing not only screen culture but drug culture. A recent excellent summary has been published by Demos entitled Better Humans, which surveys the issue of performance enhancement by invasive procedures such as, most immediately, drugs. Already there were reports last weekend of an alarming increase in the use of Prozac, a mood enhancer. Ritalin, for enhancing concentration, and Pro-vigil, for extending alert wakefulness, are also drugs that are currently medicating the classroom.

The problem with these drugs is that they do not target a single trait such as mood or concentration or wakefulness, not least because we do not yet understand as neuroscientists how such functions are generated as a cohesive operation in the brain: rather, drugs will manipulate, in a very broad spectrum way, the chemicals—the so-called transmitters—in the brain that, in turn, could have both widespread and also long-lasting effects. This area has already been the subject of some admirable studies within Foresight's drugs futures programme, at the OST within the DTI. The subject includes so called cognition enhancers—currently much debated in relation to being prescribed for attention deficit disorder. In a similar fashion the much discussed abuse of proscribed drugs—in particular, cannabis—is highly controversial. A central issue in the debate this afternoon is not whether cannabis, compared to other drugs, is less lethal, nor even that it could trigger a predisposition to schizophrenia and depression, but rather that it might well change attention spans and cognitive abilities without that ever becoming apparent as a medical problem.

The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to any and every event: we cannot complacently take it as an article of faith that it will remain inviolate, and that consequently human nature and ways of learning and thinking will remain constant. A new idea is that there is room for improvement: so-called transhumanism, described by Professor Fugiama, a professor of international politics, as,

"the world's most dangerous idea", promotes the ability of science and technology to go beyond the authority and the norm—whatever that is—for physical and mental human enhancement. The idea of enhancement is sinister in whatever way it would be applied. If, in the unlikely event that everyone could be improved to the same extent, we would end up in a monotonously homogenous world predicated on the assumption that each of us was naturally inadequate. Worse still, and more likely, would be the scenario where only a minority were so "favoured"—a sector of society of techno haves increasingly divergent from the techno have-nots.

We must surely choose to adopt technology that will ensure that the classroom will fit the child, and buck the growing trend for technology to be used to make the 21st-century child fit the classroom. The educational needs of the individual are changing and the very nature of the classroom needs to change too. Initiatives such as the Foresight programme have already made significant impact on our thinking about the future of a number of issues in society. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government might consider a similar in-depth project to explore the future of learning and education.

Initiatives such as the Economic and Social Research Council-funded seminar series, Collaborative Frameworks in Neuroscience and Education, have been a catalyst for bringing together neuroscientists and educators to help us start to understand learning and create an evidence base on which 21st-century education can be built. But now is the time to ensure public engagement in the process. We shall need to consider how 21st-century technology can help to deliver a 21st-century education system. We need to do that not by turning the clock back and picking off small or specific projects, but by co-ordinating on a nationwide scale within both the public and private sectors the best of science and technology initiatives.

Many admirable projects are in train but the public need to know about them, and they need to know about each other. One such, our own Institute for the Future of the Mind at the James Martin School in Oxford, is asking four questions. What are the influences on children today? Where is the actual evidence of a new type of impact? What do children need to learn? And, most importantly, how do we deliver these desiderata? No one independent institution or organisation, and no one single project, can take on such a challenge. We turn to Her Majesty's Government to spearhead a large-scale public debate, thereby ensuring that British citizens of the mid-21st century have the most fulfilling lives possible, in the most successful society possible.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising the issue of science once again in this House. Last time I said that I was not really qualified to speak because I was not a scientist; indeed, I left school in disgrace at the age of 16 with only five O-levels—one of them in woodwork—and I thought myself dim. Since then I have found a useful trait in my character. In school it was vilified, I was criticised for it throughout the first half of my life, and I only recently realised its benefits. That trait is to enjoy and embrace risk and, in doing so, to be creative.

Being creative does not make me special: it is normal. In a 1999 report, the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education—on which the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and myself served, together with a great team that included Jude Kelly, Dawn French and the artist Helen Storey—said:

"In our view, creativity is possible in all areas of human activity and all . . . people . . . have creative capacities. Developing these capacities involves a balance between teaching skills and understanding, and promoting the freedom to innovate, and take risks".

Risk is what I want to talk about within this debate. Rarely given a good review and always seen as bad, risk is not just negative. It is a balancing of potential outcomes, both positive and negative. Last September, Sir Paul Judge, in a lecture to the Royal Society of Arts, of which he is chair, said:

"Life is safer than it ever has been, but we seem less prepared to accept risk in anything we do. We need to make sensible decisions about what really is dangerous, formed on the basis of weighing up the facts, rather than on public hysteria. By making everything appear life-threatening, we are in danger of crying wolf once too often".

Sir Paul is so right. When people who profit from panic and chaos play on people's fears and insecurities it is damaging to our society. Much of the media is culpable.

There are legitimate ways of creating enterprise, building businesses and managing risk, but the current trend for interested parties to exaggerate risk and fan hysteria is having a long-term detrimental effect on our society. Misunderstanding risk can affect all fields: business, politics, medicine, the arts, media, sport, and of course technology and science. Science, in particular, is dependent on exploring the unknown and seeking to go beyond the boundaries of existing knowledge. Curiosity and risk go hand in hand. Developing science and technology curricula therefore needs to protect people's ability to seek answers using their creative instincts, unfettered by the confines of excessively risk-averse teaching methods.

In their future lives all students in any field of activity will find that risk-taking increases the probability that one will find something of value, despite the research costs. It creates the possibility of large gains in experience, capacity and knowledge. Those who do not take risks cannot expect these benefits. It is the same in artistic endeavour. Historically, thousands of artists have taken risks in exploring their medium. The architect, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Thames Bank, said in Where Art and Science Come Together:

"Creativity and arts are troubled by aversion to uncertainty".

This is not true of only science and art. In my experience, risk-taking is an element in all people's happiness. People who initially tried to eliminate risk from their businesses, careers or pursuits—and were, at first, lauded for their safe and sensible approach—ultimately found that they had achieved less than they could or should have. They disappoint themselves, their partners and their colleagues and, in the long run, become sad, even depressed, though usually too late to change. Those who take considered risks are vital and vibrant, and often gain much from being bold. Risk is a part of our world, an element in creative success and an essential ingredient in enterprise and happiness. More and better science education, as promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is necessary not only for future scientists and technologists, but for everybody. Whether one enjoys taking risks or prefers to avoid them, we would do well to understand the concept of risk from an early age.

This can be taught through the sciences, but as Daniel Barenboim has been saying all this week about music and non-musicians, scientific thinking is important to all, including those who will not become scientists. How young people are helped to think about these issues will affect their well-being and the part that they play in society. It is vital that these points are considered in their education and in science teaching. Balancing risk must be part of the package. That means that we should learn something of numbers, probability, uncertainties, chaos, mechanics and even some of the newer quantum mechanics, or we will become risk-averse and waste our lives hiding from it.

In the end, education is about empowering young people to take control of their lives by encouraging them to take increasing responsibility for their actions. Exploring new ideas and places is a vital part of any child's development, and risk is an integral part of that. Realising one's potential involves going into the unknown and trying to accomplish things for which there is no guaranteed success. Exploring new horizons provides exposure to new experiences, which expands knowledge and increases capacity to handle unfamiliar situations. An aversion to uncertainty dampens the thrill of experimentation and stems the development of new ideas. Life is best approached in a spirit of exploration and enterprise. Without taking some level of risk, our society would stultify and cease to advance. We need sensible education and scientific information to allow people to strike their own appropriate balance between risk and safety, and between achievement and opportunity. That is where science can help all, future scientists and non-scientists alike.

To close, I bring to the attention of your Lordships an initiative by the RSA, which has established a Risk Commission. We will meet for the first time later this month. The objective of the commission is to examine past scares and future areas of potential risk by taking evidence from a diverse range of experts. From this work, a set of guidelines aimed at enabling society to adopt a more rational approach to risk will be developed. We will look specifically at risks in medicine and health, alongside risk in other areas of life such as business, engineering, childhood, transport and security. Over time, we will produce a report on each of those areas. As it progresses, I hope that we might relate some of our findings to your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is a member of the commission. As the demands of society and the attempts to manage risk have become very prominent in recent years, perhaps we might on a future occasion wish to debate the issue of risk here in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for raising this important question and drawing to your Lordships' attention the issues that I think will be increasingly crucial. I speak as someone interested in education, not as a scientist. Therefore, I shall be brief. Thinking of education in secondary schools, particularly as it is now, everyone would agree that there is an increasing need for improving the scientific understanding of pupils in school, especially of those who are of high intelligence and high ambition and are likely to be future leaders, including academic leaders and leaders in the media, but who do not intend to be professional scientists.

New methods of teaching and learning—of which the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, spoke with such knowledge and imagination—must go hand in hand with new educational content. Many of the people to whom I have already referred in the category of highly intelligent and potentially influential people—and everyone at school—need a broad familiarity with the development and the history of science and the basic concepts on which the sciences are founded and were founded in the past. I emphasise the continuity and development of science, because it is easy to teach science in a fashion that makes people think, "This is what the facts are, and I can prove them by experimenting in a laboratory; no one has ever thought anything different, and no one ever will think anything different in the future".

An understanding of the basic concepts has perhaps been most nearly achieved in the biological sciences, but such knowledge and understanding are badly lacking in physics, chemistry and engineering. I know that there is a new set of syllabuses for GCSE and A-level—I shall come back to those in a moment—but an entirely new sort of syllabus based far less on teaching in the laboratory and far more on distance and interactive learning should be devised. That would be the kind of flexible classroom that was envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. The notion of a flexible classroom is of enormous importance for the kind of subject matter with which I am concerned.

As I have said, some attempts to open up scientific subjects to more pupils than those who are likely to be specialists are already being made, but, as far as I understand it—I have looked into the syllabuses to a certain extent—the usual methods of making science more accessible tend to move straight into ethical questions, because it is supposed that that is likely to make them more user-friendly. Far too much of bio-ethics, for instance, is based on an insecure conceptual foundation. The issues raised by the noble Baroness's Question are therefore of the greatest importance. The new, flexible classroom as she conceives it should be able to open up to the non-scientific world the imaginative possibilities of the scientific world. It would be for people who do not want to spend their time on the minutiae or who do not want to spend half their university career in the laboratory. I was never more sympathetic with any group of people in my time in Cambridge than with the engineering students, who really had no time at all for a social life because the burden of their experimental work was so intense.

There are numbers of people, including me, who never could be a scientist because they are far too impatient and far too easily bored—that is why I felt so sorry for the engineers in Cambridge. However, I believe that a large number of people could be introduced to the concepts of science and learn to be critical through the internet and the interchange and organisation of information. Large numbers of people could be helped to gain an understanding, which would make a great difference to our society in the sense that it would make dialogue between scientists and the lay far more possible. It would perhaps begin to remove to a certain extent that lack of trust in scientists which so often characterises people's declarations of belief about scientific results and the kind of articles that one all too often sees in the media which inevitably show the scientist as someone who is alien and cannot be trusted not to have the most horrible designs on our society. For all those reasons, the kind of flexibility that the noble Baroness advocated is of great importance, but it should immediately reflect in the content of what is taught in secondary schools to people who are non-scientists.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on securing this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I cannot claim to have any scientific background, and I, too, come to this debate from the point of view of education. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness for something that she is unaware that she gave to me. I remember listening to a lecture that she gave to the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust way back in 1998–99. It was her speech on that occasion that started my interest in the science of the brain and how it might impact on the development of education policy. The noble Baroness probably doubled or trebled my knowledge of how the brain works in that one speech, such was my lack of knowledge beforehand. It has intrigued and interested me ever since, and I want to address my remarks to it in the next few minutes.

In that speech, the noble Baroness used a figure which I have since misused on many occasions, and I had hoped that she would reuse it today so that I could get it firmly in my mind. She did not, so I will have to misuse it again. It is something like this: 80 per cent of what we know about how the brain works we have learned in the past 20 years. When I heard that five years ago, I drew the obvious conclusion that, if that was the case, the way we teach our children, and approach teaching and learning, should have seen a revolutionary change in those 20 years, as we absorbed new information about the science of the brain. The truth is that nothing could be further from what has happened.

I came across a good little book the other day, Less is More, by Human Scale Education. I mention it because it produces two documents: one a description of the national curriculum in 1904, the other a description of the national curriculum in 1989, which is still with us. Reading that book, we see that the subjects we teach, what we call them, how we arrange them in the school day and even the amount of time we allocate to each discipline area has barely changed in almost a century. That is the great problem with teaching, learning and schools.

There is a sort of underlying fault in our education system, which has got a lot better in the past 10 years, but which still ought to concern us. If we are, as a school system, to be able to use the rapid advances in science and technological research, we have got to have schools and teachers, and school leaders, who understand the research and allow it to implement their practice. Until the past 10 years, we have not even looked upon schools and teachers as places and people that should, day by day, look at the latest research, evaluate and adapt their performance in the light of that, measure its impact, and adapt and refine again. The notion of teachers as researchers has had life breathed into it over the past decade, but we need to see even more of it. We need our 240,000 teachers to be aware of recent brain research and how it can affect teaching and learning, in the same way that we assume that our surgeons and doctors are up to date with the latest technology and research in their field. That has got a lot better, but a lot more needs to be done in making our schools places of research, and making our teachers researchers.

A number of things could be done to make this happen. First, traditionally, there has been too big a gap between those institutions who say they practice education research, and schools which actually deliver education. Although they are coming together, they need to be closer. There needs to be a much closer relationship between the fields of scientific, technological, health and education research. Whereas we are better at looking at education research to inform us about what happens in our schools, I am not aware of the organisations that can bring research from the other disciplines to bear and help us in that.

The Department for Education and Skills clearly has a leadership role in this, and I pay tribute to the work it has done. It now has a strong analytical research department, and I think it tries to work on what the evidence shows it should do. I look over the past decade at the literacy strategy, the numeracy strategy, thinking skills and the key stage 3 strategy, which are all evidence-based in a way which I did not think happened before. My message would be that when we are looking at research, we must stay true to the evidence we find.

In my time at the DfES, we launched upon thinking skills, which is a good area for teaching. Research tells us that we ought to do more with our young children. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that it did not get the warmest of receptions in the Daily Mail and like-minded papers. The message there is to keep the faith for evidence-based research and practice. That is the wider background which underpins this.

What this debate also tells us is that the big ideas, the big wins, the brave new future of what happens in our schools, is around this area—it is how we use what we know about how the brain works to impact on teaching and learning.

If I may also say as gently as I can to the Minister, because this will be subject to future debates between him and me, that that is the root of my disbelief—that changes in governance and structure are the big idea for the future. It is the solidity of the evidence about what we are learning about how the brain works that convinces me that learning more and doing more about teaching and learning is the big idea and the revolution for the future.

When we go along that path it will tell us three things—I am guessing here. First, that we need to use time, space and skills in a totally different way in our schools. Schools need to look different, they need to use time differently and they need to use space in a different way. They need to smell different and feel different. There is a lot of truth in the old saying that for some children what is wrong with education is the schools. We have still got a system whereby the structure in which we educate children just does not work for some of them. In the years to come, as we use this evidence we will find that the way our schools and teachers use time, space and skills will change.

Secondly, I would like to make mention of a primary school I visited in Birmingham just before I stood down as a Member of Parliament. The research that they were linking into was teaching every one of their children as an individual and trying to develop for them a timetable which enabled each child to learn at the time of the day which suited them best in different subject areas and different disciplines. They even went further and had a classroom that had so many different seating arrangements that the teacher was able, with any one child, to place them in a space with a style of teaching and a time that would suit them best. That is what personalised learning should be. Personalised learning is a great idea and one of the things that we have to develop even more. What personalised learning should be at its best is not enabling individuals to access the present curriculum and the present style of learning more effectively, but to enable us to use what we know about learning to wrap around each individual child and his or her needs so that they can achieve their potential.

The third thing that this will tell us is that we have to learn to value those skills and styles of learning that we cannot measure. I understand the problems here and it has taken me a long time to get my mind around this, but the more I learn about how the brain works, the more and better I understand the place of creativity—not just in developing a set of creative skills and knowledge, but the impact that learning about creativity and through creativity can have on children's ability to learn every other skill and every other discipline.

The future is exciting. It can be challenging. What I am conscious of is that there is no previous generation of educators who have had as much knowledge at their fingertips as to how the brain works as we have. It therefore falls to us to reshape our education system around the needs of children and, using that knowledge, to make sure that we can teach in a way that will enable every child to reach his or her potential. It is exciting and daunting, but it is a task that must be done.

My last sentence is this. When we have worked it out, there is only one thing that we can be sure of, and it is that by then, the scientists will have found out something more about how the brain works and we will have to start again; the real message is that the way we organise our children's teaching and learning has, by the necessity of the job in which we operate, the need to be flexible.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Greenfield for introducing this fascinating subject. Her commitment to this field is great. Her knowledge is profound and her vision is extraordinary. I was interested in the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, who had a distinguished career as Minister for Education in the other House, and in her mention of the power of the brain. The noble Baroness may be interested to read the acclaimed book of my noble friend, The Private Life of the Brain, which is an inspiring and thought-provoking read.

Many of your Lordships may identify with a situation that unfolded in my household this past weekend. I bought a new piece of equipment to record some television programmes—mostly sport. While I was trying to understand the instruction booklet, my nine year-old son worked it out in a jiffy, without even reading the booklet. The harsh reality, I fear, is that most young people are able to understand and adapt to new technology more easily and effectively than those of us who are not so young. I say that as one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House, comparatively speaking. Our responsibility is to catch up and to ensure that developing education policy in this country properly reflects fast moving advances in science and technology. As an old dog needing to learn some new tricks, it is not easy. But the plain fact is that what was good for us is certainly not going to be good for the current young generation.

The most recent research from the Office of Science and Technology indicated that while 86 per cent of the population believe that science makes a good contribution to society and that technology improves their lives, only 17 per cent of that study believed that consultation on science and technology issues with government had an impact on policy. The conclusion of the study was quite clear that many would like more of a say on certain issues pertaining to science and technology but feel that the Government are unlikely to listen to them.

Technology is changing the way that teachers teach and students learn, and education strategy and priorities must reflect this reality. The blackboard has been replaced by the whiteboard; and where once research was sourced from a library, now it is found "Googling" on the internet. Change is broad and ongoing. It is important that we recognise what technology can do. But equally—I believe the point was made very strongly by my noble friend Lady Greenfield—it is important for us to recognise what technology cannot do.

Of course, technological advances enhance both access to information and the process of learning. However, technology cannot teach on its own. In some quarters, technology is regarded as the panacea for budget cuts. I read with concern proposals in America where hundreds of students would sit in front of monitors being subjected to prerecorded electronic talking heads providing cheap, mass education. Such visions are nightmarish. Our challenge is to ensure that technology enhances the educational process and diminishes nothing.

There is perhaps a parallel to be drawn with cricket. Many of your Lordships will be aware that in major cricket matches these days a third umpire is often called upon to study a video television replay of a possible run-out and convey an informed decision on whether a batsman made his ground to the umpire standing on the field. In this instance, technology ensures the accuracy of the decision-making process and assists the umpire. However, the cricket authorities forbid the use of the third umpire and video technology in LBW—leg before wicket—decisions because, in this instance, they believe that an umpire on the field remains in a uniquely qualified position to make the decision.

In the classroom, as on the cricket field, technology should enhance the process rather than replace it. That has been the case in a pilot scheme called Learning To Go recently conducted in Wolverhampton. Under the scheme 130 ten and eleven year-old pupils across 18 schools in the city were each provided with a handheld PDA device, costing £300 per unit. These units incorporated built-in still and video cameras, a sound recorder and a wireless broadband connection, and were able to operate most software applications. The children used their devices to read e-books on screen, animate science principles, such as plant growth or water evaporation, and play maths games. They even played games on the PDAs.

The issue of whether playing computer games makes a worthwhile contribution to the educational process has been a bone of contention in my house for some time. I have four children under the age of 10 and while all four of my children have enthusiastically voted "Yes", my wife and I have been somewhat less convinced by computer games. Obviously, some software programmes are more constructive than others and there is no doubt that such computer games can become addictive and make children seem even more uncommunicative than usual. However, I have come round to the view that they enhance education. That view is supported by the Department for Education and Skills' report on the educational use of games, which challenges the stereotype view of computer games being a distraction. The challenge is to harness rather than fight the medium.

Information and communication technology is dramatically enhancing education in the United Kingdom, but its potential effect on education in the developing world—I have a particularly interest in Africa—is vast. ICT can help developing countries tackle a wide range of health, social and economic problems. By improving access to information and by enabling communication, ICT can play a major role in reaching the millennium development goals such as the elimination of poverty, combating serious disease and achieving universal primary education and gender equality. Unfortunately, in most developing countries, instruction in science and technology is either non-existent or very basic and such factors should perhaps be borne in mind when the Government contemplate how they spends funds to support educational projects in the developing world.

We are not living in the midst of a communications evolution. This is a revolution. Today's latest mobile telephone is considered almost obsolete within a couple of months, and it is becoming clear that we are moving into a world where the PDA will stand right at the centre of daily life, being education. The accelerating convergence of information technology, nano-technology, biotechnology and cognitive science will have a huge impact on our lives. It will raise many moral and other issues. This is an issue that exercises the minds of professionals in the field and politicians, but it also has a huge impact on a broad cross-section of the public. I believe that we would do well to note the results of the research to which I alluded earlier, specifically that in determining policy in this area we should ensure that full and effective public consultation takes place.

My Lords, when I read that my noble friend Lady Greenfield was to introduce this debate and saw the list of noble Lords who had put their names down to speak, I concluded that this was an occasion on which I should listen and not speak and I am persuaded that I was right in the first instance. However, on Tuesday, I attended a reception on the use of new technology and I came to the conclusion that I had learnt something from it that encouraged me to offer a thought or two. I particularly pick up the point made by my noble friend that we have to relate education to the culture and circumstances of today's children. I learnt of an initiative led by a headmaster in Wolverhampton. Under his leadership, 18 schools came together to use PDAs. Many of the children came from areas of social deprivation, so PDAs were rented out to their families on condition that they were used for learning. They drew on software that was entertaining as well as instructive and that would engage the interest of those children. Thinking of those kids, so many of whom disengage themselves from education at an early age, because they see it as boring and not relevant, I reflected that if we could engage with their culture—the games machines, Nintendo, PlayStation, Sony, the iPod, which was on every one of my grandchildren's wish lists at Christmas—and if we could realise the opportunities for learning that come by engaging in the living culture of those children with their world and in their language, we might be much more successful with a lot of young people who today are almost born to failure in the terrestrial sense in education.

I made some inquiries, and I learnt that there was a technology group in the Minister's department that is committed to developing with companies software that will make the use of these child-friendly devices effective for learning. It seemed to me that that is exactly what we should be doing—moving with them into their world into what is "in" with these young children, and is therefore acceptable and good, rather than saying "this is the way to learn". We need both. The Government, in their recent white paper, which will come before us again—I shall listen with interest to the debates—are giving partnerships an increasing role in schools. With this technology, used interactively, it is possible to get away from the idea of "one teacher, one classroom", and engage interactively between teacher and several classrooms. The technology is there and is being used.

I thought, "Come on, there really is something here which will be relevant to policy and learning". I then recalled that one of Harold Wilson's great contributions to us was the creation of the Open University. This Government created the University for Industry and learndirect which now offers learning to 500,000 people who have, in the main, not succeeded in their earlier education. I speculated whether there was room for an "open school" to assist teachers. I was not thinking of a big institution, but of a capability, much like the University for Industry is a capability for, rather than a writer of, programmes for learning—to commission and promote them and, especially, harness the enthusiasm of groups of schools in a town, so that it is owned by them rather than being remote and imposed. That is the case in Wolverhampton. I am always chuntering on about the dangers of leaping into new things without piloting them. Here we have, growing up around us, initiatives to use the new technology in this way. There may come a moment when it right to give momentum to this kind of learning through an open school that will particularly be relevant to the extended school day, as well as to learning at home and supporting the teacher in the classroom.

If we are to help young children who come from disadvantaged homes, we must see that they have a standard instrument at home that they cannot otherwise afford. Therefore, I was sorry to learn that in this year's Budget, which really was the Budget of a decade for schools in terms of commitment of resource, that the Chancellor decided to withdraw the home computing initiative under which people who are not particularly highly paid can, through their employer, sacrifice a bit of their earnings every week to buy a computer on more advantageous terms than the individual. It also exempted that part of his or her income from income tax and national insurance contributions, but that has been withdrawn. That was a pity, as it helped these families to get into learning and helped parents to learn with their children. I wonder whether the Government have any other initiative in mind to replace the one that has been withdrawn.

Finally, the kind of education that I had involved learning much by rote. There is a lot of good in learning one's tables and various other things in that way. But I left my physics classes full of definitions of wonderful things but with no understanding at all. I dare say that I can say "Archimedes' principle" faster than any other old man in London with absolutely no knowledge of what it means. If, in the new world with the open school, I can have a Dearing-friendly and lads and lasses-friendly way into learning, in which I can see old Archimedes in cartoon form teaching me his principle, I shall sign on.

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing it. I very much enjoyed her Opening Speech. In fact, I think I understood most of it, too. My only commitment to cognitive-enhancing drugs is a daily dose of brain-enhancing fish oils.

I particularly agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that children today learn in a way that is very different from the way in which we learned. My three year-old grandson seems to learn everything either by bouncing up and down or by standing on his head. He is learning a great deal, all the same, although I certainly would not want to copy him. I also share the enthusiasm of the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Dearing, for PDAs. I am aware that there has been a very successful pilot scheme, which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would certainly approve of, to provide PDAs to your Lordships. That will perhaps allow us to learn a little more about how children today learn effectively.

In debating how children learn, it might be worth bearing in mind a sentence from the introduction to a book by a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is not here today. The book is entitled Learning Works: Widening Participation in Further Education, in which she said:

"In a system so caught up with what is measurable, we can forget that learning is also about problem-solving, learning to learn, acquiring the capability for intelligent choice in exercising personal responsibility. It is a weapon against poverty. It is a route to participation and active citizenship".

I know that the Government understand this. They have done two things that chime very well with those sentiments. The first is their investment in early-years education—trying to eliminate poverty and inequality, identify problems and intervene at an early stage for children. The other is the introduction of citizenship as part of the core curriculum. However, there are other areas where I believe the Government have so far failed our children.

I believe that the role of education is not to stuff young heads with facts, such as the date of the Battle of Hastings. It is to teach children how to think critically, to take responsibility as a citizen of all the worlds they live in—the local world and the global world, to make wise choices and to develop morally, emotionally, creatively and physically as well as intellectually. That is why it is so important to understand how children think and to help them to learn, which is a term I prefer to the word "teach", by the way, in a way that harmonises with the world in which they live and the ways in which they are used to taking in information—in other words, through electronic media—and in ways which they see as relevant to their needs and which they enjoy.

I learnt when I was training as a teacher, and through my experience in the classroom, that children learn by seeing and doing rather than by listening and reading, which is why I am so keen on practical science lessons and field studies out in the real world. That gives science students the "wow" factor. It develops their curiosity, even if there are risks attached. On that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath.

The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, on the way in which children use technology, are particularly relevant to the present day. I see technology as a tool for learning and not as a subject in itself except for those who wish to make it their career. I am afraid that it was far too often seen in schools as an add-on instead of as an integral part of other curriculum subjects and a tool for learning them, which is why I welcome the work of the Futurelab.

In considering this Unstarred Question I decided that the noble Baroness wanted to know how aware the Government were of research in education and what account they took of the findings. The Government are blessed with having a country that is stuffed full of universities staffed by highly able academics who are only too interested in providing high-quality research on matters relating to education and its organisation, management, statistics, subject matter, methodology, monitoring and assessment, economics, relevance, uptake, demographics—and I could go on, but I think that noble Lords get the picture.

The Government have commissioned many pieces of valuable research, ostensibly with the objective of informing policy. I therefore decided to look at the Government's track record on responding positively to the findings of that credible research. What I found was a record too often of buying a dog and barking yourself—of either failing to implement the measures that the researchers proposed or implementing them only in part in a way which undermines the greater benefits that might ensue.

I refer in particular to the evidence on school admissions and selectivity; on child stress and teaching to the test; evidence gathered by Mike Tomlinson on the need to reform the 14-to-19 curriculum and assessment system; evidence on the negative effects of league tables; ASBOs; and the warnings from the most highly qualified professionals about the dangers of being too prescriptive from Whitehall about synthetic phonics and how professional teachers should teach literacy. Those are only a few of the examples that I could come up with. The effect on the morale of the teaching and lecturing workforce and this determined ignoring of the evidence in favour of the crude "what works" prejudices of the Prime Minister is a reservoir of pent-up fury and frustration, some of which was demonstrated by the debates at this Easter's teaching union conferences.

Let us look at just one of these pieces of research which has suffered from death by tabloid headline. The Tomlinson report on education for 14 to 19 year-olds was published in October last year to general acclaim. It proposed reforms of far-reaching significance that are very much needed. Yet, when the Secretary of State announced what she was going to do about it, she had clearly succumbed to screaming tabloid headlines about ditching the precious A-levels—the so-called gold standard. In fact, Mike Tomlinson proposed no such thing; rather, he suggested a gradual incorporation of the best aspects of A-levels into something more fit for purpose in our modern society. We certainly need to do something. We need a revolution of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, in her very inspirational speech.

I am afraid that the reason for our poor participation in post-16 education is the poor school experience of many of our children. Many of the 47 per cent who fail to get their five A-C grade GCSEs are bored by the current 14-plus curriculum and demotivated from learning. GCSEs and A-levels are geared to the academic route. We have failed consistently to offer a coherent vocational route of equal standing and value. Then we wonder why we have a skills gap. What we need is a qualification system of national and international standing that attracts and serves the needs of the whole ability range.

So what did Tomlinson propose and how did it link up with both the objectives I have just mentioned and how children think and learn? He realised that children and all of us are motivated by achieving something. When we do so we are motivated to do more—it cheers us up and boosts our confidence. But in this country we are fixated on failing people. We used to fail 80 per cent of children through the 11-plus, and now 47 per cent of children fail to get the required GCSE standards. Many children even fail to get into the school of their choice. Embracing failure seems integral to the national character. I hope that the Government will hear the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and wake up to the fact that they cannot know everything themselves and listen to the research that they have commissioned.

Of course the Government must respond to public opinion, but they must also lead public opinion. When they do so they should rely on good-quality research evidence about what works. Evidence-based policy is what we were promised by the Government, but over and over again we see that that is not what we get. From these Benches we have always commissioned research and gone into great detail about the cost and effectiveness of various policy options as well as the general principles of whether they will deliver a freer, more just and more equitable society. Perhaps the Government should keep the faith, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, urged, and listen to their DfES research department and do the same.

My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for introducing this timely and important debate, and to say how fascinating it has been thus far. The pace of technological and scientific advances is indeed dramatic and exciting and the impact on our daily lives dynamic, even intrinsic. Therefore, we need as a matter of urgency to educate and inspire those who could influence and drive those developments on behalf of all of us and our children as a force for good.

With regard to how young people think, this generation are probably less influenced than ever before by what their parents and those adults close to them do and think. Moreover, advances in technology provide the real potential to broaden their horizons and to explore different options at various stages of their education. That said, this generation are probably more influenced than ever by the focus on celebrity, instant success, the transient and short term. In-depth skills are not the focus for many of them; however, money is. They like the technology—indeed, my teenage children and their friends would probably collapse without it—but there is a vacuum in terms of their understanding of how science and technology in schools can lead to an exciting career in industries where we excel, such as pharmaceuticals and high-tech systems engineering. That is the focus of my response to this Question.

Unfortunately, in schools now the focus is on passing exams and, in the words of James Dyson, being "groomed for university". Dyson goes on to say that,

"we are encouraged to become middle-classed professionals and to avoid industry and manufacturing. Furthermore, the arts and science divide damages this country's prosperity. In contrast, in France and Germany, engineering is held in high esteem and most pupils continue with some science instruction right through school. They are countries with a good vocational teaching tradition".

In June 2004 the Royal Society warned that science lessons in schools failed to prepare pupils for future careers and studies. Professor Mick Brown from the society says:

"The pressure on teachers to deliver exam results is immense. Their professional skills and time must be better utilised to teach and assess science in a way that helps pupils succeed in science careers as informed members of society as well as in exams. This means encouraging analytical skills and using an exam as a tool to help pupils learn and become enthused rather than simply as a means to a qualification".

James Dyson goes further, believing that pupils must be allowed to feel that it is okay to fail—that,

"we are too obsessed with getting things right; that it is by experimenting and getting things wrong that we learn".

I say amen to that.

It does not help that, for example, only a third of teachers of physics to 14 to 18 year-olds are actually qualified to teach the subject. This situation is compounded by attempts to make GCSEs in the sciences easy, which of course in practice means making them unchallenging and uninspiring. A new science GCSE to be introduced in 2008 concentrates on topics such as genetically modified food and global warming rather than scientific theory. How can we seek out the great minds of the future unless we encourage and challenge our present school children? Instead the Government are determined to patronise young people and diminish excellence in the name of so-called accessibility. The fact is that GCSE science is being cut from 30 to 20 per cent of curriculum time.

Martin Stephen, High Master of St Paul's School, wrote recently that the new GCSE specifications look likely to be a lethal injection for science, not a stimulant. He went on to say:

"A-levels will be destroyed by stealth, by a process of dumb down and broaden out, spreading the actual scientific content so thinly that one does not need a graduate to teach it".

Professor Bernard Lamb of Imperial College, London, has echoed growing concerns that changes to GCSE and A-level syllabuses, which effectively demand less from pupils, are dumbing down education. Common sense as well as facts tells us that making subjects easier does not achieve anything. Since 1986, overall A-level entries have risen by 23.1 per cent, but the number of pupils taking A-level physics has declined by more than a third.

Young people want to be challenged and stretched. This is now recognised among a number of schools both in the private and the maintained system which either have moved or are moving to the international GCSE course, which at least challenges pupils and encourages them to experiment and explore—those things that we took for granted when we in your Lordships' House were at school. I am sure that many of today's leading scientists will have had their interest and passion for their subject stimulated from a young age by live experiments. Children confined to textbooks are bound to be turned off. As the noble Lord, Lord Stone, has said, we must allow our children to take risks and discover for themselves. Indeed, I too am a member of the Risk Commission and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord next week.

The outlook for science and technology in universities is equally worrying. Only last weekend a report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted the importance of maintaining world-class research centres within and close to our universities, to attract international R&D investment and maintain our competitive edge in the pharmaceutical and chemicals sectors. But the recent closure of university chemistry departments, including those at Exeter, Queen Mary London and King's College London do not bode well for the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is absolutely right: we must plan for the future now. Indeed, I spent some time over Easter reading a report called Towards 2020 Science, produced by the 2020 Science Group established by Microsoft Research Cambridge in association with over 30 distinguished scientists, who all contributed to the report. It concludes that a fundamental scientific revolution is under way, underpinned by advances in computing and computer science. Powerful new conceptual and technological tools in computer science now emerging are set to transform the way science is done, and will play a critical role in accelerating our ability to understand and tackle key global challenges for the 21st century, from climate change and the environment to revolutionising medicine and healthcare—and, of course, education. The report makes 10 recommendations, the second of which is,

"urgently rethink how we educate tomorrow's scientists".

It is accompanied by a chart which maps each critical stage of this development from 2005 to 2020. It makes very exciting reading, except that at each stage we read:

"Education—how to produce 'new kinds' of scientists now urgently needed (computationally and mathematically highly literate)".

In essence, standards in science and mathematics continue to fall in the UK, so our cutting-edge industries are relying more and more on better qualified foreign students. This is hugely frustrating given that we know we have the raw resources in our young people. There are a number of steps the Government could take to begin to tackle this crisis.

First, the Government must begin by making a practical commitment to science by offering state schools guidance to facilitate the teaching of individual science subjects up to GCSE. Secondly, much more should be done to explain to young people how science and technology qualifications can lead to interesting and worthwhile careers across a broad and growing range of fields. Thirdly, a more positive attitude towards business is crucial. We need young people with science and technology qualifications to encourage and implement investment in new as well as small and medium scientific and technological enterprises.

Fourthly, practical experience can transform attitudes, thinking and approach. My 17 year-old son has just spent several days on work experience with Lonza Biologics in Slough, watching and learning as a group of young scientists carried out research in an active laboratory. Leo says that this practical and inspiring experience has changed the way in which he will approach his studies and consider his options for the future. If only there was a way that all young people could be given that chance. In addition to the Government providing tax breaks to corporations for investment in research and development, has any consideration been given to introducing further incentives for the private sector to invest specifically in the provision of work experience and student sponsorship for post-GCSE students educated in the UK?

Fifthly, we must tackle a continuing lack of discipline in our schools. Practical applications and experimentation are not feasible without discipline. A survey by Save British Science found that more than three-quarters of science classes in 67 secondary schools in England had to be cancelled. In 57 per cent of those cases, the reason given was bad behaviour.

Sixthly and above all, the Government must listen to the scientists and stop thinking that "science made easy" equals science. There are no quick fixes, but the possibilities are tremendous. Optimism must play a part, together with a bold return to rigorous standards in schools. A genuine commitment now might just help to deliver the next generation of innovators.

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for such an interesting debate on a subject to which she has made such a great professional and public contribution over the years. The debate has touched on many of the issues discussed in her book, Tomorrow's People, about the impact on our society of the astonishing pace of technological and scientific progress. We are glad that the House has had a chance to debate these issues this evening.

The question raises fundamental issues about how and what young people learn—besides working DVRs, which I assume is the new piece of TV recording equipment which the noble Lord, Lord St John, has just acquired. I speak with some feeling as I have just acquired one, too, and it was my eight year-old who showed me how to use it. We are all in the same boat. In the short time available, I can barely touch on all the issues raised; it would be impossible to do so in 12 minutes. I will start with the "how" before moving on to the "what" when addressing this wide question of what account we are taking of the impact of fast-moving advances in science and technology in planning future education policy.

The Government's policy is to harness new information and communications technology safely within education, so that teachers and learners are conversant with its appropriate use as an increasingly important life skill in its own right, and are able to deploy it in the course of a much more personalised approach to education, which develops the talents, aptitudes and interests of each individual young person much more than was the case in the past. A particular government policy objective is to prevent the growth of a digital divide between the haves and the have-nots. That is why we have made investment in deprived communities such a priority. I know this was a cause close to the heart of my noble friend Lady Morris when Secretary of State. I am glad that we have continued to work on it since, not least through the excellent work of the E-learning Foundation, which my noble friend chairs.

I should add that it was my noble friend who, as Secretary of State, established NESTA Futurelab, which was rightly praised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. Futurelab is looking, for example, at how software and related technologies can provide the narrative context for learning that the noble Baroness indicated was so important, when set alongside traditional learning through books and experience. Futurelab is also piloting the use of PDAs and games in education to identify what works and how it can be spread more widely.

Our next key ICT objective for schools at large is our 2008 target for every school pupil to have a personalised online learning space with an e-portfolio. To set this commitment in context, since 1998 the Government have invested £3.5 billion to ensure all schools have essential, modern ICT infrastructure. In 1996, the ratio of computers to pupils was 1:19 in primary schools, and now is 1:7. In secondary schools, the ratio was 1:9 in 1996; now it is 1:4. Primary schools spent an average of just £15 per pupil in 1998; now that figure is £56 per pupil. Spending in secondary schools in 1998 was on average £46 per pupil; now it is £69 per pupil, with 99 per cent of schools connected to the internet—most at broadband speeds—compared to just 17 per cent of primary schools in 1998. Virtually all schools now have interactive whiteboards in many, if not most, classrooms. Even three years ago this was not the case.

In addition to hardware, we are continuing to help schools improve in their use of ICT. Nearly all teachers have received ICT training and continue to develop their ICT skills. To gain qualified teacher status, ITT students must now pass an ICT skills test and demonstrate that they know how to use ICT effectively, both to teach their subject and to support their wider professional role. To support this, Becta, which is the department's lead partner agency for ICT in schools, is developing models of e-learning that will enable schools to understand which stage of ICT development they are at, what they need to do to move to the next level and what help is available to get there.

All subjects are benefiting from this new technology. I have personally been impressed, if not amazed, on my school visits at what is now possible in the classroom—online Ordnance Survey maps transposed on to 19th-century maps of cities in geography, to study urban developments; computer-assisted composition programmes in music; video conferencing between classes in different countries in languages, along the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing; and the application of games technology to every subject, including even electronic dance mats in one Spanish language programme I witnessed recently.

Languages are also, I believe, a good example of where changes in technology are driving changes in assessment in education to reflect more personalised approaches to learning. A year ago we introduced a new languages ladder to enable students to be tested in all the principal languages when they have reached a standard irrespective of their age, as with music grades, for those learning musical instruments. I take this to be a significant advance in the way that we encourage language teaching and learning in our schools.

We are also strongly encouraging the creation of new and dynamic multimedia content for education. January saw the launch of the BBC digital curriculum under the brand name BBC jam. Teachers' TV was launched in February 2005. This is a path-breaking initiative, indeed one kind of national open school of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, available free on Freeview and via the web, to give teachers a ready insight into how their colleagues and others are bringing the curriculum into life and dealing with the manifold challenges of being a modern teacher. The Teachers' TV website has a library of over 1,000 programmes that can be accessed and downloaded for free. The site also features links to other relevant sites, lesson plans and background information, making it an invaluable resource for the entire school workforce.

There is therefore now a wealth of new resources for teachers and students available to enhance subject teaching. We have also introduced a study of new technologies themselves into the curriculum. For example, over £2 million has been invested in training design and technology teachers to use industrial-standard design engineering software for our CAD/CAM in schools programme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and the noble Lord, Lord St John, rightly stressed that there are risks as well as opportunities in new technologies and ways of learning. My department and Becta commission a wide range of research about this, taking account of emerging research from other fields, such as the neurosciences. There is fairly consistent evidence that ICT can improve motivation to learn and increase the attention span of learners, particularly boys. But the key point from the research is that the way technology is used or moderated by the teacher is critical in the classroom. It is, for example, essential to guard against internet abuse, plagiarism and adverse medical impacts, and the department issues guidance in these areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, also raised concerns about the use of drugs such as Ritalin. Medicines should of course be used only where appropriate, and for the most common forms of behavioural problems, medication is inappropriate. However, for some disorders, including the more severe forms of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, medicines are recognised as an appropriate form of treatment. Their use should be based on a full assessment by a specialist, usually a child psychiatrist, and form part of a comprehensive treatment programme. After a thorough and critical assessment of the most up-to-date research evidence in this area, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published guidance last month, which covers the use of methylphenidate, one version of which is Ritalin, atomexitine and dexamphetamine in the treatment of ADHD. This guidance replaces and updates the previous recommendations, published in 2000.

I can say that we have no evidence to suggest a link between the use of IT and hyperactivity, although we will keep under review research in this area. On the contrary, as I said, there is consistent evidence that IT can aid concentration, motivation and attention spans, particularly among boys. However, in any school there may be individual pupils whose behaviour reflects serious social and emotional problems rather than simple disaffection. The special educational needs code of practice sets out a range of interventions for schools to support pupils who are hyperactive and lack concentration or have behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.

I move on to the important area of science, which is the other half of the question. Science as a living and breathing subject at the cutting edge of modern knowledge will, as many speakers in this debate have stressed, come to life only if every school has good or inspirational science teachers and the facilities to teach science subjects well. That is why the central planks of our policy in this area have been infrastructure renewal and significant new investment in the recruitment and training of science teachers, including physicists.

On both fronts we are making progress. The Building Schools for the Future programme is replacing or renewing the entire secondary school estate over a 15-year period. State-of-the-art science facilities are a part of that. Since 1997 there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of new science teachers, but we know that there is still a good deal more to do in improving the science-teaching workforce.

We are further improving the value of recruitment incentives to draw more good graduates into the profession. The teacher training bursary rose to £7,000 in September 2005 and will rise to £9,000 this September. The golden hello for new science teachers rose to £5,000 for trainees entering PGCE and equivalent courses in September last year, and we are recruiting and training a new cadre of specialist science higher level teaching assistants to enable every secondary school to recruit at least one by 2007–08, alongside the development of the new national and regional science learning centres set up as a long-term investment in science education as part of an important £51 million partnership with the Wellcome Trust.

We have been encouraging science and mathematics students at university to consider teaching as a career while helping enthuse young people in the classroom through the Student Associate Scheme. Of the 20,000 students placed over the last three years, 3,000 have been science undergraduates. My Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget made an extra £700,000 available in each of the next two years to create more science and mathematics placements on this excellent scheme. This was just one element of a new package for science in schools in the Budget. The Chancellor also made a commitment of £32 million-worth of new measures over the next two years to improve science teaching and learning.

I should stress that one element of this package includes a significant boost to the availability of the three individual sciences at GCSE, including physics—to take the point rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—and particularly for students scoring highly in science at the key stage 3 tests at the age of 14. This follows from the evidence—because we are very evidence-based in this area, as in all others—that it is clear that those who do well at key stage 3 in science and then go on to study the individual sciences at GCSE are much more likely to proceed to study sciences at A-level—getting high grades—and then go on to do so at university. That is something we wish to encourage.

It is equally important that we keep the curriculum up to date with the latest developments in science. To this end, a new programme of study for science at key stage 4 will be introduced this September. I should stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that it maintains the breadth and depth of the current curriculum, but for all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it gives a much greater emphasis to the application of science in today's world in a very practical way. Young people will learn more about contemporary scientific and technological developments and their benefits, drawbacks and risks; for example, the implications of the use of genetics testing by employers and insurance companies, computer climate models and their evidence that human activities are causing global warming, the difficulty of developing an effective vaccine against the HIV virus and the concept of risk rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Stone. Through the Education and Inspections Bill we are proposing a new statutory entitlement to a programme of study leading to two GCSEs, which we expect at least 80 per cent of pupils to follow.

I could have said so much more on these important subjects. In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this very stimulating short debate. By expertly exploiting current technologies to educate and inspire young people, I believe that we can make a reality of personalised learning and develop individual talent to a wholly new degree. But the deployment of these technologies requires vigilance and care and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, so rightly said, we need to be alive equally to the challenges and the risks as well as to the opportunities.

House adjourned at fifteen minutes before five o'clock.

Thursday, 20 April 2006.