Following the recent comments by Mrs. Jan Ainsworth, the Church of England’s head of Education and others, reported here on the 4th June, that ID should be discussed in science lessons, there have been renewed calls for the Government to publish guidelines for schools. Their response on 21st June reiterates their position that ID is not part of the Science National Curriculum programmes of Study and should not be taught as science. The report continues:

“In this context, the Government would expect teachers to answer pupils’ questions about creationism, intelligent design and other religious beliefs within this scientific framework.”

Truth in Science confirms its position as an organisation promoting good science education in the UK. To this end, Truth in Science continues to get regular requests from science teachers and other educational officers for the Teachers’ Resource pack which has proved an excellent tool for the teaching of scientific controversy.

With changes to the National Curriculum currently underway, we believe that this material is both timely and appropriate to facilitate such teaching in the science classroom.

The phrase “junk DNA” was first coined by Susumu Ohno in his Brookhaven Symposium paper, "So Much 'Junk' DNA in our Genome”. During the 1980s and 1990s, the term was increasingly used to describe all non-coding DNA sequences (at least 97% of the genome). With the completion of the human genome project, the subsequent publication in Nature, and the identification of some 22,000 protein coding genes, little insight was provided into the biological processes involved in the regulation of gene expression itself.

Over the last few years, however, the US National Institutes of Health's National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has organized the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project to identify the functional components within the human genome. Because of the immense complexity of this undertaking, ENCODE started with just 44 selected regions of DNA (about 30 million base pairs) which comprise approximately 1% of the human genome. The results of this pilot project have been published recently in Nature and in 28 companion papers published in the June issue of Genome Research.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is the fact that the vast majority of DNA (coding and non-coding) is transcribed into RNA and that these transcripts overlap each other and are taken from both strands of the double helix (sense and anti-sense). Only a very small proportion of this RNA is messenger RNA (mRNA) and actually translated into protein. The vast majority of the transcribed RNA is involved in the control of the expression of the genes themselves. In addition, the DNA from which regulatory RNA is transcribed may be very distant from the genes they control, even situated on different chromosomes.

How the abundant and varied RNA transcripts move to their targets without interfering with one another is also perplexing scientists. Some of these regulatory transcripts can be many times larger than the genes they control.

A second surprising finding involved the comparison of multispecies alignments of ENCODE regions using sequences from 22 other mammals published in Genome Research. Up to 50% of the features lacked “sequence constraint” which basically means that the sequences are very different and show little conservation across species. A picture is gradually emerging of levels of encrypted genomic information far more complex than that originally considered. Maybe the term “junk DNA” is now nothing more than junk itself. We will keep you posted.

Yesterday's Times Educational Supplement contains two articles that are supportive of teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools, from very different perspectives, both different to the perspective of TiS.

Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine has an opinion piece titled "Why we should learn Intelligent Design". He argues against those who are "outraged" at the idea of teaching ID.

Aren't we getting a bit hysterical? Like the mythical Victorians who covered their piano legs because they were so prudish, dislike of ID has lead many to become irrationally phobic about its very mention. As a commited atheist, I actually want to see ID discussed in classrooms, and I'm pleased to say it is already happening.

Dr Baggini believes ID to be "bad science", but writes:

ID should be on the syllabus because it is a widely held dissenting view, and if you do not equip people to assess such views, they are going to appear more, not less, credible.

...If people are going to reject ID, they can't be expected to do it purely on trust.

The newspaper also contains an interview with Michael Reiss, Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education, and Director of Education at the Royal Society. His comments are not directly on ID, but deal with the relationship of science and religion.

Professor Reiss claims that...a person's beliefs can influence how he or she perceives the world: while scientists view a wildlife documentary as an example of natural selection at work, creationists marvel at God's design. Avoiding discussion of religion in science lessons, therefore, risks alienating pupils who find the lesson disconnected from their worldview.

He concludes that all schools should incorporate aspects of religion into the science curriculum. That would allow for discussion of science's strengths and limitations, and illustrate the importance of social context in science.

A headmaster in Bolton has come out in support for the teaching of intelligent design in the science classroom, the Bolton News reports.

Philip Williamson of Canon Slade School argues that it is important to present young people with all of the theories alongside each other. "In teaching evolution and scientific theories we put it in the context that they are not fact. They are the models that best fit with the evidence available now. Scientific theories of the past have been superseded by more recent evidence," he said.

In the public discussion initiated by the comments of the Rev. Jan Ainsworth, intelligent design has been mistaken for biblical creationism to some extent. The article in the Bolton News contains examples of this misconception. Intelligent design is in fact a scientific theory based on observation of the natural world.

Canon Slade School, founded in 1855, teaches more than 1700 pupils. It is a Voluntary Aided Church of England School in partnership with Bolton LEA and the Diocese of Manchester. The school is also a DfES Designated Performing Arts College, Leading Edge School and Training School.