On the face of it, the new move to include science in the teaching of citizenship in English schools from September this year appears promising. What better way to address the issues of the impact of science on society, and the ability of society to engage better in 'scientific' debate, than to catch your citizens young?

But this approach has its weaknesses (see page 5), which threaten its chances of hitting the target. First, and probably crucially, the new focus on citizenship — into which science seems to have been squeezed as an afterthought — comes with no additional resources of time or money for teachers. Educational researchers, head teachers and pupils will draw their own conclusions about the real importance of citizenship education in the government's eyes.

Second, there are questions over how well specialist teachers of science will be able to initiate and manage classroom discussion with little or no formal training in these skills. Good teachers already introduce discussion into their lessons — but it will strike many science teachers in England as ironic that, a decade or so into the restrictive autocracy of the national curriculum, they are now expected to be more flexible and free-thinking.

Many students are drawn to science by its logic and the sense that a definitive approach can be found to complicated questions. But schoolchildren also relish an argument. Indeed, they are notorious activists on some issues — the environment was discussed in classrooms long before mainstream politicians and oil companies discovered it. We should not underestimate the eagerness and ability of pupils to address seemingly remote and complex social issues while learning the hard scientific facts about cloning, food production and genetic testing.

Much of the citizenship agenda seems intended to address a growing reluctance among young people in Britain to participate in politics. Politicians like to label this as apathy, but many non-voters argue that they are making a deliberate choice not to take part in what they see as a remote process with little bearing on their everyday lives. Including the ethics of science in formal attempts to redress this could risk alienation by association. One science teacher with 20 years' experience said: “I've been including discussions like this in lessons for years, but I'd never tell the kids it was citizenship.”

Those behind the new initiative stress its “light touch” and its “flexibility”, meaning that it can be jemmied into existing lessons when teachers find the opportunity or time. Inevitably, some will try harder than others. But a way of introducing lively and relevant discussion into all science lessons already exists — and not as an afterthought. Science teachers should be given the training and the time to include it as a matter of course. Educationalists should listen to teachers and loosen the shackles of the national curriculum.