Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjbe20

Research in primary science education

Wynne Harle

To cite this article: Wynne Harle (2001) Research in primary science education, Journal of
Biological Education, 35:2, 61-65, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2000.9655743
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655743

Published online: 02 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2849

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
 Review
Research in primary science
education
Wynne Harlen
Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK

In this brief review the focus is primarily upon what research has revealed about children's learning in science,
and how this is reflected in approaches to teaching. It is possible to give only a glimpse of the extensive
research into young children's ideas and to state some of the conclusions arising from it. The aspects of
teaching considered are those that are significant in taking account of children's ideas and development:
children's and teachers' questions; the role of 'hands on' investigations; and teachers' own understanding in
science. Finally there is a preview of areas in which research is only just beginning — into the role of
computers, the potential for cognitive acceleration and the implementation of formative assessment.
Key words: Primary school education, Science, Teaching, Learning.

Introduction children. Researchers in New Zealand were among those fore­

Apart from Piaget's studies of children's understanding of most in the field, and the work of the Learning in Science
scientific phenomena, research relating to teaching and learning Project (Primary), at the University of Waikato, reported on a
science at the primary school level dates from the mid 1960s. At range of ideas — about plants, animals, forces and motion, light,
that time there was a burgeoning of curriculum development and electric circuits (Freyberg et al., 1983). The New Zealand
projects, at first in the UK, USA, and Africa, followed closely by researchers collected evidence from children by interview, in
programmes in Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Sri Lanka, some cases followed up using written questions to survey a
Indonesia, for example (UNESCO, 1983). Although Piaget was larger number of children. In England, the Science Processes
concerned with development rather than learning, several of the and Concepts Exploration (SPACE) project, begun in 1987 and
early projects took account of his findings, despite the fact that continued until 1993, studied concepts across the full range
these did not indicate how children can think and understand now included in the National Curriculum. For each conceptual
given effective instruction (Metz, 1998). It was natural at that area studied in the SPACE project, evidence was collected in
time, when science was new to most primary schools to ask the several classrooms during a period (usually of about two weeks,
question: is teaching science at the primary level worthwhile in but longer for some topics) when children were exploring mate­
terms of impact on pupils' later scientific understanding? rials and activities set up for them to use without direct teach­
However, it was soon realised that this is an unanswerable ques­ ing. These activities ensured that the children's ideas were
tion, for a number of reasons. So much depends on what and how focused by relevant experience and that they were not asked to
science is taught at the primary level and on the children's subse­ respond at short notice to novel experiences (e.g. Russell and
quent experience of science teaching at the secondary level; stud­ Watt, 1990). During this free exploration time, researchers and
ies having the necessary controls were never carried out. Now collaborating teachers engaged children in individual discussion,
that science is taught at the primary level in all countries, and is a or in writing or drawing, about their ideas in response to open
statutory requirement in many, interest has moved to how, rather questions designed to probe their understanding. Results from
then whether, it should be implemented. Research into children's these two extensive research projects, in England and New
learning has provided some of the strongest arguments for includ­ Zealand, were remarkably consistent with each other and with
ing science in the primary curriculum. In particular, the recogni­ other later studies conducted in countries across the world.
tion that children form ideas of their own in these early years and Some ideas of the younger children reflected those held by older
that these can interfere with later science learning (Driver, 1983; students, indicating their origin in early experiences and ways of
Osborne and Freyberg, 1985) means that primary science offers thinking.
the potential for addressing and modifying some of these ideas Some examples of ideas about living things illustrate several
before children reach the secondary school. features of children's thinking at the primary school stage. The
SPACE research collected children's ideas about the germina­
tion and growth of bean seeds and about the development of
Children's ideas of scientific phenomena the embryo inside an egg (Russell and Watt, 1990). In the case
The interest in secondary students' ideas in science in the 1970s, of the bean seeds a typical answer to 'where do you think the
was extended in the early 1980s to the ideas of younger leaves have come from?' was

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 35(2) 61

( ) Primary science education Harlen

'Out of the bean — they were inside the broad bean. We year olds, despite 'considerable exposure to science teaching'
didn't see them when they were inside. They were curled (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). A study of children's ideas about
inside.' animals by the same researchers found that:

The researchers found that all but one or two of the older 'Many of the pupils considered only the larger animals, such
children had little idea that plants grow by incorporating as those found on a farm, in a zoo, or in a home as pets, as
material from their environment; they thought that the plant animals. Reasons for categorising something as an animal, or
material came only from the bean or seed. The researchers also not doing so, included the number of legs (animals are
asked children the question 'When do you think the plant expected to have four), size (animals are bigger than insects),
grows?' Although, a rising proportion with increasing age of habitat (animals are found on land), coating (animals have
children answered that growth is continuous, only half of the fur), and noise production (animals make a noise).' (Osborne
older age group (182 children) gave this answer. For the older and Freyberg, 1985)
age group ( 9 - 1 1 year olds) other answers were equally divided
between 'during the day' and 'during the night'. Over all the age In relation to ideas about sight, there is extensive evidence
groups, the notion that growth occurred only during the night that the non-scientific view of the eye as an active agent in
was a popular one. The researcher commented that seeing is present from an early age (Harlen, 2000a; Osborne et
ai, 1990). It is not difficult to suppose that this idea, repre­
'The idea of things growing at night or in pupils' absence sented in Figure 2, is based on the children's subjective experi­
seems to emerge from a line of reasoning which runs "It's ence of 'looking'. When we choose to look at something we do
grown. I didn't see it growing. It must have grown when I feel our eyes turn as if we are the active agent in the process, and
wasn't there or wasn't looking". The idea of plants or animals the arrow from the receiver to the object does represent the line
growing at night was also encountered in children's descrip­ of sight.
tions of their own growth.' (Russell and Watt, 1990)

In the case of the hen's eggs that were incubated in some

classrooms during the research, the idea most commonly held
was that there was a miniature chick inside the egg, feeding on
food and breathing air. Evidently, whilst most children are likely
to have seen the inside of an egg when raw or cooked, those who
held the view represented in Figure 1 appeared not to have
made a link between the egg in the incubator and the egg in the
kitchen.

Figure 2 The non-scientific view of the eye as an active agent in seeing is

present from an early age (Osborne et al, 1990).

This element of reasonableness is found across a range of

scientific phenomena. It is evident that the children's ideas are
based on reasoning; that is, they have a reason that makes sense
to them. But their reasons are based on their limited experience
and the prevalence of thinking in terms of concrete, observable
evidence rather than of abstractions and mental models. Primary
age children tend to pay attention to what they perceive
through their senses rather than a logic which may suggest a
different interpretation (for example, of why the sun appears to
move and follow them as they move from place to place). They
may focus on one feature as the cause for a particular effect
Figure 1 A miniature chick inside an egg, feeding on food and breathing air rather than identifying several factors that may be relevant.
(from Russell and Watt, 1990). They also pick up words without a grasp of their broad mean­
ing which is not just a matter of labelling, but has conceptual
Osborne and Freyberg (1985) reported New Zealand data implications.
about children's ideas of what is meant by a plant. About half
of a sample of 207 children aged 8 and 9 thought that a tree is Promoting learning in science at the
a plant only when small; when it has grown it is a tree, not a primary level
plant. In addition, a similar proportion did not consider a carrot Research of this kind, that can only be hinted at here, supports a
or cabbage to be plants; they were vegetables. Seeds were not view of learning in which the learner is active in creating under­
considered to be plant material even by a high proportion of 15 standing through testing ideas against new evidence and infor-

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 35(2)

 Primary science education Harlen

mation from a range of sources and social interactions. There is, Primary teachers' own understanding has, indeed, been the
though, less consensus on how to promote learning and there is subject of a number of studies since 1990 [e.g. Boyes and
no convincing research to show that one approach is more effec­ Stanisstreet, 1993; Kruger et al, 1990; Smith and Peacock,
tive in leading to long-term conceptual development than 1992; Summers and Kruger, 1992, 1993; Webb, 1992).
another. However, research does indicate the components of Although there were some before that time indicating low
effective teaching and therefore what needs to be done to levels of confidence and knowledge in science (e.g. Whittaker,
improve primary science education. Significant aspects are con­ 1980; Wragg et ai, 1989) and warnings from HMI of the
cerned with teachers' and children's questions, with providing problems it causes (DES, 1978; SED, 1980). Research in many
access to other ideas, and with teachers' understanding of the Western countries has found that many primary teachers hold
subject-matter, which has implications for teachers' planning scientific concepts that are at best incomplete and, in some
and the provision of feedback on learning to children. cases, show the same misconceptions as found in many
In order to help children to change their ideas to form more secondary school students. This is not surprising given the fact
scientific ones, teachers need to gather information about the that many primary teachers have encountered little science
children's existing ideas. For this it is necessary to use open and education since their own early secondary school education.
person-centred questions, that is, questions that invite children This situation will presumably now change in England for new
to say what they think, not to guess the 'right' answer [Harlen, entrants to teaching, as a consequence of the introduction of the
2000b). However, research shows that questions requiring recall Initial Teacher Training Agency National Curriculum for
of factual information dominate in classroom practice. For Primary Science (DfEE, 1998). However, many primary
example, Stiggins et al. [1989) found this to be the case for teachers continue with low levels of confidence and background
teachers at all levels including those who had been trained to knowledge. Research in England and Scotland (Harlen et ai,
teach higher level thinking skills. In science lessons, 65% of 1995; Osborne and Simon, 1996) showed that these teachers
question asked for recall and there were only 17% requiring adopt coping strategies which include:
inferential or deductive reasoning. In primary classrooms in • Teaching as little as possible of the subject.
England, Galton et al. [1980) found that only 5% of teachers' • Keeping to topics where their confidence was greater —
question could be categorised as 'open' whilst 22% were closed usually meaning more biology than physical science.
and 30% required recall of specific facts. • Focusing on process outcomes at the expense of conceptual
Children's questions are an important indication of their development outcomes.
thinking [Jelly, 1985; Watts et al., 1997). For this reason alone • Relying on a book, or prescriptive work cards which give
teachers are advised to encourage children to ask questions. pupils step-by-step instructions.
Additional value comes from research by King, cited by Black • Emphasising expository teaching and underplaying question­
and Wiliam [1988), in which 5th grade children were trained to ing and discussion.
ask and answer questions in pairs. Those who asked process- • Avoiding all but the simplest practical work and any equip­
based questions [e.g. 'what would happen if..?') achieved higher ment that could go wrong.
scores on a post-test of written problems than children who did • Closing down discussion in areas of uncertain background
not ask questions or asked non-process-based questions. From knowledge.
this and other research, Black and Wiliam concluded that there (Adapted from Harlen et ai, 1995)
is evidence of strong effects of question generation on achieve­
ment. Sadly, one of the observed characteristics of science Osborne and Simon's (1996) careful observations in class­
teaching by primary teachers with low confidence and poor rooms and interviews with children and teachers showed how
background knowledge in science is to adopt teaching strategies understanding was influenced by the teacher's ability to
that restrict rather than encourage children's questions. question and respond to the children's questions. This is
Researchers and science educators differ in the interpretation particularly important given that one of the characteristics of
of young children's thinking as being limited by immature young children's thinking is to hold on to existing ideas, even
enquiry skills as well as by lack of relevant knowledge, or mainly though inadequate, until they have an alternative idea that
by knowledge alone. For example, Goswami and Brown [1989) makes sense to them. Osborne and Simon also noted how
suggested that children of pre-school age can reason as well as teachers' background knowledge was reflected in their ability to
adolescents when they have the requisite domain-specific know­ identify the important ideas for children to develop from their
ledge. However, White [1993) and Adey and Shayer [1993) have activities. This relates to effective planning, which also emerged
shown that programmes designed to develop enquiry skills lead as an important theme from the study of Australian primary
to improved conceptual understanding. On balance it seems that teachers by Tobin and Garnett (1988). They found evidence of
both attention to processes and to extending experience is neces­ lack of planning beforehand of what the children were to learn,
sary at the primary level. But whilst young children need to be which not only left the teachers' interventions unguided, but
able to act on things, to explore, manipulate, describe, and sort made it unlikely that the children would have any idea of the
them, older primary school children can think through actions, aims of their work and so could not direct their own learning.
use mental processing, and are not so dependent on being able to Palmer's (1997) analysis of teachers' planning shows that this
manipulate things physically. Exposure to alternative ideas — focuses on what the children will do and not what they will
from secondary sources, from other children, and from the learn nor on how the teacher will facilitate children's learning.
teacher — becomes important for their learning. However,
research shows that these opportunities are often limited by the New foci for research
uncertain knowledge of primary teachers. With the guidance of research findings, such as those

Journal of Biological Education (2001) 35(2) 63

 Primary science education Harlen

mentioned, focused help can be provided t h r o u g h professional shown to be effective at t h e secondary level. T h e Cognitive
development. T h e r e is also m u c h k n o w n about t h e pivotal Acceleration t h r o u g h Science Education (CASE) project (Adey
aspects of teaching t h a t will help children to develop their skills and Shayer, 1993) has demonstrated long-term effects in raising
and understanding. H o w these findings are best c o m m u n i c a t e d achievement in m a t h e m a t i c s and English as well as in science.
is also t h e subject of research, which space does not allow to be T h e interventions w e r e t i m e d and focused to encourage t h e
covered here. Instead this final section looks briefly at t h e impli­ transition from concrete operational thinking to formal opera­
cations for primary science of research into t h e use of com­ tion thinking. T h e same approach is n o w being piloted with
puters, t h e application of cognitive acceleration, and t h e children aged 5 to 7 years, aimed at accelerating t h e transition
evidence of t h e effectiveness of formative assessment. from pre-operational to operation thinking. As in t h e original
Currently c o m p u t e r s are used in primary science for data­ CASE project, teachers have to be trained in using t h e activities
logging, graphing, creating and using databases, accessing infor­ and in h o w to challenge children to explain their ideas, to ask
mation from t h e internet, C D - R o m s , or from an intranet questions and discuss different ways of using t h e materials
(Diffey, 1997), and w o r d processing. C o m p u t e r s have n o t been (Robertson, in press). An i m p o r t a n t area of future research will
as rapidly assimilated into science teaching in t h e primary be to follow t h e i m p a c t on children's growing understanding
school as their use in other subjects and in secondary school b o t h in t h e short-term and longer-term, and in science and other
science m i g h t suggest is possible. T h e combination of t w o areas subjects.
— I C T and science — w h e r e t h e r e is a high incidence of low T h e r e are also implications for teaching in all curriculum
confidence is t h e m o s t likely reason. Large scale research into areas in t h e evidence revealed by Black and Wiliam (1998) in
t h e use of c o m p u t e r s in learning science has b e e n almost their review of research in formative assessment. Assessment
entirely restricted to secondary school science, b u t small scale t h a t has a formative effect on teaching and learning involves
studies have indicated t h e considerable potential for I C T having gathering information about children's on-going development of
a positive impact on primary children's learning. Clough (1987) ideas and skills and using this in modifying activities and t h e
showed h o w w o r d processing encouraged children to plan and teacher's interventions to m e e t t h e children's needs. This is cen­
to m a k e notes during investigations. B a u m e and Gill (1995) tral to any teaching strategy t h a t aims to take account of and
described t h e reactions of children w h o used t e m p e r a t u r e and build u p o n children's existing learning. However, its implica­
light probes and portable c o m p u t e r s in taking m e a s u r e m e n t s in tions go further, requiring t h e involvement of children in t h e
a woodland c o m p a r e d w i t h others w h o only used conventional process of assessing their own learning and progress. Research
instruments. T h e y reported t h a t evidence (reviewed by Thomas, 1993) indicates that t h e more
children are involved in knowing w h a t they should be trying to
' W i t h o u t any prompting, t h e children c o m m e n t e d on w h a t do, t h e m o r e likely it is t h a t their motivation and effort are
appeared on t h e screen and i m m e d i a t e l y began asking enlisted. Ways of doing this are being developed through action
questions such as, " W h a t w o u l d h a p p e n if?". T h e emphasis research in England and t h e US, b u t before this pupil involve­
changed from collecting data to working in t h e field, m e n t can h a p p e n in t h e context of primary science, teachers
analysing, predicting, moving probes, and testing w h a t w e need to be clear themselves of t h e goals of learning, which, as
had discussed. D y n a m i c t h o u g h t and action had replaced has been seen, is often n o t t h e case.
m u n d a n e recording.'
(Baume and Gill, 1995) References
Adey P and Shayer M (1993) An exploration of long-term far-transfer
effects following an extended intervention programme in the high-
Warwick and MacFarlane (1995) reported similar reactions
school science curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 1 1 , 1 - 29.
w h e n they c o m p a r e d four classes — t w o using t e m p e r a t u r e Baume J and Gill D (1995) IT puts the children in charge. Primary
probes and c o m p u t e r generated graphs to investigate t h e Science Review, 40, 14 - 16.
cooling of water and t w o using t h e r m o m e t e r s and drawing Black P 1 and Wiliam D (1988) Assessment and classroom learning.
graphs by hand. T h e I C T helped children to work in a genuinely Assessment in Education, 5, 7 - 74.
Boyes E and Stanisstreet M (1993) The 'Greenhouse Effect': children's
investigative way and i m p r o v e d their ability t o m a n i p u l a t e
perceptions of causes, consequences and cures. International Journal of
variables and understand t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e m . Govier Science Education, 15, 531 - 552.
(1995) reported h o w using a C D - R o m enabled children to test Clough D (1987) Word processing in the classroom and science educa­
hypotheses about t h e position of t h e eyes of various animals tion. Primary Science Review, 5, 5.
according to predator-prey relationships. Cox M (2000) Information and communication technologies: their role
and value for science education. In Monk M and Osborne 1 (Eds)
A m o n g t h e m a n y questions remaining to be studied are those
Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say.
relating to t h e teacher's role in using I C T in science. As C o x Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
(2000) reports, m a n y teachers regard their role w h e n using I C T DES (Department of Education and Science) (1978) Primary Education
as one of manager and facilitator, b u t this may m e a n t h a t pupils in England. A Survey by HM Inspectors of Schools. London, UK:
do not receive sufficient guidance. T h e r e is evidently a balance HMSO.
DfEE (1998) Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for Primary
to be struck that allows children to test their o w n ideas and at
Science (Annex E of DfEE Circular 4/98).
t h e same t i m e to have enough s u p p o r t to do this effectively.
Diffey I (1997) The use of an intranet in school science, School Science
This p r o b l e m is central t o all teaching, b u t is highlighted by t h e Review, 79, 28.
introduction of w h a t Edwards (1990) called t h e 'third person' Driver R (1983) The Pupil as Scientist? Milton Keynes, UK: Open
in t h e teacher-pupil relationship. University Press.
Edwards A (1990) The Computer: A Modem Aid to Reading. Developing
T h e acceleration of d e v e l o p m e n t in children's thinking
Pupil Autonomy in Learning with Microcomputers Teachers; Voices, 3.
t h r o u g h involvement in 'thinking science' lessons has been Coventry, UK: National Council for Educational Technology.

64 Journal of Biological Education (2001) 35(2)

 Q Primary science education Harlen

Freyberg P, Osborne R, and Tasker R (1983) The Learning in Science Primary 4 and Primary 7. Edinburgh, UK: HMSO.
Project. In Harlen W (Ed) New Trends in Primary School Science Smith R and Peacock G (1992) Tackling contradictions in teachers'
Education. Paris, France: UNESCO. understanding of gravity and air resistance. In Newton L (Ed) Primary
Galton M J, Simon B and Croll P (1980) Inside the Primary Classroom. Science: The Challenges of the 1990s. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
London, UK: Routledge. Matters.
Goswami U and Brown A L (1989) Melting chocolate and melting Stiggins R J, Griswold M M, and Wikelund K R (1989) Measuring
snowmen: analogical reasoning and causal relations. Cognition, 35, thinking skills through classroom assessment. Journal of Educational
69-95. Measurement, 26, 233 - 246.
Govier H (1995) Making sense of information handling. Primary Science Summers M and Kruger C (1992) Research into English teachers'
Review, 40, 1 6 - 1 8 . understanding of the concept of energy. Evaluation and Research in
Harlen W (2000a) Teaching, Learning and Assessing Science 5 - 12. Education, 6, 95 - 11 1.
London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing (Sage). Summers M and Kruger C (1993) A longitudinal Study of Primary School
Harlen W (2000b) The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools. London, Teachers' Understanding of Force and Energy. Working Paper 18: PSTS
UK: David Fulton Publishers. project. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Department of Educational
Harlen W, Holroyd C, and Byrne M (1995) Confidence and Studies and Westminster College.
Understanding in Teaching Science and Technology in Primary Schools. Tobin K and Garnett P (1988) Exemplary practice in science class­
Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education. rooms. Science Education, 72, 197 - 208.
Jelly S J (1985) Helping children to raise questions — and answering UNESCO (1983) New Trends in Primary School Science Education. Paris,
them. In Harlen W (Ed) Primary Science: Taking the Plunge. London, France: UNESCO.
UK: Heinemann Educational Books. Thomas W J (1993) Promoting independent learning in the middle
Kruger C, Palacio D, and Summers M (1990) A survey of primary grades — the role of instructional support practices. Elementary School
school teachers' conceptions of force and motion. Educational Journal, 93, 5 7 5 - 5 9 1 .
Research, 32, 83 - 95. Warwick P and McFarlane A (1995) IT in primary investigations.
Metz K A (1998) Scientific inquiry within reach of young children. In Primary Science Review, 38, 22 - 25.
Fraser BJ and Tobin K J (Eds) International Handbook of Science Watts M, Gould G, and Alsop S (1997) Questions of understanding:
Education. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic categorising pupils' questions in science. School Science Review, 79,
Publishers. 57-63.
Palmer D (1997) Linking theory and practice: a strategy for presenting Webb P (1992) Primary science teachers' understandings of electric cur­
primary science activities. School Science Review, 79, 73 - 80. rent. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 423 - 429.
Osborne J, Black P, Smith M, and Meadows J (1990) SPACE Research Whittaker M (1980) They're only playing: the problem of primary sci­
Report: Light. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press. ence. School Science Review, 61, 566 - 650.
Osborne J and Simon S (1996) Primary science: past and future direc­ White B Y (1993) Thinker tools: causal models, conceptual change and
tions. Studies in Science Education, 26, 99 - 147. science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1 - 100.
Osborne R J and Freyberg P (1985) Learning in Science: The implications Wragg E C, Bennett S N, and Carré C G (1989) Primary Teachers and
of 'Children's Science'. New Zealand: Heinemann. the National Curriculum. Research Papers in Education, 4, 1 7 - 3 7 .
Robertson A (in press) CASE is when we learn to think. Primary Science
Review. Wynne Harlen is a Visiting Professor in the Graduate School of
Russell T and Watt D (1990) SPACE Research Report: Growth. Education, University of Bristol, 35 Berkeley Square, Bristol BS8 1JA.
Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press. Email: [email protected]
SED (Scottish Education Department) (1980) Learning and Teaching in

The Institute of Biology is:

Vibrant Interactive
We have more than 2500 student members, and The Institute has an excellent website, providing
attract over 1000 new members every year. members with job adverts, online journal access,
interactive discussions, vital links and a range of INSTITUTE
Proactive information and education resources. OF BIOLOGY
We work to identify issues t h a t will be tomorrow's
hot topics. We host meetings, prepare fact packs Colourful 20 Queensberry Place
and disseminate information on these issues to the Biologist, the Institute's journal, is a bright and London SW7 2DZ
wider public. lively publication covering the rich variety that our
subject has to offer. It is unrivalled as a general Tel: 020 7581 8333
Influential review journal and is uncompromising in its drive Fax: 020 7823 9409
We respond to over 30 requests from parliament on for clarity, accessibility and scientific excellence. Email: [email protected]
science policy and education each year. Our advice
is trusted and often reflected in white papers. The Voice of British Biology
These are only a few of the benefits that
Supportive membership can bring.
The Institute head office is here to help. We offer For your free sample copy of Biologist and our
careers advice, discounts on vital publications and information pack simply complete and return
access to a network of professional biologists. the form below.

I want my free copy of Biologist and your information pack.