Dispelling the myths around health and care research
Health and care research is vital to ensure healthcare constantly improves. If there was no research, there would be no new treatments, no new ways to eliminate pain and suffering, and no new ways to prevent disease.
Health and care research aims to identify answers and find out what the best options are for our health. This helps those within healthcare to make informed decisions about improvements or changes. The goals of health and care research are to:
diagnose diseases earlier or more accurately
provide life-changing treatments
prevent people from developing conditions
improve health and care for generations to come
ensure everyone has a better quality of life
Although health professionals already know a great deal, there are still so many questions that need answers. Sometimes, the outcome of research just confirms that what we have at the moment is the best available to us right now.
Research is only possible if patients and healthy volunteers are willing to take part. Some people may find the idea of taking part in research quite daunting – but it can be incredibly rewarding to be able to contribute to the health of others.
To make a decision about whether to take part in research, you need to have all the facts. Here we look at some of the common myths around health and care research, and the reality behind them.
Taking part in health and care research is dangerous, as it involves new and risky drugs or practices
All health and social care research has to go through very strict ethical and regulatory checks before it can go ahead. Any research carried out in the UK is highly regulated in order to protect participants and to ensure those involved are treated with respect at all times. Some research involves taking a new medicine or having a new form of treatment. Other studies might require something as simple as filling out a questionnaire or leaving a sample. All participants are very closely monitored while they are taking part in research, so although health and care research is not entirely risk-free, the chances of something going wrong are small.
If I take part in health and care research, I won’t get the treatment I need
Caring for you is the priority of any healthcare professional. Your health comes first, so if you decide to take part in research, you will still receive the same standard of care, but if the research involves the testing of a new treatment, you may be given this as well. People who take part in trials often say that they feel very well looked after, as they are usually monitored more closely than would be the case under standard care.
My doctor will know about any health and care research that I could take part in
Not all health and care professionals will necessarily know about all of the research opportunities available to you. However, it’s worth asking them about opportunities to get involved in research since they should know how to find out what might be available. The NIHR website is also a good place to find out about research you could take part in. Use the search bar at the very top of this page to type in your town, postcode, body part, medicine or health condition, to find trials relevant to you. You can also find a condition by pressing the “view conditions” button.
All health and care research takes place in hospitals
Health and care research can take place in many different locations, including schools, GP surgeries or care homes depending on the type of research. It is increasingly common for research to take place outside of hospitals. Advances in digital technology means there are now more ways to get involved in research from the comfort of your own home.
Health and care research is about testing new drugs
Not all health and care research involves taking drugs. Research can also involve testing a new device to help monitor or administer a medicine. Or it might look at whether certain changes in diet and lifestyle could help improve people’s health. Some research might simply involve talking to someone, completing a short questionnaire or even using an app on a mobile device. There are also many different ways to be involved in research without being a participant in a research study
People who take part in health and care research are being used as guinea pigs
Whatever the type of research, anyone who is involved in a study should be treated with respect. The research is not being done ‘to them’: it is being conducted ‘with them’. Those who choose to participate in research often say that they feel well cared for as they have a dedicated contact within the research staff team. Reassuringly, research teams must follow ethical guidance and before the research can take place, they must seek approval for their plan from a Research Ethics Committee. Research that involves new medicines is not tested on people first and it will have gone through a process to ensure it is ready for use with people.
If you agree to be in a trial, you can’t change your mind
It’s always your choice whether to take part in a study and you can always change your mind at any time. Before you make the decision whether to take part or not, the researchers will speak to you about it, to ensure you fully understand what’s involved. Studies can run for several years and it’s only natural that during that time, people’s circumstances may change to make it difficult to continue taking part. That’s why every trial must always allow for participants to change their minds.
Health and care research is about finding cures for diseases
Health and care research looks at how to prevent diseases and improve our quality of life and wellbeing, as well as how to cure diseases. It’s worth knowing that there are a range of factors which can contribute to your health, for example: where you live, what you eat and whether you have a good support network of family and friends. Public health research seeks to answer questions about some of these factors. Additionally, research can lead to improvements in end-of-life care across all diseases and to help patients to live in comfort and die with dignity.
No research is done for mental health, only physical diseases or conditions
It’s well known that people’s health is not limited to physical disease; it includes their mental well-being also. This is why the NIHR funds research looking at both our mental and physical health. For example, this might involve seeing whether medicine, counselling or a combination of both, provides the best treatment for individuals living with depression. Members of the public can have a role in identifying and prioritising where health research is focused. Given increased awareness of the effects our mental health can have on our physical well-being, this is likely to be a growing area of health and social care research. Read about all the research happening within the NIHR specialty for mental health.
Health and care research is only done with adults, not children
Children can take part in health and care research with the permission of their legal guardian. The research team may meet with the child to make sure they understand what the research is about. They may use pictures to explain the study. Children are not ‘small adults’ – so treatments that work on adults can’t always simply be scaled down to work in children. This means research in child health is vital to help find new and better ways to care for children. You can find studies for children by typing “Children” in the search box at the very top of this page.
You won’t be in control of any data that’s collected about you during a health study
When you sign up for a health study, the researchers will provide details of what will happen to the data they collect about you, to ensure you’re happy with that. Data collected during health and care studies is ‘anonymised’ so it is no longer linked to your name, only to details about you such as your age, gender, ethnicity etc. This data would, if the study allows, only then be shared between researchers without any risk to your privacy or confidentiality. The NIHR strongly supports the sharing of data in the most appropriate way as this ensures research can provide the maximum possible benefits to patients and the wider public. All research has to go through ethical approvals, which also cover the use of patient data, and must also comply with the relevant laws and regulations on privacy and confidentiality.
Health and care research only benefits the drug companies
Health research is funded by drug companies, charities and the government, although when the NHS undertakes research specifically for drug companies, the company pays the full cost. Everyone benefits from the development of new medicines, and without commercial drug companies there would be less research taking place.
Last year more than 1.3 million people, of all ages, took part in vital health and social care research. It is through high quality, ethically-approved research, that we can develop better treatments, improve diagnosis, learn more about prevention of illness and provide better care for everyone.
Three ways Leeds has contributed to the global fight against cancer
Today (5 July 2023) marks 75 years of the National Health Service. Treating more than a million people a day in England alone, the NHS ensures treatment isn’t just a privilege for those who can afford it – and that everyone has access to life-saving care.
To celebrate, we’re taking a look at some of the ways scientists at the University of Leeds have directly contributed to the way cancer is treated on the NHS.
Pioneering radiotherapy, a cornerstone of cancer treatment
Today, if you receive radiotherapy at Leeds Cancer Centre, you’re treatment can now be determined using the new MRI simulator – a state-of-the-art machine that can precisely determine the targeting of radiotherapy that uses shaped beams of high-energy radiation, minimising damage to surrounding tissues. “Radiotherapy has evolved dramatically since the early days of the NHS,” says Professor David Sebag-Montefiore, Academic Clinical Oncologist at the University of Leeds. “Thanks to decades of research, today’s radiotherapy is highly sophisticated, highly targeted, and suitable for pretty much everyone who needs it.”
Leeds scientists have played major roles in the development of radiotherapy. While working in Australia in the early 1900s, Leeds physicist William Bragg made an important discovery about how radiation loses energy, which later became crucial in designing treatment strategies for radiotherapy. Bragg and his son Lawrence were later awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery of X-ray crystallography during their time at Leeds. Today this method is invaluable in allowing scientists to study the molecular mechanisms involved in cancer and how new drugs might be developed to stop it.
Later, in 1929, Leeds led a major fundraising campaign to buy large amounts of radium, and in the 1930s, Leeds General Infirmary became the national radium centre, treating around 1000 patients with radium each year.
But at the time, radium was a locally applied treatment and so only suitable for some types of cancer within easy reach. Leeds researchers have since made radiotherapy widely applicable to a range of cancers, by exploring different sources of radiation and delivery techniques to reach tumours deep within the body with less impact on healthy tissues. And through clinical trials, our scientists have established how it should be used in combination with other therapies, like surgery and chemotherapy, for a range of disease types and stages. “It’s incredibly rewarding when your research changes clinical practice, and improves outcomes including quality of life for patients,” reflects Professor Sebag-Montefiore.
We’re also leading trials that suggest radiotherapy can be just as effective at treating some types of cancer as surgery, which takes longer to recover from and can cause life-long side effects. For rectal cancer, for example, this could mean curing patients without the need for major surgery or a colostomy bag. And for early-stage lung cancer, a short, out-patient course of targeted radiotherapy can provide a much-needed alternative to invasive surgery. Since cancer disproportionately impacts people from lower socio-economic backgrounds – who may also be less likely or able to have surgery due to other factors and health conditions – this work is contributing to a nationwide effort to tackle inequalities in healthcare.
Leeds Cancer Centre today serves 2.8 million people from Leeds and the surrounding area, and in 2019 was awarded £3.5m to establish a Centre of Excellence for Radiotherapy Research, with Professor Sebag-Montefiore at the helm. “Our vision is to turn radiotherapy into an even more targeted treatment, using tools like artificial intelligence and treatments like immunotherapy,” he says. “I’m hopeful that in the future – perhaps before the NHS’s 100th anniversary – we’ll be able to cure most people’s cancer with personalised radiotherapy, as an out-patient, in as little as one week.”
The birth of tamoxifen and a new era of chemoprevention
Bringing a drug to patients can be a long and winding road. “Science meanders,” says Dr Kersten Hall, scientific historian and visiting fellow at the University of Leeds. “It goes round corners, up blind alleys, seeks collaboration – and it’s all the more interesting for it.”
This is certainly the case for tamoxifen, a drug which blocks cancer cells from interacting with the hormone oestrogen. Today, it’s hailed as one of the most important drugs in medical oncology and is used around the world to help some people reduce their risk of breast cancer by more than 50%.
But without the perseverance of Leeds and Cheshire scientists across the 1960s and 70s, tamoxifen – then named ICI-46474 – may have been shelved as a failed contraceptive. “Scientists were trying to make an emergency morning-after pill,” explains Dr Hall. “But when testing this compound in people, it actually increased ovulation – the opposite of what you want in that scenario.” Dr Arthur Walpole realised ICI-46474’s anti-cancer potential and, despite significant opposition, pushed for its development; in 1972, renamed tamoxifen, it was approved for treating late-stage breast cancer.
Tamoxifen may have stayed in the world of palliative care, were it not for Professor Craig Jordan, who studied both his undergraduate and PhD in Leeds and, after a brief stint in the US, returned to set up his research group, the ‘Tamoxifen Team’. “In 1972, no one really cared about tamoxifen. People were told not to spend too much time investigating it, as it was not expected to succeed,” Professor Jordan describes. “The Tamoxifen Team was the catalyst that changed the way people thought about the drug.”
Thanks to the team’s discoveries, tamoxifen is now prescribed on the NHS to shrink early-stage breast cancers, control breast cancer that’s spread, and prevent the disease in high-risk individuals. But perhaps most importantly, they sparked a new era in cancer research, with tamoxifen as the world’s first chemo-preventative drug. Later, Professor Jordan would build on this work to discover a new group of hormone therapies called Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs).
“My life’s work researching tamoxifen led me to discover SERMs, now available worldwide to treat multiple diseases in women with a single tablet,” says Professor Jordan, who was awarded an OBE in 2002 for services to international breast cancer research.
“Without my education at Leeds, we wouldn’t have these advances – which have saved the lives of millions and improved the lives of untold numbers around the world.”
Changing lives at the University of Leeds’s Clinical Trials Research Unit
Since its beginnings 31 years ago, the University of Leeds’s Clinical Trials Research Unit has been at the forefront of cancer research.
The centre, which specialises in the design, conduct and analysis of phase I to phase IV national and international clinical trials, is an international leader in the field and among the largest in the UK, influencing national and international clinical practice.
It was founded in 1992 as a small research group led by Professor Julia Brown at the NHS Cookridge Hospital. Joining the University of Leeds 10 years later gave the group the opportunity to expand to a research unit. By 2013 it had become a research institute, which today comprises four divisions with more 200 employees.
In 2018 it was given the opportunity to expand its work even further thanks to a new collaboration with Cancer Research UK. The charity announced funding for eight specialist clinical trials units, one of which would be at the University.
Awarding almost £2m in research funding for five years, Cancer Research UK created the CRUK Leeds Clinical Trials Unit, with a focus on researching and testing better and kinder treatments for patients.
Based at the University of Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, the unit focuses on patients who are treated with radiotherapy or have blood or colorectal cancers, giving them more access to innovative treatments by significantly increasing the number of clinical trials led by Leeds.
The success of the unit has led to a further £2.9 million in infrastructure funding being allocated in 2023, meaning its vital work will continue for a further five years.
Over the decades, research carried out by scientists at the Leeds Clinical Trials Unit has led to changes in the way a range of cancers are treated around the world.
Research in our myeloma portfolio has led to changes in standard of care. In 2003 our research (Myeloma VII) showed treatment with a stem cell transplant was beneficial for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma, while in 2021 data from one of our trials (Myeloma XI) was used to support patients receiving maintenance treatment with a chemotherapy drug called lenalidomide after transplant. This highly effective treatment combination is now used globally. Furthermore, patients with relapsed myeloma can receive a second transplant based on results of our Myeloma X trial (2013). All these treatment advances have been shown to improve life expectancy.
Our MRC CLASICC trial which was set-up in 1996 showed keyhole surgery was a suitable option for colorectal cancer and improved recovery times after surgery. Keyhole surgery is now used globally to treat colon and rectal cancer.
And research into oesophageal cancer for older patients (GO-2 – 2018) showed they could safely receive lower doses of chemotherapy, leading to fewer side effects and the same cancer outcomes. This has been accepted as standard of care by the NHS, improving outcomes for more frail patients who may not have been able to tolerate higher doses of chemotherapy.
Looking forward, the Leeds Clinical Trials Unit will continue focus on radiotherapy and cancers of the blood, as well as bowel cancer.
Professor Julia Brown, Director of the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit, said: “Our motivation at Leeds has always been to improve cancer survival rates. For decades, many dedicated researchers and clinicians working here have made an incredible contribution to the global fight against cancer.
“As our trials are delivered through the NHS, this means that patients across the country can benefit from new and innovative treatments, regardless of their personal circumstances. We are committed to tackling inequalities in cancer care, providing kinder, smarter treatments for cancer patients that help them live a better quality of life during and beyond their cancer journey.
“Discoveries and developments at Leeds have helped to save lives across our city, our region and indeed the world. Working alongside the NHS, we will continue in our mission to find treatments for cancer that change people’s lives.”
Covid-fighting llamas at the Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition
The Rosalind Franklin Institute and University of Reading have worked together to create an interactive exhibition about their research on Covid-19 treatments for the Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition in London.
Bringing together expertise and technical support from the Universities of Oxford and Reading, the Franklin’s Protein Production UK programme uses new technologies – with the help of llamas – to create nanobodies that could one day be used as drugs to treat Covid-19.
Nanobodies with special binding abilities
Nanobodies are tiny antibodies that bind with proteins on the outside of a virus, blocking normal virus processes and helping the body to fight disease. They can only be created using antibodies found in the blood of llamas and other camelids. This is because llamas produce unique, heavy-chain only antibodies not found in other mammals.
Research into nanobodies could lead to an exciting new range of highly effective drugs against rare or difficult-to-treat diseases like Covid-19. Their small size means they can squeeze into parts of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that other antibodies cannot reach.
Professor Ray Owens, who leads the Nanobody Discovery programme at the Franklin, said: “The spike protein found on the outside of coronavirus is one of the best targets for Covid-19 drug treatments. If we can create a drug that recognises the spike protein and then binds to it, it will prevent the virus from getting inside cells and reproducing. Nanobodies are unique because of the way they bind to the spike protein with such a high affinity. Our research looks to develop nanobodies as potential drugs.”
Working with the University of Reading’s Centre for Dairy Research (CEDAR), Professor Owens’ team vaccinate CEDAR’s llamas with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The llama’s unique antibodies are then collected through a small blood sample and taken back to the Franklin. Here, the genetic code of the nanobodies is isolated and amplified.
The researchers then produce nanobodies in the laboratory, which are trialled in an animal model as possible drugs against Covid-19. Since nanobodies show promise against other diseases, it is hoped that the Franklin’s Covid-19 nanobodies could eventually be used in human clinical trials.
Explaining how Fifi the llama fights viruses
In Summer 2022, Professor Owens’ nanobody research was transformed into a series of engaging activities for the Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition. The exhibition is an annual event in Central London with experiences for anyone curious about advances in science and technology.
Once their application was approved, the Franklin’s communications team swung into action with colleagues at the University of Reading to create a series of fun, informative activities for different ages.
The exhibition focused on Fifi, one of Reading’s llamas used in the research. Alongside a life-size cardboard Fifi sporting her pink bandana, the team developed a Velcro model of a cell, which visitors could throw mini viruses at. To illustrate how an antibody can catch a virus to stop it from grabbing onto cells, they attached a piece of felt in front of the target, to prevent it from sticking.
To aid conversations about how molecules bind and interact, the team used a 3D scale model of the spike protein and a nanobody.
“Given the complexity of the research, we wanted to make the story behind our work with llamas really accessible,” said Professor Owens. “We also recruited everyone who has been involved in the project to deliver the different activities. Luckily for us, there is quite a high level of knowledge and acceptance in the public about vaccination, so scientific concepts that would have been challenging for people to understand a few years ago were easier to talk about.”
A valuable experience
For the University of Reading team, talking about their llama research with the public was something they were well prepared for, having recently won two Understanding Animals in Research Openness Awards.
“We were thrilled to contribute our experiences of communicating this research with the public,” said Professor Gary Stephens, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Reading. “Public engagement is always valuable, and a huge part of our job is to explain research in ways people can understand. It was a great opportunity to work with the Franklin team to deliver a creative project like this, and then to later use these activities as part of our own public engagement activities with Reading residents.”
Overall, 5,700 people visited the Royal Society’s exhibition in Central London, with 33 school groups taking part in the science careers session.
While the researchers had planned for a range of different questions, there was one they did not have an answer for!
“The main question we were asked was ‘why llamas?’” said Professor Owens. “To be honest, nobody understands why llamas and other camelids produce this distinct type of antibody; it’s just very special and unique to llamas, perhaps due to the harsh environments they are native to. Since nanobodies could one day treat a range of different diseases, working with llamas and then talking about that work openly and creatively is a really rewarding experience for me as a researcher.”
Image below: Professor Ray Owens
Revolutionising education with digital experiences
Digital models developed by the University of Leeds School of Dentistry are helping to train dentistry students around the world.
Borne out of flight simulation technology, the School’s SimToCare simulators allow students to safely develop the fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination required for drilling teeth before they see a real patient. These are ‘haptic’ machines – meaning they simulate tactile feedback through a dental handpiece.
The University has steered the enhancement of haptics for dental education through a University-Industry partnership led by Professor Andrew Keeling in the Department of Restorative Dentistry. “Haptics brings the ability to digitally teach our students how to respond by touch to dental decay,” says Professor Keeling. “The beauty of this simulator means we can front-load our students from year one with the correct clinical technique in a safe environment. This ensures they learn a disease-led approach to dental cavity design.”
Having initially purchased early forms of haptic simulators, Professor Keeling’s team could see the technology’s software fell short of addressing the real challenges faced by students. They set to work improving the simulators by scanning and digitising real teeth and developing software to seed their digital teeth with dental decay.
The Leeds digital models are now used by dental schools globally. Development continues, and the School has led the field in creating custom haptic training based on individual patients’ dental models. This will enable students to scan a patient and rehearse complex procedures such as crowns.
“Learning technologies are most useful when they can solve real problems,” says Professor Keeling. “To advance clinical skills training in a meaningful way, we needed to invest in the right expertise and equipment. This now gives us real opportunities to shift the pedagogy around dental education worldwide.”
A virtual reality journey through the inner workings of a histopathology lab
For undergraduate medical students, gaining first-hand access to experiences from across the spectrum of healthcare specialities is a crucial element of their education. However, exposing large numbers of students to clinically sensitive areas, such as histopathology laboratories, is challenging for educators due to patient confidentiality, infection control and work-day disruption.
The University of Leeds’ award-winning Virtual Histopathology project provides a solution. Through virtual reality headsets, students can navigate a bustling NHS histopathology laboratory, watch patient samples undergoing investigation, read clickable information boxes, and listen to experts shedding light on the diagnostic techniques and processes used.
“Alongside the learning opportunities afforded by an in-person visit, we wanted to provide our students with an interactive, immersive experience that could demystify their perceptions of pathology as a career,” says Dr Suzanne Bickerdike, Digital Education Manager and creator of the project. “Every feature we introduced adds value to the learner experience, while still providing the students with an opportunity to experience as much of the laboratory environment as possible.”
Virtual histopathology teaching has been delivered over three years at the Leeds Medical School. It can be accessed by large cohorts at low cost, with evaluations showing it reduces teaching load and generates positive feedback from students.
“The Virtual Histopathology project gives a parity of experience for all our students and delivers a greater understanding of the processes, the people, and the challenges of working in histopathology,” says Kate Nicolson, Digital Education Manager for Enhancement, who is now using the project as an exemplar to inspire transformation in other areas of education. “We’ve seen what we can achieve when we get the content, technology and delivery right. We’re now looking to apply this innovative learning experience to other difficult-to-access settings and medical specialities.”
Tackling digital inequalities in communities with the greatest need
University of Leeds researchers are also exploring how digital learning technologies can boost digital literacy and bridge the digital skills gap.
The Digital Makers project, led by the Centre for Applied Education Research based at the Wolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, sets out to equip the next generation of Bradford’s school leavers for an increasingly digital future. It is the first project of its kind to utilise place-based analyses of data collected from 13,500 participants enrolled in the internationally renowned Born in Bradford study, applying it to target co-produced digital skills programmes in communities with the greatest need.
“We know that digital skills can improve socioeconomic prospects, and this can have consequences for physical and mental health,” says Dr Faisal Mushtaq, Director of the University’s Centre for Immersive Technologies and a Cognitive Neuroscientist in the School of Psychology. “Using rich data sources from the Born in Bradford study, our approach looks to establish what works, where, and who for in digital skills development, while at the same time tackling digital inequalities in Bradford.”
Dr Mushtaq, who grew up in Bradford, is part of a multidisciplinary team at the University working with the Bradford Institute for Health Research to deliver Digital Makers with Raspberry Pi and other industry partners, schools, policymakers, and cultural organisations. As well as using data to map the factors contributing to digital inequalities, Digital Makers has so far delivered a series of ‘Summer of Tech’ workshops, coding clubs and virtual reality experiences.
“By providing young people with learning experiences in these digital environments, we are preparing them for the sorts of future immersive and spatial technologies they will encounter when they enter the workplace,” says Dr Mushtaq.
The project not only gathers evidence about factors influencing access to digital education, but also informs how digital skills training can be scaled up across the UK. “We’re prioritising sustained engagement with young people across the city, rather than just one-off experiences,” continues Dr Mushtaq. “In the longer term, our goal is to use data from the Born in Bradford cohort to follow the lives of our programme participants over the next decade to understand the long-term impact of this programme, making Digital Makers such a unique and valuable project for Bradford and the wider UK.”
Peas in a pod? How genetics teaching can help reduce inequalities
Belief in stereotypes – oversimplified or outright false ideas about what certain kinds of people are like or capable of – plays into many racial and gender inequalities, and even our prejudices about ourselves. Science education should be an effective means of combatting stereotypes. But what if the standard biology curriculum in fact reinforces acceptance of them, potentially making inequalities harder to eliminate?
This was what Gregory Radick, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds, began to suspect when he delved into the history of genetics.
The rise of Mendelism – and a forgotten critic
Around the world, at every level of education, students learn that an Augustinian monk experimenting with peas in the mid-19th century is the ‘father of genetics’. Gregor Mendel found that after crossing a pea plant from a variety that produced, for example, seeds that were always yellow, with one from a variety that produced seeds that were always green, all of the offspring seeds were yellow. However, in the next generation, green seeds reappeared, at a ratio of one green to three yellow. Mendel coined the terms ‘recessive’ and ‘dominant’ to characterize this difference in behaviour.
Familiar to specialists but otherwise little known, Mendel’s paper on his experiments attracted wider attention only from 1900, long after his death. Within a few years, a steadily growing band of ‘Mendelians’ were building a new science of inheritance – first called ‘Mendelism’ and then ‘genetics’ – which took Mendel’s paper as its starting point. But not everyone was convinced. An especially fierce debate was centred in England, where the new Mendelism found its most energetic champion in the Cambridge-based William Bateson and its most implacable opponent in the Oxford-based W. F. R. Weldon.
In 1902, Weldon published an initial critique including a photograph showing that the seeds of pea plants grown by people other than Mendel were not, as Mendel had claimed, either all-green or all-yellow, but exhibiting colours everywhere on the spectrum between deep green and deep yellow. From 1904, Weldon began work on a book setting his criticisms within a new, comprehensive theory of inheritance.
“What bothered Weldon immensely was the way that Mendelism reinforces the idea that traits are uniform and unchangeable, as if caused by nothing other than inherited factors ‘for’ those traits,” says Professor Radick. “In reality, traits are often influenced and affected by many different factors, which can make them highly variable. It also means that traits aren’t necessarily fixed, but can change as organisms grow and develop.”
“Biologists nowadays take for granted that heredity isn’t destiny, because a given bit of chromosome can have very different effects on a body depending on context. Weldon reminds us that, even at the beginnings of genetics, a well-informed biologist regarded that as fundamental.”
Introducing students to the Weldonian approach
Weldon died unexpectedly in 1906, at the age of 46, with his book unfinished and unpublished. But what if history had taken a different path, and Weldon had lived long enough for the book to come out? Would its ‘context matters’ perspective on heredity have made a difference to what happened afterwards?
Professor Radick decided to find out. A good place to start, he decided, was with the way that introductory genetics is taught. Working with Dr Jenny Lewis, a genetics education expert, and Dr Annie Jamieson, a developmental biologist turned historian of science, he set up a project to devise a Weldonian genetics course which Dr Jamieson then taught to second-year humanities students. Their attitudes to the idea that heredity is destiny – known as “genetic determinism” – were assessed before and after teaching. At the same time, an equal number of first-year biology students taking the standard Mendelian introductory module were assessed in the same way.
The results were previewed in Nature in 2016 and published in 2017. The researchers found that, before teaching, the two groups of students had very similar attitudes to genetic determinism. After the courses, however, there was a marked difference between the two. The students who’d followed the Mendelian course on average showed no change – if anything, they became a little more deterministic about genes. However, the students who’d followed the Weldonian course on average became less deterministic.
Taking the research to the next stage
The study findings have sparked the interest of teachers and researchers internationally. In New Zealand and in Brazil, secondary-school biology teachers have made it the basis for Master’s research in biology education. In the USA, the links between ways of learning genetics, attitudes to stereotypes — whether about peas or people — and motivation to study science are currently under investigation as part of a $1.2 million study funded by the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate STEM Education initiative.
Launched in 2020, the NSF study is co-led by Professor Radick with Dr Brian Donovan, based at BSCS Science Learning in Colorado, and Professor Michelle Smith, a biology education specialist at Cornell University. At the heart of the new study are randomized controlled trials involving over a thousand university students, across the US and beyond, who will undertake self-guided online tutorials on genetics topics presented in either standard or ‘Weldonised’ form.
“For a historian of science, it’s hugely rewarding to see how ideas previously mouldering away in the archive can be brought back to life in such a positive way,” says Professor Radick. “Biology teaching that doesn’t inadvertently bolster student misconceptions about genes can potentially help genetics to become part of the solution to inequality instead of being, as it’s too often been, part of the problem.”
The Leeds curriculum study features prominently in Professor Radick’s new book, Disputed Inheritance: The Battle over Mendel and the Future of Biology, published in 2023 by the University of Chicago Press.
