Robin McKie's thoughtful comment on the state of science in the media is very apposite ("Science and truth have been cast aside by our desire for controversy", Comment, last week). Currently, the science national curriculum for schools is being reviewed. Michael Gove has called for a return to a more "traditional" curriculum based on facts.  at first sight, this may seem reasonable and could lead to the removal of controversial issues such as climate change and GM foods, but, more importantly, it could lead to the removal of a very positive recent change in the science curriculum that determines how science is taught, ie from the perspective of "how science works", meaning that children should understand the nature of science, the process of science and how scientists get their ideas accepted.  What better reason for teaching children about how scientists arrive at explanations for natural phenomenon than the need to develop a better understanding of the reliability and validity of published science?  The constant yet sometimes irrational drive for "balance", as demonstrated by Professor Steve Jones, has had completely the opposite effect; it has allowed extreme minority views to capture a disproportionate amount of air-time and column inches in the media.  another example to add to those listed is intelligent design creationism, which constantly seeks to invade our curriculum with a demand that untried, untested, unscientific ideas are accorded equal status with the accepted, tested and scientific standpoint of evolution.  James D. Williams  Lecturer in science education, Sussex School of Education and Social Work, University of Sussex  Robin Mckie might call upon the eminent historical figure of Thomas Huxley to support his