A remarkable thing happened on 6Music last month. On Friday 20th February presenter Shaun Keaveny introduced a special guest, Professor Brian Cox, and the two proceeded to discuss fundamental physics research at length. Minutes later Karl Pilkington shared his own thoughts on the subject, and “time could have been invented a bit better” was not among them. Keaveny lamented to Professor Cox about how dry school lessons had put him off studying the subject further. Nobody told him he’d eventually get to the Big Bangs and Higgs bosons.

If a spot of breakfast show particle physics is uncommon, Keaveny’s own experience of physics education is not. His sentiments were echoed by class 8XS at Woodchurch High just before they were invited to witness some big bangs of a different kind. The 13-year-old pupils are the stars of BBC2’s new reality series Rocket Science, along with award-winning secondary school teacher Andy Smith. Mr Smith has been sent to find out why not a single one of them wants to work in science when they grow up, and then persuade them it would be a lot more satisfying than a career as a WAG. Somewhat bravely, he has set them the task of designing and producing their own fireworks. Over a Rubens’ tube he challenged them to name “one human being who doesn’t like fire”, and by the end of the first show he had made his point, with the teasers for next week’s programme showing pupils working hard on some extra-curricular pyrotechnics.

All very heart-warming stuff that will hopefully come to a happier conclusion than Jimmy McGovern’s Hearts and Minds. Mr Smith and Professor Cox have much in common: both are passionate about science, both have inspired non-scientists into sharing that passion, and both realise that it’s the big, dangerous, controversial stuff that inspires people the most. Particle accelerators. Genetic modification. Nuclear power. Stem cells. Pupils are interested in this stuff. Pupils are ready for this stuff.

With this in mind planning a science curriculum should be a doddle, so why are GCSE pupils being fed a “pop science” education? Speaking to the Telegraph, Shadow Children’s Secretary Michael Gove expressed concern that the curriculum was being “hollowed out”, making GCSEs easier to pass and leaving pupils with a basic understanding of popular science issues. Edexcel’s current specification does indeed make worrying reading: pure science takes a back seat as climate change and recycling move into the spotlight, even as the focus of chemistry modules. The chemistry syllabus asks “Why are ‘chemical’ formulae such as ‘J2O’ and ‘O2’ so good for advertising?” and elsewhere questions seem to have sneaked in from the sociology syllabus. There is the same confusion between science and technology that DIUS was guilty of with Science: So What?, with mentions of mp3 players and mobile phones. Baroness Warnock deemed the syllabus “more “fit for the pub” than the classroom and it is easy to see why.

On Friday the Guardian published some sample GCSE questions from AQA papers in response to claims that GCSEs are getting easier (the answers are here). The four biology questions are all related to global warming: while it is possible that these four examples were selected mainly for their appeal to Guardian readers, question (c) does not belong in a biology paper.

Imperial College’s former rector Richard Sykes was most concerned about state school pupils missing out on the chance to study biology, physics and chemistry as separate subjects. Languages, humanities and arts are never lumped together as combined GCSEs, so why do scientists lose out? At a time when BSc courses are coming under scrutiny and homeopathy degrees are being dropped, we could be heading for a few supply chain problems. Pupils need to be adequately prepared for further study, and those denied the chance to study separate subjects may struggle.

Perhaps most worrying of all is “How Science Works”, a compulsory part of Edexcel’s syllabus which aims to teach critical thinking. Will pupils be denied a solid grounding in science, then expected them to form opinions of concepts they don’t fully understand? This does not bode well for the future of science and healthcare journalism: we need more well-informed, passionate science journalists, not another Melanie Phillips generation.

It’s good to see Mr Smith and Professor Cox being rewarded with the recognition they deserve. Now it’s time to reward those they inspire with some real science they can get their teeth into. It will be a sad day when more serious discussion of science can be heard on 6music than in the classroom.