The Royal Society is inviting youth groups to help select the winner of the 2012 Royal Society Young People's Book Prize

You may recall the video I recently shared with you about the Royal Society's 2011 Young People's Book Award. But maybe you are wondering how your child can help the Royal Aociety choose the 2012 winners of their award. Well, wonder no more because the Royal Society is asking for your help!

The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, is inviting after-school reading groups and science clubs, youth book clubs and other interested youth groups to help them select the winner of the 2012 Royal Society Young People's Book Prize. This prize celebrates the best books that communicate science to young people up to age 14. These books are either factual or fictional stories intended to make science exciting to kids. An adult judging panel is selecting the shortlist of six finalists from recently published books that communicate science to young people. After this shortlist has been chosen, groups of young people will be invited to discuss the books and collectively select the winner. Participation is open to any youth group that is able to read, discuss the shortlist and recommend their choice for who should win.

Selected youth groups will receive a complete set of the six shortlisted books to read and discuss before voting for their favourite book. Each group's votes will be sent to the Royal Society, who will tally them and announce the prize winner in late 2012. Seventy-five groups will be selected to receive a complete set of the shortlisted books for free; but if your group isn't selected to receive a set of books, you can still participate if you're able to buy the books yourself.

Applications must be received by Monday 30 April 2012. Learn more about the rules for participating in this prize. If you are a parent, teacher or other responsible adult, you can register your youth group to participate here. (Please note that participation is open to groups only and applications from individuals cannot be accepted.)

Previous prizewinners have included How the World Works by Christiane Dorion & Beverley Young (2011), Can you feel the force? by Richard Hammond (2007) and Horrible Science: Really Rotten Experiments by Nick Arnold and Tony de Saulles (2004). You can view the complete list of prize winners here. The Royal Society Young People's Book Prize did not take place in 2008 - 2010 due to funding issues but restarted in 2011 thanks to the generosity of an anonymous donor.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

twitter: @GrrlScientist
facebook: grrlscientist
evil google+: grrlscientist
email: grrlscientist@gmail.com

The innovative and readable media website Wannabe Hacks is undergoing a revamp on Friday.

Launched in August 2010 by five media-hungry graduates from Birmingham University, it has enjoyed terrific success by attracting a loyal readership. Now five new faces have moved in.

The new site will feature regular guest contributors, a revamped podcast (the Hackscast) and a makeover for its newsletter.

I've read several of the articles on Wannabe Hacks over the past 18 months because they have raised interesting issues in an interesting way. And it's a pleasure to see how well they have prospered.

Nick Petrie and Ben Whitelaw are now at The Times, Matt Caines is working at The Guardian, Tom Clarke is with the Daily Mail and Alice Vincent (a Newcastle University graduate) has joined the Huffington Post.

Five new hacks were brought on board last September: Hannah Maria Bass, an MA student at City University London; Natalie Clarkson, a journalism student at Staffordshire University; Jon Offredo, a reporter at a local newspaper in America; Jonathan Frost, a York University student; and Emily Handford, who famously revealed exploitation through internships in October last year. She now has a publishing job.

To greet the relaunch, the wannabes are holding a networking event on Friday evening at the Royal George pub, in Charing Cross, London. For more information, contact Alice maverick@wannabehacks.co.uk

Conservative MPs reject Lib Dems' choice for university admissions chief Prof Les Ebdon, a critic of higher tuition fees

The Lib Dems have suffered a defeat at the hands of their Conservative coalition partners after a committee of MPs overruled Vince Cable's choice of new university access tsar.

Cable, who as business secretary has responsibility for universities, had endorsed Prof Les Ebdon for the role of director of the Office for Fair Access, the higher education access watchdog. The watchdog's current director, Sir Martin Harris, is stepping down in April.

MPs on the cross-party Commons business, innovation and skills (BIS) select committee said they were "not convinced" by Ebdon's descriptions of the "root causes of the obstacles to accessing universities".

They recommended that the government restart the recruitment process. The government could overrule the MPs, but it is more likely to look for a new candidate. There were thought to have been few applicants for the role.

Behind the scenes, Tory MPs were said to be outraged that Ebdon, an advocate of new universities and a critic of higher fees, was the coalition's preferred choice. He had warned that, given the role, he would consider imposing large fines on elite institutions that did not take their fair share of disadvantaged students.

David Ward, the only Lib Dem on the committee, accused his Tory colleagues of circulating "suggestions that Ebdon was not the candidate to be supported" before his pre-appointment hearing in front the committee last week.

Ward told the Guardian he had written to the committee's chair, Adrian Bailey, calling for an inquiry into whether there had been inappropriate behaviour. Bailey said the matter would be brought up at a committee meeting in a fortnight.

Ward said: "My understanding is that members of select committees listen to what people giving evidence to us say in an open-minded and objective way. There were some suggestions before the hearing that [Ebdon] was not the candidate to be supported. If we are not objective, the whole system falls apart."

Bailey said he was disappointed that MPs on his committee had "divided on party lines". "The strength of a select committee is that it judges on the merits of the candidate. This time, it had far more to do with internal politics of the coalition," he said.

A spokeswoman for Cable said he "remained of the view" that Ebdon was the right candidate for the role. "He will urgently consider the select committee's recommendation and respond shortly," she said. The appointment is now said to involve David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Ebdon said on Wednesday he was "still very interested" in the role.

Private schools and the country's 20 leading research universities are thought to have lobbied against Ebdon's appointment. Critics have accused Ebdon, who is vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, of defending "Mickey Mouse" degrees.

In an article for the Guardian in September 2008, Ebdon wrote: "Subjects such as media and cultural studies, fashion design and consumer software computing are far from professionally irrelevant or academically unchallenging. The development of a huge range of interdisciplinary graduate courses has been crucial to the success of the continually evolving creative economy in which Britain is now a world leader."

Michael Gove, the education secretary, was said to be against Ebdon getting the role, while David Willetts, the universities minister, was in favour. Cable and other Lib Dems are thought to believe that Ebdon would improve social mobility and fairness in university admissions.

In their report on the pre-appointment hearing, the MPs said that although Ebdon "demonstrated an all-round understanding of widening participation, we were not convinced by his descriptions of the root causes of the obstacles to accessing universities.

"Therefore, we have to question his evidence in respect of two of the criteria for selection, namely 'promote the strengths of the arguments in face of opposition' and 'communicate persuasively and publicly, with excellent presentational skills'."

The MPs said they were "unable to endorse the appointment of Professor Ebdon … and we recommend that the department conduct a new recruitment exercise."

They said the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) should ensure there was "sufficient flexibility in the job description and package to attract the widest range of quality applicants to the job".

In the hearing last week, Ebdon advocated what he called a "nuclear option": forbidding institutions from charging maximum fees of £9,000 a year if they did not do enough to widen access.

Only those MPs on the select committee who attended the hearing were allowed to vote. Two Labour and one Lib Dem failed to attend. Four Conservative MPs rejected Ebdon, while two Labour MPs endorsed him. Another Conservative, Brian Binley, was not present at a final meeting and the chair of the committee, Adrian Bailey, a Labour MP, did not use his casting vote.

Paul Blomfield, a Labour MP on the committee who did not vote, said Ebdon had been the victim of a "political ambush". "Les Ebdon has an excellent track record and was enthusiastically endorsed by ministers," he said. "Conservative members of the select committee tried to overturn those recommendations without substantive reason in what appeared to be an orchestrated move."

Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students, said the blocking of Ebdon's appointment "risked severely undermining attempts to ensure fair access to universities".

Under the government's changes to tuition fees, any university wanting to charge more than £6,000 a year must draw up an "access agreement" saying how it intends not to put off poorer students.

The Office for Fair Access can fine universities £500,000 for falling short of targets, or refuse to sanction an access agreement, in effect banning them from charging more than £6,000.

Data shows the poorest 40% of students are seven times less likely to be admitted to the 20 most prestigious universities than the richest 10%.

Cable, in a letter to Bailey, wrote that he and Willetts considered the watchdog director to be an "extremely important post, central to the government's objectives for fair access in higher education".

"I am delighted to be able to inform you that we have chosen Professor Les Ebdon as our preferred candidate." Ebdon has 44 years of experience in higher education."

The Office for Fair Access aims to encourage greater numbers of students to apply to higher education from low-income families and other under-represented groups, such as some ethnic minorities. It also tries to encourage universities to give applicants clear information about courses and financial support.

Liberal Left group aims to mobilise opposition against 'drift to the right', claiming the mood in the party is radicalising

The first Liberal Democrat group openly opposed to the coalition is to be launched at the party's spring conference in Gateshead next month with a warning that the coalition has been a political disaster for the party, as well as a denial of its radical roots.

Launching a website on Wednesday, the group Liberal Left said it hoped to become a rallying point for members opposed to the coalition and those who see the party as a centre-left organisation seeking common cause with Labour, Greens and others on the centre left.

One of its founders, Richard Grayson, conceded that the vast majority of the party was committed to the coalition and denied the group would be working to put a motion to conference calling for the Liberal Democrats to withdraw from its partnership with the Conservatives. He said the focus was more on developing policies on the centre left, and creating a space for a coalition with Labour if necessary after a general election.

Most of the group's founder members have long been opposed to the coalition, but it believes other party members will join, and the mood of the party is radicalising. Grayson said Liberal Left differed from the other well-established left group inside the party – the Social Liberal Forum – in that it opposed the coalition, and did not agree that the party should be politically equidistant between Conservatives and Labour.

In its strongly worded founding statement, Liberal Left asserts: "We articulate policy positions within the Liberal Democrats which should be central to a radical party. Such policies have informed recent general election manifestos which our candidates have stood, and on which our MPs have been elected.

"Those views are not being currently voiced effectively in a party whose radical traditions have become muted in government and whose leaders have taken the party's policy positions to the right. We are now part of a government which is Eurosceptic, neo-liberal and socially conservative."

It also calls for a different economic strategy, one that is "not based on demonising the poor nor apparent overspending by a previous government (spending which Liberal Democrats did not say should be reduced)".

It says: "The popularity of progressive single issue campaigns shows a genuine appetite for progressive politics. We believe the Liberal Democrats should be part of this politics, not its target."

It also claims the coalition has been "politically disastrous leading to a haemorrhage of support, activists members and councillors". It claims policy gains such as tax allowances for the poor and the pupil premium for poorer children have been dwarfed by losses such as the VAT rise and loss of standards and funds in education.

It claims that if coalitions are to become more frequent, voters should not be left in the dark over the party the Liberal Democrats would partner with. It argues: "Many of the political problems faced by the current coalition flow from it being a government which most Liberal Democrat voters did not want. It is ideologically unsustainable and without a mandate.

"A future coalition with Labour and others on the liberal left is more likely to secure Liberal Democrat goals than a further coalition with the Conservatives and we should actively work to make that possible."

Asked to pinpoint the three strongest policy differences that Liberal Left had with the coalition, he said the deficit, tuition fees and the role of city academies in education. Grayson acknowledged that at a special conference immediately after the election the party voted overwhelmingly for joining the coalition, but he said there was a long tradition of dissent inside the Liberal Democrats. "We have never been a democratic centralist party in which the whole party has to abide by a conference decision for ever more."

The group's launch was greeted with derision by some Liberal Democrats, claiming it was a campaign by people who should be in the Labour party. Grayson said he hoped his group would have good relations with the Social Liberal Forum, but said: "They want to work incrementally and often in private to influence policy. That is a legitimate approach, but we have a different view."

Lecturers' union says European data shows Britain risks languishing in 'mid-table obscurity' due to rising cost of learning

The UK has a smaller proportion of adults with A-levels or their equivalent than Poland or Bulgaria, an analysis by the European Union's official statistics agency shows.

Several former eastern bloc countries now have adult populations that are more highly educated than the UK's, the Eurostat data reveals. They include Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Bulgaria.

Statisticians ranked 33 countries according to the percentage of their adult population aged 25 to 64 who had completed upper secondary school – the equivalent to A-levels – in 2010.

The UK was 19th, with almost a quarter of adults (24%) not having A-levels or the equivalent. Lithuania came top with 8% of adults failing to complete the equivalent of sixth-form courses. Turkey was bottom, with 72% of its adults without A-levels.

Former Communist countries such as Poland (11%) and Bulgaria (21%) outperformed the UK. On average across the 33 countries, 27% of adults had not completed sixth-form study.

The lecturers' union, the University and College Union, said the figures showed the UK was languishing in "mid-table obscurity".

Sally Hunt, the union's general secretary, said there was a "very real possibility" that coalition reforms could lead to the country sliding further down the table in future years. She said the near-trebling of university tuition fees to up to £9,000 a year and restrictions on university places would have a detrimental effect on the nation's qualifications.

However, a spokeswoman from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose remit includes universities, said the coalition was overhauling the school system to ensure the poorest could study at college and university and creating thousands more higher-level apprenticeships.

Last month, ministers said there would be fewer university places at English universities this autumn. In previous years, an extra 10,000 places had been created to accommodate demand, but these will not be available this year. Some 5,000 places for universities that over-recruit have also been taken away.

The BIS spokeswoman said the number of full-time undergraduates in 2012-13 would remain at record levels.

In December 2010, a study of 65 countries showed the UK had slipped down world education rankings in maths, reading and science, and had been overtaken by Poland and Norway. The study, compiled by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, revealed that the UK's reputation as one of the world's best for education was at risk.