As education in England emerges from a major curriculum review (DfE 2013), the next few years will see significant changes in what is taught in schools and how this is assessed. As a core subject, under the current proposals, all students, from the beginning of primary school until age 16, will study science in some detail. Biology is an exciting, rapidly changing area of science which is of major significance in the lives of all students, for example in areas of biotechnology, health and environmental issues. Some of the changes to the biology curriculum are to be welcomed, for example the inclusion of evolution in Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11 years) science, but there are some both surprising and worrying changes, particularly for post-16 (post-compulsory) A-level qualifications, which risk shifting biology away from where the members of the Biology Education Research Group (BERG) consider it should be. In this commentary the members of BERG argue that the best biology curriculum should attract and enthuse students, and inspire them to study the wonders of the living world at the end of their science education and help prepare those who wish to work in and study biosciences later in life. It should also be a curriculum and assessment system that is fair to students and allows them to develop and demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and skills within national education systems. However, the absence of assessed practical work as part of the final A-level grade opens up potential inequities across schools and colleges for both the students and their teachers. The authors assert it is not too late to address these issues; indeed BERG hopes to work with examination boards and professional organisations to support teachers and students in maintaining the development of diverse and relevant practical work, including that which supports entry into higher education. However, they conclude, it is of great concern when government appears to disregard the considerable body of evidence-based research, public consultations and lobbying from professional bodies. [This commentary was written by the Biology Education Research Group (BERG), UK.]