Is Cross-Curricular an End in Itself?

Being a subject in a National Curriculum offers science a great deal in that teachers, even reluctant ones have to teach science (though this very little about its quality!).  Its inclusion guaranteed science a time allocation and systematic coverage. At the time, pre 2005,  when Year Six pupils were subject to Science SATs testing some found themselves on an increasing diet of cramming, of past papers and virtual practical work. Since the removal of the science SAT science has slipped in terms of the priority given to in schools but the cramming appears to be a thing of the past.

It is important to make the distinction between science itself and science education which occurs in schools and other places. They are not mutually exclusive but there is a difference, it is often assumed that we want children to do science as part of their science education. Science itself is cross-curricular (Popper). Will a meteorologist draw on different aspects of science as well as usiing a great deal of mathematics when dealing with data and English when communicating findings to his or her peers?  Does this mean that science education has to be cross-curricular? Surely yes? Would be possible to teach about cross-curricular science within discrete science subject lessons? Clearly it would so do we need any other approach?  What some schools and teachers adopt is a overtly inter-disciplinary approach to planning the curriculum with the intention that different subjects make, utilise and benefit from links? It is perhaps worth considering whether the curriculum itself will guarantee links are recognised and used? Or is it still down to how it is presented and utilised in the classroom?

Which is most important? The cross-curricular approach? What does it guarentee? Perhaps more valuable is the committed teacher looking for ways to improve learning who utilises a cross-curricular approach in his her search for more effective approaches?