Where is Indian Science Going?

Some time ago, a well known magazine in an article titled “Indian Science is Dead” extensively discussed the sorry state of affairs in the practice and management of science in India. A foreign scientist recently writing to the President that no less a person than Vice Chancellor of a University was a party to plagiarizing shows that the situation has not improved. Many instances are now known where senior scientists have indulged in scientific misconduct, proven beyond reasonable doubt. It says much about our value systems that we tend to take cognizance of such misconduct only when foreign scientists draw attention to it. It is regrettable that more often that not, our managers of science tend to indulge in cover up, instead of taking salutary action in such cases. It is against this ground we have to note a recent article in a major news paper, by a well known scientist titled “Saving Science for our Future” and the recent editorial in Current Science founded by Prof. Raman “to promote the progress and uphold the cause of science” highlighting the very poor standards of Ph.D. research in most of our Universities and the cavalier manner in which the so called thesis advisors function. They take credit as co-authors of papers resulting from the thesis, frequently knowing little of its contents. There is a fundamental contradiction in this, as the thesis is submitted to the university as “original contribution to the advancement of knowledge” by the candidate and after the degree is awarded, the “thesis advisor” suddenly becomes a co-author!

Such developments raise a fundamental question. If the senior scientific community indulges in or abets scientific misconduct, who shall save Indian science and save science for whose future? – at this rate, not certainly for the country’s future. Undoubtedly there are scientists in the country with unblemished records. But they seem to display a “flexible conscience” and “bounded rationality” and ignore their responsibility to take a formal stand to protect the cause of science to enable India join the developed world.

Several years ago, the attention of the Council of a Science Academy consisting of the then “who is who of Indian science”, was drawn to the habit of a well-known scientist director routinely having his name included as the co-author of research publications form his lab and to which his contributions were known to be nil. The council declined to take a stand on this issue and elected him a Fellow based on his own earlier contributions. Their argument was that at their level, it was not possible to establish such facts, the issue was raisedagain in Current Science journal, with a proposal that Science Academies should stipulate that Fellows who propose and second the nominations, should certify that the nominee has not violated a code of ethics framed by them. None of the Academies have so far framed such an honor code for compliance. Are these not examples of flexible conscience and bounded rationality?

Three years ago, the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), convened a meeting attended by the then Principal Scientific Advisor(PSA) to the GOI, DGSIR, and Secretary DST, to consider a proposal from the “Society for Scientific Values” to create an “Office of Research Integrity” under the CVC, as an ultimate appellate authority to look into instances of scientific misconduct. The proposal was rejected in one sitting. If they did not want CVC to be involved, they could have asked for its creation under the PSA, if they cared for healthy growth of science and setting uniform precedents. The Supreme Court does this for the state High Courts. They seem to have cared more for their rights than their responsibilities to protect the cause of science.

An example drives home the seriousness of the problem. A division head in a major research laboratory explicitly admitted before a committee appointed by the Agency head, the irreproducibility of data in a paper presented by him at an international conference. The chairman of the committee got reproducibility tests conducted, based on test condition the scientist claimed to have actually used, and unequivocally reported that the reported results were not reproducible. Reproducibility is the hallmark and essence of scientific research. Based on this finding nothing prevented the director from initiating appropriate disciplinary action. He was more interested in cover up. Despite this finding, and suggestion from two former directors from the same laboratory to close the case, his Agency Head constituted another committee, with wide ranging terms of reference which had little to do with reproducibility of the reported results. Without conducting exact reproducibility tests, this second committee concluded that there was no scientific fraud but only mistakes! This division head was re designated as an advisor to the Director and subsequently promoted! Most certainly this is not an isolated instance. Can such decisions contribute to healthy growth of science and save science for our future?

To curb unhealthy practices in the U.S., President Clinton ordered that action be taken in cases of scientific misconduct (defined comprehensively by his committee), and proven beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered denial of future federal support to such scientists and their institutions. His Office of Science and Technology (analogous to the PSA) stated, “advances in science, engineering, and all fields of research depend on the reliability of data of the research record, as do the benefits associated with them in areas such as health and national security. Sustained public trust in the research enterprise also requires confidence in the research record and in the processes involved in its ongoing development”. Should it come as a surprise that science thrives in the U S while it is slowly dying in India.?. is it not time for the Prime Minister to create an Office of Research Integrity under the PSA to save science for the future of the country and help it to join the developed world?.

Our senior scientists complain that they do not receive adequate support. There is truth in this. But it hides more than it says. From about 0.23% GNP, research support since Independence, rose close to 1%. Successive governments liberally funded the creation of academic and S & T base was marginal. The crucial interaction among the academic institutions, R & D and industry, which only can nurture such a base, has not been significant, except possibly in the project specific agencies such as Space and Atomic Energy. The Indian industry was happy to be left alone with their marginal in house R & D inputs, to limp from licensed production to licensed production, in protected markets till recently, selling goods that were already obsolete elsewhere and function virtually as a service oriented industry, instead of becoming a substantially self reliant economy, with significant export capability. The result? While 70% of the low end consumer goods in the U S are from China, India supplies barely 1% of the same market.

Our S & T agencies can certainly make tangible contributions to the technology base to the economy, when they have programs with major end objectives defined with close interaction with the industry. Their research support to institutions has been more often than not, based on the so called “expert committee recommendations” on proposals received by them or simply given as grants in aid. The scientific community has not realized that when they spend public funds, they are “trustees for public good” and that accountability must be built into their operations. “Who is going to benefit downstream by their work?” is a question rarely asked in these circles. It was this lack of relevance to national needs that prompted former Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao to reduce support for R & D for non-project specific agencies. With our large S & T infrastructure, successes in the green revolution and in Space and Atomic Energy, are classic examples of what is possible with project specific planning and grants with built in accountability.

In the U S, only about 15% of the federal R & D support goes for open ended basic research. The rest is used for specific technology development and related R & D programs to respond to well defined needs.

The scientists need to ask if the government owes them a living, if they do not help establish a strong interactive S & T support base.  If the contributions of Indian scientists in the U S are any indication, there is little doubt that they are capable of extraordinary achievements. Due to lack of interaction among the industry, and research and academic institutions and challenges, the best and the brightest of our S & T people are migrating, with the second best taking up jobs in industry and the civil services, and the rest seeking admission to do their masters and Ph.D seeking admission to do their masters and Ph.D programs here. Is it then surprising that reverse filtration is taking place and second rate research and plagiarism and scientific misconduct have become common?

Research, and more so technology development, are expensive. Since funds are limited, the senior scientific community and the Agency Heads have a tremendous  responsibility to assess the benefits to the nation while mounting their programs. They have to build inherent accountability by asking what direct benefits will the nation get for every rupee they propose to spend. Without such an approach, the President’s vision for India’s future, will most certainly remain an unachievable dream.

Other India history Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Where is Indian Science Going?’. Further sources in the context of India history might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Scientific community, Fundamental question.