WHERE
IS INDIAN SCIENCE GOING?
Dr. S. R. Valluri
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 background 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.