The
President of India says, at every opportunity he or she gets and typically this
is in his/her address at the annual Indian Science Congress shindig, that science
should be tuned to the needs of the society, particularly to inclusive
development addressing the imperatives of social development. The prime
minister also appears to be proud of sprouting such sentiments.
The
worst part about the repeated advice to the scientific community is the
perception that is created: scientists and their work have an existence that is
disconnected from the world and hence both are irrelevant unless they mend
their ways. The statement carries all the negatives through the single phrase “ivory
towers”.
But,
I had not heard, not once, a statement about the need for science to do
blue-sky thinking, to look beyond the current horizon. I do not feel comfortable
about this silence. If I were to give a name to this skew in the understanding
how science should progress, rooted in ground realities, be developed in the
service of the poor in India, I would call it “scientific populism”.
Why
and whence this bias against cutting-edge research in science? Let me take the
second aspect first. Professor Vasant Natarajan of the Indian Institute of
Science is one such source: his Open Page
article in The Hindu of February 16,
2013, Needed: socially relevant research
[1].
The
good, and in all likelihood well-meaning, professor speaks in the interest of
his tribe: “[T]he published research may have relevance to an advanced industrial
country, but not to the needs of a developing country like India.” Why is it in
the interest of his tribe, scientific researchers? The implication is that
science relevant to developing country is distinctly different from that for
developed countries. There will be no demand for huge capital investments.
Scientists can do their own version of the much vaunted jugaad with local resource mobilization and not go with a begging
bowl to the government for hand-outs. This is presented as science being
involved with society and climbing down from “ivory towers”. I am not sure I accept.
Equally
importantly, one of the metrics for performance in science is publishing in
peer-reviewed journals (I would be the first one to say that this metric is
heavily skewed towards the developed countries and I am far from validating it)
and it is undermined by this sweeping statement. This is presented, to repeat,
as science being involved with society and climbing down from “ivory towers”.
Again, I am not sure I accept.
While
the argument that the developed countries exploited their colonies and climbed
the S&T ladder on their backs is refuted – Malaysia and South Korea cited as
examples – the other side of the historic coin is not looked at. The developed
countries did their versions of both jugaad
and “ivory towers” research pretty much simultaneously, in the later part of
the 19th century. British and the US universities did “ivory tower”
research and the results were exploited in socially relevant ways by themselves
and others too.
By
the way, Massachusetts Institute of Technology was dismissed contemptuously as
a “trade school” as late as late 1920s! It pulled itself up, climbed onto the “ivory
towers” with gusto, produced an enviable number of Nobel laureates in sciences;
more significantly, it did not lose its social relevance (the number of
start-ups in the IT sector it has spawned is proof enough). That is, there are
examples of “ivory towers” research not weaning one away from “socially relevant
research”.
The
article argues, “There is no substitute for the kind of low-wage manufacturing
jobs that Malaysia and South Korea went through earlier, or that China is going
through now.” So, we should arbitrage our labor costs and do no more, at least
till the day we can presumably do more. The irony is, when that day comes, the
typically mercantile attitude of our industry leaders will ensure that “ivory
towers” will be located, at least in the perception of the public, more out of
reach and taller.
That
is, it is jugaad and jugaad only, for now and, possibly for
the foreseeable future. This flies in the face of facts, at least as regards
South Korea, a nation that is increasingly emerging as a technology and science
competitor to the developed countries. There is a focus on genetics – an “ivory
tower” item if ever there was one, but not losing its downstream social
relevance, through medicines and such. The “ivory tower” started not as a
consequence of the economy’s growth; both fed the economy simultaneously. And,
one may recall that during those times South Korea was a de facto dictatorship! This is indeed true of all developed
countries; Germany is a manufacturing powerhouse and it is right up there on
the “ivory towers”, Max Planck Institutes.
Our
own pharma industry, focused so sharply on generics, is a halfway house between
jugaad and cutting-edge!
Another
thing about manufacturing. Yes, we need more manufacturing, but only while
ensuring the environmental costs on the ground do not overwhelm the up-in-the-sky
aggregate economic growth statistics. China’s manufacturing has led to skewed growth
v. environment calculus. How are you going to reduce the emissions per unit of
economic growth? By jugaad? Good
luck.
There
is a startling over reaching statement – “[W]e are worse off today on most
human development indices than when our colonial masters left the country.” Going
beyond the valid skepticism about the statement, coming as it is under the
title of the piece, it cannot but be taken as the strongest condemnation of and
placing all of the blame on “ivory tower” research. Coming from a faculty
member in one of our best research-cum-educational institutions, this is really
too much to take. But, let us move on.
Now,
I want to address the question, why the bias against cutting-edge science?
Every October there is a lot of breast beating – oh, over a billion people but
no Nobel winners. Now, soon enough we will be adding to this chorus – no Milner
prizes either. The down grading of “ivory towers” research can be easily and
justifiably seen as the “sour grapes” response to Indian science not making deep
inroads into the Nobel and Milner clubs. The argument helps Indian science
defend itself and taking recourse to jugaad.
We are doing jugaad, you see, which
is relevant to us and we do not worry about Nobels and Milners. Let the
developed countries, South Korea, Malaysia and China vie for a wedge of that
science pie. We are happy with our socially relevant jugaad.
Why
should we be happy with jugaad?
Populism, of course. Our “ivory tower” should be limited to infrequent “successes”
of PSLV. How many votes has a successful launch of PSLV garnered for the party
in power? But, socially relevant research is the Akshaya Patra, will keep on feeding votes!
Lest
I be misunderstood, I am not against socially relevant research. I argue that
tagging any research as “ivory towerish” leads to dead end. Indeed, over time, “ivory
tower” research descends (said without condescension) into being socially
relevant. When Bell Labs came up with the transistor, it was a socially
irrelevant research, but in short order it became supremely relevant. When IBM
created the first commercial computer, the market was estimated at four
computers; socially irrelevant! Social relevance is an emergent property and
not a guaranteed one at that.
Nuclear
fusion is an “ivory tower” research which has stayed there for over six
decades. How socially relevant can that be? Yet, the Indian government has put
its fingers into that pie, hoping that someday it will become socially
relevant. Quantum computer is another one. We do not even know whether it can
become socially relevant, but research must be carried out.
My
grouse is basically that science done by dedicated scientists with the sparse
resources available to them and which defy easy explanations to the layman are
treated with contempt, by the president, the prime minister and even a faculty member
of a research-cum-teaching institution. This is “scientific populism”.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
No comments:
Post a Comment