How science academies can enhance scientific temper in India

They can enhance public understanding of science through effective communication, engagement with the public and media, promoting research integrity.

Scientists are aware that students love to hear science directly from scientists, but communicating science is no trivial thing. Seen here an instructor with a student during a demonstration before the telecast of ISRO’s Chandrayaan 3 mission at Birla Industrial and Technological Museum (BITM) in Kolkata on July 14, 2023 | Photo Credit: Swapan Mahapatra

The low level of basic education in our country also means that the appreciation for science is limited. Consequently, the urge to learn about science is also limited. While I do not know of any serious assessment undertaken to gauge the enthusiasm for science in India, a survey was conducted in the UK among 1,524 adults in 2015. The published report of the survey—“Wellcome Trust Monitor Report, Wave 3: Tracking public views on science and biomedical research” (published April 2016)—stated: “The majority of the public say they are interested in hearing directly from scientists about the research they do, but would prefer to hear from them via passive means, such as television, radio, newspapers, and websites, rather than interacting with them directly.”

Most Indians do not know a scientist personally. Most cannot even name a scientist, except perhaps C.V. Raman or Albert Einstein. Scientists are aware that students love to hear science directly from scientists, but communicating science is no trivial thing. Those scientists who communicate well are received well, and they can leverage that receptivity so that society is more informed about science and thinks with greater scientific rigour on issues of importance. Scientists must make sure that research findings do not remain confined to science communities but percolate down to citizens.

A good place to start

There are three national science academies in India—the Indian National Science Academy, the Indian Academy of Sciences, and the National Academy of Sciences, India. Many States also have science academies. Each of these is a collective of scientists who have made significant contributions. In addition, there are separate academies of agricultural, medical, and engineering sciences.

All of these academies can arrange meetings in schools and neighbourhoods to familiarise students and citizens with findings and research. Some academies do this even now, but much more is required. Of course, a science academy might not be widely known, but it is certainly well respected. Scientists could reach out to the general citizen through the leaders of civic groups, teachers in schools, directors of museums, etc. If scientists engage with persons who are influential in the community, there will be faster percolation of a rational attitude in society, and scientists could begin by addressing issues that pose serious and immediate challenges to undermine science.

Science academies can print and distribute brochures, especially among school students, describing the benefits of a “scientific temper”—a phrase introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru in The Discovery of India. The “search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on preconceived theory,” are some of the cardinal features of a scientific temper, Nehru said. It is a scientific temper that helps in developing secularism, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. The Constitution of India has, therefore, correctly emphasised the development of scientific temper as a fundamental duty. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had emphatically added “Jai Vigyan’‘ to the existing slogan “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan”.

Science academies must undertake sample surveys to collect data on how citizens perceive science. The results, shared with policymakers and influential people, will let us know what must be done to enhance public understanding and enthusiasm for science. Such surveys must be conducted every three to five years.

Science academies annually carry out the important task of recognising scientists who have done scientific research of high significance, but there is much more they can and should do. In many countries, such as the US, the government commissions reports and advisory notes on many relevant scientific and societal matters from the National Academy of Sciences, which are then used to formulate public policies. Unfortunately, in our country, this culture has not developed. Some science academies in the past produced their own reports on scientific issues of social importance and submitted them to the government, but with no significant outcomes.

We do not have to give up in despair. Based on our investigations, we can draw inferences and propose policy changes that can be published in the national media. Hopefully, if we are persistent, there will be some positive impact on public policy in the long run. If people see a positive impact due to actions undertaken by a science collective, the respect for science and science academies will increase.

Making an impact

First, scientists must learn to communicate science. This is not easy. It involves simplifying: the results of scientific research must be made comprehensible to non-experts. Not just made comprehensible but made attractive. The listener must want to listen to what is being said. It must be narrated like a story. “Storytelling humanises scientists,” said Laura Helmuth, an editor at The Washington Post. To be a successful populariser of science, that is, to arouse curiosity and enthusiasm for science, the speaker must develop a clear understanding of the subject and of fellow human beings, and of the world around. While communicating science, a scientist must ask, “Who are the persons I am talking to? Why should they care about my work?” Science academies could organise training sessions for members on becoming effective science communicators.

Second, academies must promote science in the media, regularly engage with journalists, and provide science feeds. This means not just verbally describing the latest scientific findings but actually preparing notes for journalists with properly distilled scientific information.

Third, using social media, blogs, podcasts, etc. to communicate with the public, but in a responsible manner. This also creates opportunities to exchange ideas with fellow scientists and build scientific communities. These channels are more dynamic than traditional methods of communication and hence more effective in raising public enthusiasm for science.

Preserving respect and trust in science

Integrity in research is of paramount importance. There have been plenty of discussions and papers on what constitutes trustworthy research and the principles of research integrity. At the fundamental level, results of scientific pursuits need to be reproducible, and independent efforts are undertaken to reproduce scientific results. To enable independent reproducibility of research results, detailed documentation of every step of research and their availability in the public domain are essential.

However, for various reasons—mostly commercial—journals have increasingly insisted on brevity of articles. This has led to a serious compromise in describing the methodology of research that is so crucial to reproducibility. Without the ability to undertake replicative studies to verify reproducibility, the very hallmark of science, which is self-correction, cannot be realised.

Scientists could reach out to the general citizen through the leaders of civic groups, teachers in schools, directors of museums, etc. Seen here is scientist Parameswaran Ajith of the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences Bengaluru speaking at the Chennai Music Academy. | Photo Credit: VELANKANNI RAJ B

Scientists are expected to take all steps to ensure their results are correct before they publicly narrate their results. As instances of irreproducibility come to light, the citizen’s belief in scientists is being eroded. Science academies must ensure that the ability to check the reproducibility of scientific results is not hampered because of the commercial interests of journal publishers.

Scientific misconduct is not entirely attributable to the demand for briefer papers. Sometimes, haste to publish is also a contributing factor. Besides, there are now a large number of instances of fraud, such as plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, and image manipulation. Science academies can play a leading role in addressing the reasons for misconduct and developing codes of conduct.

One major contributory factor is that assessment procedures for jobs, promotions, or awards are now strongly based on the number of publications and other metrics, such as the impact factors of the journal of publication, citation index, H-index, and i10-index. Although the number of publications is relevant, the quality of the publications is more important. However, overemphasis on these metrics without any assessment of fundamental quality is detrimental to the scientist. These practices have resulted in hyper-competition, which, in turn, promotes misconduct.

A science academy should be the place where whistleblowers can confidently and confidentially report anxieties about possible misconduct. Academies should help with investigations of misconduct; they should design a formal system to address such allegations and the steps for redressal and punishment. No science academy should admit as a member anyone against whom there is reasonable evidence of scientific misconduct.

However, acting against unethical scientists is not the best way to retain public trust in science. Academies need to raise the overall level of scientific integrity. Teaching the value of integrity is far more important and long-lasting than issuing warnings against dishonesty.

A recent article in Nature has identified some ways to promote research integrity. Many other organisations have published reports, notably the report on “Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct” by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development - Global Science Forum, and the book titled On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research by The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the US.

The Global Science Forum has noted that there is a “lack of awareness of the rules and standards of proper scientific conduct, of the investigative processes that are in place, and of the penalties that can be imposed on those found guilty of misconduct. In some cases, individuals (especially students) may be truly unaware that certain behaviours (notably plagiarism) constitute misconduct.” Thus, awareness campaigns and training on what constitutes scientific misconduct are crucial. Some academies in India are already taking steps to draft and implement codes of conduct.

Assaults on the edifice of science

The public’s first exposure to scientific achievements is through newspapers, television, and other media. But a direct assault is made on science when the media reduces space or time allocated for science-related stories. Most media houses make decisions based on commercial considerations. We cannot fault them, but if a science academy engages with the media and encourages them to publish or show more science-related stories, it will reduce the assaults on science with pseudoscience and the promotion of pseudo-science as science.

A media cell in science academies can be helpful to interact with the media. Attractively written science stories will get readership. A science academy must spend time promoting science stories.

When government-supported institutions of science are stifled, it is a major assault on science. Another major impediment is the loss of quality science teaching. In every institution, there is a dearth of teachers, despite sanctioned positions lying vacant.

Associated with this is the issue of what scientific ideas should be taught to students and at what level. Science academies ought to proactively make suggestions to national bodies such as the NCERT when revisions of syllabi are undertaken.

It is the duty of all practising scientists, individually and collectively, to promote public understanding of science and make people enthusiastic for science. This helps a society become rational, improves the climate for science, and builds a nation’s scientific temper.

The author is a National Science Chair, Government of India, and a former President of the West Bengal Academy of Science & Technology and the Indian Academy of Sciences. This is an edited and abridged version of the talk given by the author at the West Bengal Academy of Science and Technology on July 4, 2023.