THE award of this years Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Venkatraman Ramakrishnan was discussed widely in the media. Venki, as he is almost universally known, has been a well-known figure among the structural biologists of India. His first major interaction with the community was when he delivered the G.N. Ramachandran Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Indian Biophysical Society in Chennai in January 2002. He also visited and lectured at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, at that time. Subsequently, he has been the G.N. Ramachandran Professor at the IISc for brief periods. Last year he was elected a Foreign Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy.
The Nobel Prize is at a different level in importance and impact. Besides, the award brings into focus the state of science in India. That Indian scientists working in India have not received a Nobel Prize in recent years is a matter for concern. But a more substantive issue is the overall level and the current direction of scientific endeavour in the country. In general, peaks like the Nobel Prize result from a high plateau. This is a point of view that Venki himself emphasised in his interview with The Hindu (October 9 and 10, 2009). In any case, now that the media excitement in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of the prize has subsided, the award should serve as a stimulus for introspection on the state of Indian science.
Modern scientific research has a distinguished tradition in the country. India produced several scientists of high calibre in the pre-Independence era. Scientific research in those days was substantially idea based. The nature of scientific enterprise changed dramatically after the Second World War. Much of it came to depend on expensive facilities, which poor countries could ill afford. Yet India maintained a reasonable standard in scientific research although the number of outstanding scientists produced in the second half of the 20th century was lower than that produced in the first half. Even those who made a mark on the world scene in the post-Independence era, such as Ramachandran, did so mainly on account of idea-based, as distinct from facility-based, research. In any case, despite difficulties, India maintained a reasonable level of creativity in science.
Indian science has done the country proud in the application of science as well. The Green Revolution is a good example of successful application of science for the benefit of the people. In the early years of Independence, the Indian condition used to be described as a ship-to-mouth existence, as the country used to depend substantially on aid from the United States under the PL480 scheme to make up the deficit in its food production. All that changed with the Green Revolution, which was the result of a magnificent collaboration involving scientists, bureaucrats, the political leadership and the great Indian farmer.
There are other examples as well. Indias success in the pharma sector was based to a great extent on its strength in organic synthesis. Indias substantial achievements in space, atomic energy, and so on, have their roots in home-grown science. The biotechnology industry in the country is now in take-off mode, with a long list of successful applications.
Thus, Indian science has much to be proud of. This is, to a large extent, because of the support and leadership provided by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Many of the great scientific institutions in the country today were started during his period. His successors by and large continued to be patrons of science. A strong commitment to nation-building was displayed by a substantial section of the scientific community as well.
About a quarter of a century ago, on the basis of an extensive survey, a major scientific journal described India as a superpower in Third World science. This is no longer true. China is miles ahead in scientific and technological research. There are other countries in what used to be described as the Third World where the rate of progress in science is higher than in India. Therefore, in spite of the countrys notable achievements, Indian science is in crisis in the international context. This is an issue that needs to be faced squarely. Modern scientific research is expensive and its output is often determined by the input in terms of funding. The level of funding for research in India has been low, but India has done reasonably well in spite of it. For instance, in relation to research publications, the proportion of publications emanating from India in the world scientific literature is very low. However, in terms of publications per unit investment, India ranks high.
Investment in research and development (R&D) in India has almost always been less than 1 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP). After Independence, this figure climbed, to approach the 1 per cent mark in the late 1980s. Then, there was a precipitous fall in the 1990s. The level of funding for R&D began to rise again in the late 1990s, a trend that has continued in the current decade. It is now approaching the 1 per cent figure again. The GDP itself has grown rapidly in this period, and hence, the increase in funding in absolute terms has been substantial. This is dramatically reflected in the rate of growth of the countrys scientific output, proving, if any proof is necessary, the importance of funding for higher research output.
However, the level of funding as a fraction of the GDP remains low in India not only in comparison with advanced countries but also with some of the countries with rapidly growing economies. The rate of growth in the level of R&D funding in India needs to be maintained and further enhanced for sustained growth in scientific endeavour. In addition to funding, the number of scientists in every discipline also needs to increase substantially.
While the issues of funding for research and the reach of science have been discussed reasonably extensively at different fora, an aspect that has received inadequate attention, except in general terms, is the structure of Indian science.
Many are convinced that the present structure of Indian science is inadequate to meet the emerging requirements of modern, internationally competitive scientific research. The structure as it exists today is bureaucratic. It is designed to do small things slowly when it should be able to do big things rapidly. Even in relation to competitive grants, which form the lifeline of basic research, the practice followed by most, fortunately not all, granting agencies, of dispensing funds on a yearly basis, and the procedures involved in releasing money often mean that funding is effectively available only for a few months each year. Computerisation is the order of the day for rapid, transparent operations. This is evident in railway and air bookings, banking, passport processing and in many other activities. But this is not yet particularly in evidence in scientific establishments and agencies.
Yet another problem relates to the proper balance between different components of the system. For instance, there are three components when it comes to administering competitive grants: advisory, administrative and financial. Currently, it would appear that the finance component is considered the arbiter on all issues, including technical ones. A redefinition of the roles of the three components is urgently called for. Excessive centralisation of decision making, even on small matters, is another issue that needs to be addressed.
Statements have been made on debureaucratisation of science in India, but the ground realities have not changed much. The recent legislation on the Science and Engineering Research Board is a step intended to move forward in this direction. The activities of the board, when it becomes operative, will encompass only a segment of the set-up for research funding. This, of course, is as it should be, as plurality in sources of funds is essential for the healthy growth of science involving project-based support for research. Thus, debureaucratisation should encompass all funding agencies and indeed the scientific establishment as a whole. It is also important to realise that the problem is often not with individuals. Most of the persons involved try to perform as well as and as helpfully as they can. The problem is primarily with the system.
The scientific establishment in India, as indeed to a great extent in society as a whole, tends to be very hierarchical. The case of G.N. Ramachandran, who is considered by many as the most distinguished scientist to have worked in independent India, illustrates an aspect of the problem. When students and young scientists are asked whether they have heard of Ramachandran, they usually answer in the negative. When asked to name the Indian scientists they know, the answer is often in the form a list of well-known science administrators. Ramachandran did not become the director of any institution and was never a government Secretary or the president of any academy. Therefore, he did not appear prominently in the hierarchical scheme of things.
Not only in terms of recognition but also in terms of emoluments and perks, brilliant scientists are at a disadvantage in India if they do not have administrative positions. Practical steps need to be taken to rectify the situation. Equally important, perhaps more important, there is a need to fight against the mindset. Respect for age, experience and accomplishments is important, but blind reverence for authority is deleterious.
The importance of autonomy for scientific and academic institutions cannot be overestimated. Admittedly, autonomy is not absolute, particularly in establishment matters, when public funds are involved. Autonomous institutions are certainly accountable to the people and their representatives. A fine balance between autonomy and accountability needs to be maintained. Some great institutions in the country still do. However, in general, there is a growing tendency to interpret accountability as a licence for crass bureaucratic interference in day-to-day affairs and the wholesale application of government rules and practices in autonomous institutions. This needs to be resisted and reversed. Eternal vigilance is the price for autonomy as well. Autonomy is important for science departments as well. There is no reason why the autonomy enjoyed by the Departments of Space and Atomic Energy cannot be extended to the other government science departments.
Many important initiatives have been taken recently in the field of science and science education in the country. Certainly, many of them are likely to be beneficial in the long term. But reservations exist about some. This could have been avoided if the decisions were based on wide consultations. There are more than 100,000 people carrying out scientific research in the country. Many more are involved with science in one way or the other. In order to ensure that decision making is not arbitrary and to engender a sense of participation, it is important to have consultations before major decisions are taken. Ultimately, decisions need to be made by a smaller, manageable group of people, but they should be benefited by inputs from all stakeholders.
A measure of participatory democracy is necessary in the administration of institutions as well. It exists in many scientific and technological institutions, but they are honourable exceptions. The relationship between the management and scientists should be different from the employer-employee relationship. Wholesome mechanisms should be set up for working scientists to participate meaningfully in the formulation and implementation of policies and programmes.
To sum up, a more autonomous and more participatory system is needed to unleash the creative potential of Indian science. This does not mean that the entire structure has to be demolished and rebuilt. This is a system that has delivered. Much of it can be improved through modifications. There are parts that need to be substantially altered. What is required, however, is the realisation that there are flaws in the system and the will to rectify them.
Ultimately, science is produced by people. Whatever India has achieved in science in the past against heavy odds, it is because of the quality of its scientists, most of whom are the products of normal schools, colleges and universities run or supported by the government. However, it is universally accepted now that the higher education system is in the doldrums although islands of excellence still exist. Both the content and the structure of higher education merit urgent attention. This is true of school education as well. In fact, values are inculcated mostly when one is young. Respect for scholarship and excellence also needs to be developed at the school stage. The present curricular system at all stages is highly compartmentalised, rigid, needlessly repetitive and divorced from experiment and observation. The three science academies of India have jointly produced, after much discussion, a position paper on the restructuring of post-school science teaching programmes. The structure of higher education in the country needs as much attention as, if not more than, the content does. It now features prominently in public discourse, thanks mainly to the Yash Pal Committee Report and the statements and actions emanating from the government. The structure of education is riven with apathy, commercial exploitation, sectarian influences, bureaucracy and often plain corruption. While there are exceptions, the overall scenario is dismal. Many out-of-the-box initiatives are being contemplated. Some of them are welcome. The initiatives for establishing a large number of centrally supported institutions of higher learning are also most welcome. In addition, the problems of State universities, some with a glorious past, from where the majority of students receive higher education, need to be addressed.
Restructuring the content and the structure of education is a Herculean task. It would involve almost all sections of society and calls for political will, determination and boldness at all levels. The scientific community has a major role to play in this effort, but it is only one of the elements that need to participate in the endeavour. Reforming the edifice of science is perhaps a less difficult task. Despite deficiencies, Indian science is vibrant and is in reasonably good health. At present, the science departments and other apex bodies are led by committed, responsive and distinguished scientists. The political leadership is committed to promoting science.
Furthermore, the scientific community would be the major player in this task. With the necessary will at all levels, it should be possible for India to rectify the deficiencies in the structure of science. If the discussion around Venkis Nobel Prize spurs this effort, it would serve an additional, important purpose.
Prof. M. Vijayan, a biotechnologist, is at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. He is the President of the Indian National Science Academy.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE