The Great Dilemma of the Life Sciences

It is an excerpt from the chapter, "The Great Dilema of The Life Sciences", in the book, "Heraclitean Fire: Sketches from a Life Before Nature" by famous biologist, Erwin Chargaff. The book was published in 1978 by Rockefeller University Press, New York. Hope you will enjoy reading it, in the context of today's research scenario. I enjoyed reading it and feel like sharing with others. 

One man or two may decide to study a certain beetle. Whether they do this because the animal is pest or biological delight is immaterial. If they find something of scientific interest, there will soon be ten others and more who will do the same. Once there are a hundred men studying the beetle, they will form a society and publish a journal. A society creates a profession, and a profession cannot be permitted to die. It is upto the nation to support it. If the nation can be persuaded, there will soon be a thousand members of the society for the study of the beetle. It is obvious at this stage the beetle can no longer become extinct, for what would all these experts do who may well outnumber the beetle? Then a foundation will arise whose lay members- influential bankers, society ladies- will neither know nor care whether their function is to help with the eradication or preservation of the beetle. They know one thing: they must support those who study the beetle. There may even be a Beetle Ball.

Professional scientists have, by necessity, limited vision. I always tried not to be professional scientist, since I dislike professional professionals. What I used to call "human beings" are becoming rarer as I look around. Not so long ago, St. Augustine would say: "the heart speaks to the heart". But now computer talks to computer. Most people I meet in my or other universities seem to be rejects of IBM. They are really the narrowest, the dullest kinds of experts or specialists; they are essentially molecular podiatrists: people who know all about the fifteenth foot of the centipede.

When you spend your life watching a bubble chamber or running cesium chloride gradient, you may become an expert bubbler or gradient runner, but there is little likelihood of your thus acquiring much wisdom. There is, in fact, a good chance that such people will turn into a very dull fellow indeed, wasting their lives by trying to outrun ten other dull fellows with whom they are in competition.

How is science done in our days? Here I must immediately make a distinction between science as a profession and science as the expression of some of the faculties of the human mind. The two are not necessarily connected. When someone tells me "I am a professional scientist," it does not automatically mean that he is a scientist. The distinction I am suggesting here has nothing to do directly with the question of talent. There have always been more or less gifted scientists, and there were even a few, very few, scientific geniuses. But what I want to bring out is that as a profession science is one of the most recent ones. It barely existed when I began my studies. Perhaps the exception is chemistry, where, when you called yourself a professional chemist, people would assume that you worked in the chemical industry. This was about the only mass outlet for academically trained scientists. It was not an accident that, when the science departments of the universities began to swell and to expand, it was always the chemistry department that led the way; just as the first modern teaching and research laboratory at a university was Liebig's chemistry laboratory in Giessen.

Otherwise, one entered a career in science, just as in history or philosophy, by trying to become a teacher at a college or even a high school. There were very few jobs, and almost none that paid enough to live on, except for the position of the professor himself. And there was usually only one professor for a discipline. Hence the old students' saying that there were only two ways to make a university career: per anum or per vaginam. You tried to become the professor's darling or you married his daughter. Obviously, this limited the choice: some professors were very nasty, some daughters were very ugly. Girl students were altogether out of luck, but there were only a few of them.

You may conclude - and you are right - that this was a most unpleasant system. But it had one advantage: it acted as a sieve, letting through the few who could not do otherwise. By requiring what amounted to a pledge to poverty, it kept out all those who, to use a nasty term, were not "highly motivated." It produced a slightly smaller number, but probably a much higher density, of good scientists than does the present system.

I should by no means wish to give the impression that I am in favor of the old system. It was abominable. Nor am I, on the other hand, in agreement with the way things are done now; for I am convinced that with our methods of organizing and supporting it we are effectively killing science. We are destroying the whole concept of science, as it had developed over the centuries.

This may sound to you awfully apocalyptic, and I ought to clarify it a little. I shall try to do this under four headings: What has science done to the universities? What have the universities done to science? What has science done to the country? What has the country done to science?

All these interactions have to do with science as a profession. But you will remember that I have made a distinction between this aspect and that of science as a product of the human mind. In this respect - namely, as the search for truth about nature - science began as a branch of philosophy, and for me this connection has never broken off. Science is an admirable product of human reasoning, as admirable and astonishing as are music or poetry or the arts. Previous generations understood this very well. For instance, I am a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and, until recently, before Columbia sent me down for recycling, I belonged to their Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

As a mental occupation, as a product of the human mind, science does not operate on a time scale. Just as nobody could have told Mozart how many operas he ought to write, there can be no five-year plan for science. It comes as it comes, it goes as it goes. Should all melting points be raised by 10 percent; are six laws of thermodynamics better than three? But when America decided to go into science in a big way - and this really took place only within the last thirty or forty years - it went into it in a crazy fashion. This country has always had the tendency to blow up every balloon until it bursts, and it has done it also with science.

What science has done to the universities is that it has inflated and disfigured them; it has left them more bankrupt than they were before. The large private universities have been turned into huge corporations whose only business is to lose money. There are exceptions, but, in general, power-hungry, empty-headed money grabbers have taken over. The true and only function of a university, namely, to help young people find themselves by bringing to them the accumulated memory of mankind, has been swept aside. By misunderstanding, through overemphasis, of the old adage of the unity of research and learning, research has been made into a teaching tool, into a most expensive and stultifying one, forcing every student to become a researcher and trivializing the purpose of scientific research. Thousands of meaningless and costly experiments are performed to persuade the young that water boils at 100 degrees (Celcius). We are now paying the price for excessive veneration of the value of inductive reasoning.

Now to my second question: What have the universities done to science? They have bled it for overhead; they have cheapened and vulgarized it to the point of nonrecognition; they have made it into a public-relations "gimmick." If the products of this kind of education often still are so good, it testifies only to the resilience of young minds. But many are damaged irreversibly.

What has science done to the country? Obviously, a lot of good and a lot of evil. If the republic envisioned by Plato had come to pass, that is, a dictatorship of wise philosophers, may be no evil would have come to the state from science. But how many wise men will you meet in your future long lives? When I look at our leading statesmen, there are brought back to me the immortal words that the Duke of Wellington once spoke of his generals. "They may not frighten the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me!" The thoughtless, almost automatic use of science as the seed of technology has landed us in a fearful mess. The cry that what we need is more and ever more science has lost all persuasion, as far as I am concerned. The republic will not be saved by geese, not even by geese with a PhD.

What has the country done to science? In a way, I have already answered the question. When you have been a scientist all your life, going to the laboratory every day and spending all your days among other scientists, it becomes hard to imagine that there still are people in this country other than scientists, although an optimistic forecast made a few years ago promised me that in less than hundred years there would be more scientists than people in the United States. In any event, as I have already mentioned, the country at large views science with great diffidence and often with dislike; and the rain of suspicion falls alike on the guilty and on the just. I don't want to go into the tedious arguments about pollution and DDT and all the rest. I shall also not discuss whether ten million blackbirds ought to have been killed, by Tergitol or otherwise; nor shall I have anything to say about Napalm, that innocent pastime of a Harvard professor.

Our kind of science has become so dependent on public support that nobody seems to be able to do any research without a handout. If their applications are turned down, even the youngest and most vigorous assistant professors stop all work and spend the rest of their miserable days writing more applications. This continual turning off and on of the financial faucets produces Pavlovian effects and a general neurasthenia that are bound to damage science irreversibly. It would have been much better if it had never got so rich before getting so poor, for in the meantime many young people have been lured into a career that may never materialize.

P.S. Not much has changed- probably gone worse ever since.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/wKfPLZ

Steady-state economy and de-growth models of development.

Since last few years I was wondering how many people this world can sustain. Obviously the answer depends on how we define sustainability and what quality of life we like to have to calculate that number. Initially we used to think that this world can sustain 4 billion people. Later we revised that data to 6 billion. Now we know that world can (rather “have to”) support more than that. One report suggests that we already need 1.2 earth to sustain just our current population (1). 

Now think that majority of world population (including those in rapidly developing countries like India, China, Brazil etc are nowhere near the desired living standard that people in very few affluent, first world countries enjoy. The same question is intimately related to many other questions related to 'sustainability' and 'growth', two favorite terms for many, if not majority, corporate, government and even non-profit organizations worldwide. These terms are highly misused or used very vaguely as an advertising tool.

I was also wondering what type of model of development we should have, to sustain this world and our quality of life. It becomes more important for developing countries like India where we almost constantly hear about "development" and conflicts arising from that. In one hand, we hear the conservation and global warming experts and enthusiasts like Al Gore who tell us to consume less, create less carbon footprints in our daily lives. On the other hand, we are constantly hearing many economists and policy makers that we need “growth”, that we need to spend more (i.e consume more). National governments, corporate houses, even NGOs; all are talking about this "growth". From our childhood we had an impression that low or zero “growth” is very bad! I was confused like many other general citizens, who want to behave responsibly. Then I came across an interesting article in a reputed research journal, “EMBO Reports” (Sep 2010 issue, Vol. 11, No. 9, pp. 659-663) (2). Basically the article is about consequences and desirability of a second green revolution to feed ever increasing global population (and eventually turning the world into a giant farmhouse).

The article emphasizes on alternative economic models that recognize ecological limits of human development and emphasize social equality. It described two alternative economic models. The first one proposes a steady-state economy: one that has stopped growing in terms of GDP, but continues to improve quality of life and is maintained by an ecologically sustainable rate of resource throughput and a constant human population. The second one is a sustainable de-growth model that has been defined as “an equitable down-scaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term”. The paradigm is that human progress without economic growth is possible. It has been shown repeatedly that GDP per capita does not correlate with overall happiness above a certain level of satisfying people’s basic needs. According to a recent article, earning more than a threshold level does not translate into increasing overall happiness and satisfaction of life, while may have negative impact on quality of life. That cut-off value is ~ $ 75,000 per annum per family in USA (as of 2010) (3).

The defenders of de-growth emphasize that this process is “not the same as recession or depression— there should be no social or quality of life deterioration—nor does it promote a return to a fictitious pre-industrial pastoral past”. 

It is almost impossible to tame greed of people (for both power and money), mainly the ambitious and intelligent ones that influence public policies and run private industries through the way current “growth” based economic model is practiced. That's one of the reasons why many, including national governments, prefer GDP type macro-economic parameters despite loud demands to adondon GDP as the overriding measure to indicate social and economical development (4). In 1972, the tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan opted to base its policy-making on indicators of 'gross national happiness', with King Jigme Singye Wangchuck declaring that this measure was more important than more conventional indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP). Today, after three decades and the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, his remarks seem prescient. A consensus among economists and policy-makers is growing that governments' reliance on GDP as the main proxy for social well-being and progress is leading the world in wrong and unsustainable directions (5).

It raises a serious question that if I have talent and ambition, how much right (both ethical and legal) do I have to get what I want! How beneficial or harmful is the typical “winners take it all” mentality for overall development of any society? Let me re-phrase the question. If powerful countries have the economical, technological and military might, does that give it the right to mow down other countries that does not agree with it OR for expanding its economic and/or political strength at the cost of many other people around the world? And more importantly, how will that affect our own social and economic prosperity? 

Anyone can extend the logic at any level- starting from within a family, or an organization, or a city, or a state or a country.

Short URL- http://goo.gl/dJP2Bp

We can do something does not mean we have to do that

I was watching the sixth sense technology lecture by Pranav Mistry in TED India forum. No doubt it is a nice idea and I appreciate that. I was checking the comments, and, as expected too many people are excited.

I was dreaming a little further. Suppose I can implant a microprocessor in one’s brain (that can communicate with his own senses), attach that with a broadband network and then enable the person to communicate with the world without any more external device, at any time, day or night. He can get any data, any picture or just anything available in the web. He will be able to store huge information there in his head and never forget anything. If I am successful in doing that and give a lecture on TED forum, I think I will get huge “congratulations” for “extraordinary innovation”, making many Indians “proud” and so on. But, please think little deeper. Do we need such a (bionic) person in the first place? Will that (bionic) person be a better human being, more genius in inventing or innovating? Will it be worth doing so? Should there any of that kind of technology be invented or be allowed? Answer for any of those questions is a big no for me. It seems that it’s almost impossible to make many people understand that we can do something does not mean that we have to do that.

We have enough technology, sufficient medical and agricultural know-how to make this world a much, much better place. Judicious use of already existing technology, proper application of our current knowledge can make a great difference. In fact, when industrial revolution started in Britain a couple of centuries ago, it promised “eradication of poverty and a more just society”. We all now know that industrialization made things worse. Agrarian societies are fairer, distribution of wealth was more equal. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting going back in time to have an agrarian society.

Most of the time, when we get any new idea, we become so excited that we tend to lose sight of bigger picture. We tend to justify the means than the goal. I know that we probably can not and should not stop innovations; but, I think, it will be better not to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/4l3pqq

How important money is to decide which profession to join?

Last few years Indian higher education and research sector is loudly asking for more salary and other financial benefits. Majority of them argue that higher salary will attract better talents, help improving the rapidly falling quality of Indian higher education and research.

I have a serious problem with the idea that increase in salary and other monetary benefits will increase quality while it definitely attract many un-worthy candidates into that area. If survival and progress of a person in a specific area is not dependent on actual productivity and accountability, then any increase in monetary benefit will do more harm than good.

Currently higher education and research in India is nothing but a tool to address huge unemployment problem without any accountability towards the nation or the subject.

If you do not love a subject but join it simply because of money, then there is a very high chance that you are just mediocre. Your main strategy to survive will be to belong to like minded mediocre people and form a group. Then wipe out any potential trouble maker- in form of genuine talented colleague or a student/junior who reminds you of your mediocrity. The only motivation for such people, in any profession, is money. It’s not very surprising that the main topic of discussion in majority of Indian universities and institutes is salary hike, pay commission, increase in TA-DA, HRA and so on. Very rarely we can hear any scientific discussion. This is not limited to science/research but almost any field of life there. We generally forget that India has substantially increased its higher education and research budget, both in terms of total money and percentage of GDP, since independence. Many new universities and institutes are coming up on a regular basis. Yet published reports show that we going downhill, so far quality is concerned.

Let's check one specific example of highly hyped IT sector in India. Despite of being one of the most prosperous industries, innovation-invention is almost zero. Not a single core software (operating system, JAVA, C++, Oracle etc) is developed by these rich Indian IT companies, using Indian IT professionals. We are happy to apply existing technology to solve customer specific problems and to do routine, maintenance jobs. Why so? Now analyze who is joining IT and why? Any Tom-Dick-Harry can become an “IT professional” who have passed bachelors degree with some math (not always necessary). Few months training will be sufficient to give him/her the job of an “IT professional” that will pay more than a teacher in a collage. On top of that, possibility of lucrative foreign tour/postings (again, mainly for money) provokes many to join IT. In this overwhelmingly majority of mediocrity, original talents in IT are lost. Many great talents in other fields are also lost in this IT-mania. This is one of the reasons why we will never have our own Bill Gates in IT or Obama in Indian politics in near future.

Thankfully, there is no software or fixed rule to generate talents and promote out-of-box thinking. You need to provide suitable environment to groom talented people. Money is needed but if money becomes the sole parameter to decide which profession to join, then all the professions and overall quality of life in that society gets affected. The same is true for almost any profession in India, starting from IAS-IPS (civil servants), to IIT, to IT, to biotech. No amount of screening, no amount of stringency during entrance exams can prevent that. We all know how rigorous UPSC selection process is, yet Indian bureaucracy is the worst in Asia (1). our IT is capable to do routine maintenance jobs, our biotech research is good for imitating western research and technology and/or BPO jobs. Many of these professions are well paid; many of these industries have good financial muscle but still lack originality, still lack efficiency and severely lack accountability towards the profession and towards the society.

I think that there should be legally binding cap (for salaries and executive benefits) for all the top executives of big industries (say, with more than 1 billion USD turn over). I am sure that it will not cause any serious attrition of talents. Talented people will continue to enjoy their professions as before. But such cap will help distributing the money to novel R&D projects, to other junior staff to make their lives little better (to reduce job loss and salary erosion, mainly during recession time like this). Focus on short term gain and over crowding of mediocre people (who joined the job only for money in many financial institutions and banks) are some of the important reasons for our current problem in global economy.

Lately I came across this excellent presentation. It may help you understanding why higher remuneration improves performance only for mechanical or routine jobs while reduce performance when, even, rudimentary cognitive skill is needed. It suggest, "just offer a minimum but enough salary and then take money out of the equation to improve both motivation and performance".

Real talents, the dedicated ones, join a profession they love. Money is important but must not be the main parameter, mainly in creative professions like research. Creative ego, professional success and institutional power (fame) are the most important driving forces for talented people. If someone joins a profession for money and the only day s/he looks forward to go to the office is the salary day then s/he should understand that there is a severe problem.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/LM9Q0y

Definition of intelligence and responsibility of a scientist

I am sorry if I sounded too revolutionary in this lengthy message. I do not think anyone in this world is just average. Everyone have some great talent. It’s up to right grooming and providing right environment that help discovering and then developing such talents. When I play with my very young son, I try to see the world through his eyes and then try to understand the problem he might be facing before asking him to do something different or the same thing differently.

I have doubts about the way IQ is measured and how people are branded intelligent or not. How can one say that Einstein is the greatest genius when he could not do many things that a common Joe can do without much problem, e.g maintaining a healthy family relationship, respect his wife or not sidelining his wife for his personal fame, inability to foresee how his and many other research were about to be used by policy makers (yes, I am talking about Nuc bomb) and so on. Einstein surely was genius so far physics and mathematics is concerned. But that is not all about life or the world. Let me quote, “…wherever possible, scientists took advantage of the nation’s appetite for heroes.… Social surveys demonstrated that industrialization had not eradicated poverty and the heroic rhetoric of invention had served its purpose” (source: “The invention of heroes”: Nature 30th July, 2009, pp 572-583).

People like Jane Goodall or Dian Fossey may not be excellent in using latest technology or great in doing complicated physics problems in chimpanzee or gorilla research. But I consider them as one of the finest human being ever lived in this planet. Or how can you compare Vivekananda or Rabindra Nath Tagore or Nelson Mandela with Newton or Edison so far “intelligence” is concerned? Let me phrase my wordings differently: If the ultimate target of science is to make this world a better place (through technology and knowledge) then who is more important, among those people? Some may say these are all irrelevant for a scientist to think about, many say “it’s not our (scientists’) duty to decide how our work is being used by policy makers”, some may agree with me that our ultimate target is to make this world a better place. Some bright medical scientists are very against doing more research to lengthen human life span, as “if we can not control birth then we must not control death”. The consequences are in front of us, mainly in developing countries like India with its high population growth and increasing life expectancy without supporting resources and governance to sustain such a huge population. We also can see huge socioeconomic problems associated with rapid increase of old people in developed countries, without proper care (both mental and physical), living almost meaningless lives.

I am trained (I am avoding the term “education” here) in some specific subjects; know some specific techniques and now trying to solve some of the earthly problems using those. But am I a good “scientist” if I forget where to go, what is the main objective of all these “research”? Once Ex-British PM Tony Blair said something like this, “money was invented to quantify happiness in ancient time but now even economists have forgotten the basic objective and we all are busy in measuring and maximizing money and most of the time it translate into sacrificing happiness”. Deterioration of social values and happiness is a direct consequence of deterioration of our basic education. Have you heard of the term "happiness index" or "happiness quotient"? (you can check: Science of happiness and Politics of happiness).

In other words, introduction of corporate education (invented in the western world, mainly in USA) and adoption of US system around the world made the situation worse. We talk what others want us to talk, we think as others want us to think. It's becoming more and more tough to remain different, think differently, act differently. We are loosing our personality, our creativity, and above all sacrificing our own happiness in the process. Nowadays we hardly do what makes us happy, but we try to justify what we do. That’s why so many people flock to a profession that can give them money while majority of them could be better in many other professions. Everyone does not have to do IT or biotech or genetic engineering or work on string theory to become intelligent. The situation is far worse in developing countries like India where people face harder challenge to sustain basic survival, pay higher price to remain different. 

I am not an economist. I do not have in-depth knowledge how the society and mankind will be affected if we, majority of human beings, start doing what we love. Will that be good or bad? What is the actual value of an art work (other than box office or business earnings)? Will it be a great idea to allow bees to become extinct and then invest billions of dollars to invent on a technology to pollinate plants or producing industrial honey by chemists! I think the world will become more boring, monotonous and much less productive (even for a genius) if love for doing something is not maintained and encouraged. Supply of factory workers and industrial managers should not be the main target to educate our future generations.

It is the conducive socioeconomic environment that allow people to do what they love and that ultimately groom talents. Scientist (I mean, logical people) should actively take part in framing those policies. We, the scientists, have a bigger responsibility. People with vision must get involved. Some can do it directly while many others can try to build public (Scientific?) opinion for a bigger goal towards a better society.

Listen Jane Goodall in TED

Pic: Jane Goodall with one of her Chimps

Indian Police after 62 years of independence

This picture is published in a Bengali magazine, “Desh” (17th July 2009, page 75). This is about an ongoing police operation in recently famous (for leftist extremism) Lalgarh area in West Bengal state in eastern India. Is there anything in that picture that strikes you? Apparently not, if you are habituated with daily lives in India. But look closely. You can see a paramilitary force personnel holding an assault rifle wearing a towel around his neck, typically worn by common people in some areas in India. A police personnel wearing a fancy, American style trousers with big side pockets. That cannot be an approved police uniform. Two other police officials are doing their duties with buttons of their shirts wide open. Is this a picture of a state owned, disciplined armed force and that too during an on going operation?

This picture seems to indicate the present status of India. Lawlessness. By the way, the article was not about police indiscipline. There is not much difference between underworld criminals in action and that of a state owned police-paramilitary force. These police and paramilitary personnel have no sense of discipline, no sense of duty. No sane Indian expect these "professionals" to be disciplined.  These people know very well that no one can take any action against them, as the higher officials are even less disciplined, less accounted for, and lost almost all moral high ground to punish such “simple mistakes”.

It seems that Indian police-paramilitary is nothing but state owned criminal gangs, devoid of any discipline, duty towards the nation and its people and above all no accountability. Reports of police abuse appear regularly in news media. Our political leadership routinely promises police reform but nothing happens in reality. Today no sane person prefers to go to police and ask any help, even to report any crime. General people are showing increasing tendency to take laws into their own hands. Police abuse give rise to more anger and give birth to many more terrorists and extremist as compared to any ideology (e.g Islamic terrorism, Maoism etc.). Indian police live on with its pre-independence mentality and brutality; always reminds our colonial past.

Indian policy makers should remember that development of few people cannot be termed as development of the country. One of the main parameters for a civilised nation is to provide an environment of security and affordable and speedy justice. But such a police force can never help towards that goal but can only make things worse.

Can a true rational person compartmentalize inquisitiveness and rational thinking?

The basic qualities of a scientist or any truly educated person are rational thinking and inquisitiveness. I think a true scientific mind can never restrict his/her abilities limited only to his/her area of work but will apply to each and every aspect of life. Sometimes it may create problems for the person to live a “normal” life, mainly in a conservative society in countries like India. It can also become a bit painful experience when s/he start applying these qualities to ask questions and re-visit traditions, religion and religious beliefs that we imbibe since our childhood; from our parents, relatives and society. I know it is always a tricky issue to mix science with religion and tradition. I also should make it clear that my intention is not to hurt any religious sentiment here.

Let me give an example. In India majority are Hindus and so are majority of Indian “scientists”. Many of us believe that beef eating is not allowed in Hinduism, which is clearly not true, as per historians and social scientists. Many of Hindu “scientists” religiously follow that so-called religious custom and never eat beef for “religious” reason. There are many such rituals that we follow in the name of tradition and religion. This attitude gave rise to a very conservative and close society even among so-called educated people, as I think. It has a bigger impact on society when an established “scientist” follows such rituals. It strengthens many superstitions in the name of religion/tradition among common Indian people, who are not that much literate or well informed. I think I should make it clear that respect to one’s heritage and acknowledgement of one’s past is a different issue as compared to accepting and encouraging distorted version of religion and negative aspects of tradition. 

We need to keep in mind that single most important reason of killing people is religion since pre-historic time and India has more than fair share in that number. Mass murder, brutal torture of weaker sections of our society (e.g against women) in the name of religion/tradition is still a burning issue in Indian society which mainly originates from ill-informed notion about “religion” and lack of transparent, rational thinking.

I am not advocating that all scientists or truly educated people to start a mass movement to eradicate religious superstitions and social prejudices leaving less time for their main profession. I am wondering how hard it will be for us to set examples to others (mainly to our students and juniors) by our own deeds in personal lives. I do not think it will take any extra time away from our research or teaching. I have seen many Indian “scientists” wearing rings with gem stones to rectify some "rogue" star/planets to change their misfortunes. Whatever such scientist/teachers teach in a class or in his/her lab, is not going to make his/her students more rational and “educated” in real sense.

What we do has more profound impact on our students and juniors than what we actually preach in classes. As a teacher our duty is not only to train some techniques and transfer information in the name of “education” and “professionalism”, but also to train them, to encourage them to become a better human being, to gather the courage and wisdom not only to remain personally honest but to oppose corruption in an effective way. I am not asking my students or juniors or friends to become a martyr by opposing crimes and corruption of powerful people in a country like India but simply asking them to think of a better way to do it without sacrificing too much. The best and most effective way we can do, as I think, is by setting standard for ourselves.

My questions are:

1. Does a truly educated person have the social responsibility to behave a bit more responsibly with more open, logical attitude outside of his/her area of work?

2. If the answer to my previous question is yes; then, can we afford to continue compartmentalizing inquisitiveness and rational thinking?

3. Lastly, is it at all possible to become rational in some issues but not in many others?

Short URL: http://goo.gl/86dCoj 

Primary and secondary education reform should be India's top priority

There were only 20 universities and 500 colleges in the Indian subcontinent (including Bangladesh and Pakistan) in 1947, the year of Indian independence. Now there are about 376 universities and 17,700 colleges in India only, many with world class physical infrastructure. Many private research institutes are also coming up on a regular basis. The only Nobel prize for India (Indian citizen at the time of the award) in science for C. V. Raman (1930, University of Calcutta) also came in that era. We also had many world class scientists during that time (e.g Satyen Bose, JC Bose, Homi Bhaba etc). Now India is the second fastest growing in the world and third largest economy in Asia with huge budget in so-called education and research. But we do not have any world class scientist who has the slightest chance to get Nobel Prize in science in India (as per a survey published in a reputed Bengali magazine, “Desh”, sometime ago).

We see huge uproar when previous government wanted to “introduce accountability” in some elite institutes like IIMs & IITs but we never see a fraction of that excitement among educated middle class people or our political masters to reform primary and secondary education although our primary and secondary education system, the backbone of our country, is in a pathetic shape. Our middle class people, who can not afford to send their kids abroad (like our socio-political “elites”) but dream to have a better, more powerful and comfortable life for their kids (and to them through their kids) do not allow any meaningful reform of primary and secondary education since independence.

Our current education system selectively discards talented students with inquisitiveness, ability to ask questions and dream to do something challenging, something better for the society. Now we only produce private tuition and coaching enabled, mugging-up grade technicians who are great to do routine jobs (as in IT or BT) or imitating others (mainly true for Indian R&D sector in any branch of science and in any industry), but not capable of doing original research, despite of having many world class physical infrastructure, huge budget and some so-called “elite” institutes. My recent experience with many graduate students form some high profile Indian institutes/universities indicate that the trend to emphasize on database type knowledge, quiz type information and fascination with techniques (not science as such) are still highly prevalent. No wonder India is among the least innovative nations in the world. Quality of Indian science education and research is going down at an alarming rate since independence, despite of huge increase in funding (1, 2, 3 and Balaram, P (2002): Science in India- Signs of Stagnation. Current Science 82, 193-194.).

We need to invest much more and have an intensive and proper supervision of primary and high school education than wrongly focusing on higher education and research at the top level, at this time. Recently passed Right to education bill is a step towards the right direction. But here again we need to remember that many such great policies hardly achieve anything in reality and only limited within government files and the money ends up in the pockets of few selected people. Whatever money we spend on higher education and research is not going to give us any novel knowledge or technological edge unless we have right candidate behind the costly machines we buy. Now we produce mainly technicians, not scientists or technocrats and feel proud to export such raw materials to manpower-starved developed countries (be it IT or BT, the two main pillars of Indian economy today). This might lead to some degree of prosperity in the short term but we are going to loose in a big way in the long run unless we totally overhaul our basic education system at primary and high school level. It’s useless to cut the roots and then water on the top. Universal and quality primary and high school education will also bring many other positive socio-political changes in our system that can propel India to attain its rightful position in the world.

Some relevant facts:

· "The study of 188 government-run primary schools in central and northern India revealed that 59% of the schools had no drinking water facility and 89% no toilets; and, most alarmingly, a large number of teachers were found to be absent at the time of the survey. With a literacy rate (percentage of adults who can read and write) of 65%, India compares poorly to not just industrialised nations but also several much-poorer economies, such as Vietnam (90% literacy), Zambia (80%), Tanzania (77%), and Cambodia (70%)".

"Only 21% of the teachers in Bihar are class X pass. In one of the most prosperous states in India, Gujarat, over 55% of the teachers have not got beyond the secondary stage of schooling. The only state which comes near Gujarat in terms of the low quality of teachers is Karnataka, another highly prosperous state in India, with about three-fourths of its teachers having studied only up to the higher secondary level". Such data also implied that prosperity of few people (that inflate the macro level data like GDP, par capita income) does not mean prosperity for common people (or the country as a whole). The same “prosperous” states like Gujarat and Karnataka also do worse as compared to “least developed” states like Assam in term of hunger and social well being (the overall hunger index for India is worse than many “least developed” countries” like Cuba, Uganda, Sudan, even our arch rival Pakistan). Such facts imply that “trickle down” effect of “development” or “prosperity” as many seem to justify, can never be translated to the common people of the country unless strict oversight and transparency in governance is present. This is true for any country, be it USA or India.

PS: There is a related topic in “Nature India forum” on “How to improve India's higher education and research quality?”. I also published this blog in the same “Nature India Forum” sometime ago. Readers can read the discussion part there and are welcome to post their comments there too.

How confident we should be about Indian health system and doctors?

India was once regarded as having one of the best medical professionals in the world. Indian doctors are still in high demand in many countries. But what is the actual situation of health system and condition of that lot of professionals in India? Not very encouraging, to say the least.

Since last few decades urban India has seen an unprecedented rise in cesarean delivery of pregnant women. There is hardly any normal delivery, mainly in urban India ( who has access and can afford health care) these days. This menace is fast spreading in rural India. World Health Organization (WHO) states that, "both very low and very high rates of caesarean section can be dangerous, but the optimum rate is unknown. Pending further research, users of this handbook (2009) might want to continue to use a range of 5-15%".

Unnecessary and sometimes downright harmful pathological and others tests are being recommended by doctors is a norm. Unnecessary prescribing vitamin tablets and tonic formulations is a very routine phenomenon. Doctors are increasingly being influenced and bribed by drug and other companies involved in medical practice (drug or equipment or technology/kit business establishments). Illegal and selective girl child abortion by majority of private clinics and nursing homes is routine now. Substandard blood donation camps (a good source of earning for local clubs/youths) and highly profitable illegal business involving that blood is no more restricted to private clinics or nursing homes but has spread its tentacles in govt hospitals. No wonder infected blood, such unhealthy blood donation camps and business involving such tainted blood are a big source for AIDS infection and its spread in India. India is now among the major hubs of illegal human organ trade on a global scale.

Undertaking dubious clinical trials (mainly, but not exclusively, using semi-literate and oppressed section of our society as guinea pigs) of drugs developed by multinational drug companies is a highly flourishing business involving many high profile Indian private companies, nursing homes and hospitals. Doctors and so-called scientists are increasingly entering the domain of crime using their noble profession and lack of effective consumer protection as a shield. Sometimes angry mob beat up suspected doctors and vandalize nursing homes/clinics. But that is neither enough nor desirable for a civilized society. Most of the time doctors involved in such crimes are not punished. Many high profile doctors in cities like Mumbai, Kolkata etc regularly pay “hafta” (protection money) to local mafias and politicians to cover their crimes. Considering the ground realities in India, it’s not surprising that many more decent and reasonably honest colleagues (other doctors, scientists etc.) are just silent spectators  at best, tolerating such corruption by many of their "successful" colleagues. But they hardly think that tolerating and not opposing such crimes and criminals also make them almost equally responsible for the crime they are witnessing on daily basis. 

It raises the following questions:

1. Can we and such 'highly educated' 'professionals' really perceive the extent of damage it does to not only to our present but also to our future?

2. How far we can tolerate such crimes?

3. What should we do?

Some relevant stories and links:

“In India, poor and illiterate patients are being used to test new drugs for the West and some are unaware they are even taking part in clinical trials”.

"By 2010, some estimate there will be two million patients in India on clinical trials....Six years ago, an experimental drug from the US called M4N was injected into cancer patients in India without being properly tested on animals first".

Clinical trials claimed 25 lives in 2010, only 5 paid compensation. Families of five of these victims received "compensation for trial related death" — the amount ranging from Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh.

According to one BBC report, 10 million female foetuses may have been aborted in India over the past 20 years.

"He has discovered through a survey of people in the West Midlands who bought kidneys abroad that one in eight died within a couple of months of their operation and two-thirds returned with serious complications. India is one of a number of countries in the world with a thriving black-market, dealing in the sale of human kidneys". A BBC report on illegal kidney racket in India. A NDTV video and Indian Express report on the same.

A milestone case involving the murder of the wife of a US based Indian doctor in West Bengal, alleged by deliberate negligence by doctors. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) supported the alleged doctors, as expected (2, 3, 4).

“Thousands of people may have been given contaminated blood that was tested with kits whose expiry dates had either been tampered with or which had passed their use-by dates during the past one year” (1, 2) .

A number of states might have bought faulty blood test kits from the Sarda-owned Monozyme India, chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee revealed today.

A mob ransacked four wards and the superintendent’s office at the famous RG Kar Medical College.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/Vn4KG0 

Is India a better place to bring up kids?

This is a serious dilemma that many parents face while living abroad. Many of them site that as the main reason to go back to India and settle there. They think prevailing situation and surrounding conditions in India will allow their kids to learn “Indian culture”. The dilemma mainly raises two questions. First, what do we mean by “bringing up”. Secondly, what do we mean by “Indian Culture” that many of us are so desperate to teach that to their kids?

To me bringing up implies to help the kid to become a better and total human being. Formal education is only a part of that. But the main aspect is learned from parents, society and surrounding environment.

The pressure to succeed there in India is so high that our own parents want us to prosper in every aspect of life. They forcefully impose almost all of their unfulfilled desires on those kids. In India today, we hardly behave in a honest, rational way. Our present society does not support honesty, as a virtue but consider it as a 'drag' force to become 'successful'. We teach our kids the same in the name of reality.

We see good number of kids going to school with heavy load of books and return home to do huge home-work. After coming back from the school they go to music class, then swimming, then home work and so on… They are too busy to spend time with parents. Very limited free time they get, they prefer to spend with TV and/or video games. Kids in the past used to read comic or other books or listening fairy tales from grandparents. This change in habit reduces their ability to imagine, to think 'unthinkable'.

Parents themselves cannot afford to remain honest and straightforward in present Indian society. They hardly can protect their own dignity, be it in the office or in a housing society or neighborhood, if they try to behave honestly, if they oppose corruptions and so on. Kids grow up with a distorted vision about life and "reality". They learn to accept corruption, not to oppose it in the name of “practical sense”. Money becomes almost the sole purpose of life. Accumulation of money and power start becoming the only yardstick to judge “success”. I agree that it's almost a global problem; but in India, it already has taken the dimension of an epidemic. Globalization is making it worse. We are loosing our good values fast while adopting cheap and easily imitable negative aspects of western culture.

In India, we learn that we can get away with almost any crime, "believers" may say "sin", by bribing even God, leave alone government officials and bureaucrats. Many of us feel that observing some bratas and offering costly items to God is sufficient to continue doing crimes and overcome our own limitations, e.g. failure to become rich, failure to pass exams, inability to find suitable spouse and so on. When we see highly visible but utterly corrupt people (e.g. well known political leaders, film actors, industrialists etc) offer huge money and expensive jewelry in the famous temples like that in Tirupati and media loudly advertise & praise it, then we need to acknowledge there is a serious problem with the society.

Our highly 'educated' and religious parents teach their kids not to help any other kid in the school or neighborhood. 'Little' cheating is acceptable to score higher marks n the exams or credit that s/he does not deserve. Kids start learning that showing off (money, power, degree etc.) is the best policy to hide any form of deficiencies or inabilities. From the beginning of their lives they learn that admitting fault and ignorance is a serious crime. It does not surprise me when most of the Indians always try to shift responsibilities and blame others or the 'system'. It not only deprives them from knowing the right thing but also expose their lack of  education.

Many parents blindly follow some rituals in the name of 'tradition' or 'religion' which they cannot explain to their curious kids. They take help of phrases like “you should not question when elders ask you to do something” or "you will know when you grow old". It not only hurt kid's psychology but also trains him/her to loose his/her ability to think independently and ask questions. It has severe consequences both for the kid and the nation. We see the same trend in homes, societies, schools, universities and offices. As a result India now produces mainly technician grade professionals who can walk only through the roads invented and developed by others. We can not make basic computer software like C++ or JAVA or operating systems like Windows or Linux, despite of being the global “power house” in IT. Our much-hyped biotechnology sector can only boast to produce generic drugs (patent expired drugs) and copying products by stealing/breaking patent laws of other countries, sometimes using the loopholes of Indian patent law. Published articles show that the quality of science and research in India is going down fast, despite of huge increase in fund allocation. India now mainly supplies scientific/technical coolies worldwide and due to lack of interest in science education and research among students in  developed countries, Indian techie/science coolies survive & thrive there.

Many studies showed that kids need to play in natural surroundings with bushes, ponds, forest etc. to have a healthy body and mind. But today Indian kids in cities and smaller towns hardly have anything else to do but to waste time in front of TV or video games. It’s almost impossible for kids to play & explore nature, even if their parents want. Land sharks and unplanned growth reduced that probability to a very worrying level. Running after money and busy schedule of parents prevent them from spending time with their kids. Many of them wrongly think money can buy 'education', 'culture' and even happiness. They can not differentiate between scoring high marks and buying degrees with education. This is a very pervasive disease in Indian society today. 

It’s not surprising at all when kids grow up and kick out their old parents. Such parents must not blame the 'system' or write songs, poems on old-age homes. They are responsible for their own fate and fate of the country. For many people, bringing up means enabling kids to earn money and survive with reasonable personal comfort. India is surely the place where they can get a cheap and effective training (I am avoiding the term “education” here) to do just that. But others, who still believe that bringing up means infusing a positive value and a dream to make this world better place, need to think many times before opting for an option to bring up their beloved children in India.

If the child is a girl, then it becomes more problematic. In India, we hardly allow a girl child to develop properly, with an analytical mind and a strong body. We kill most of her qualities (as a human being) in the very beginning and allow her to grow only as a 'girl', playing with dolls, tolerating sexual harassments and bullying by the society and even by the members in her own family. 'Ladki jaisa' (like girls) is a very insulting slang frequently used by parents, even by moms and, most pathetically, even in front of the girl child.

Here in the western world, there is a higher chance that the kid will do something they enjoy. They will not be forced to study medicine or engineering or science when they love journalism or cooking or singing or studying philosophy. There is a higher chance that s/he will love what s/he does and the probability to excel in that field is higher. The probability of the girl child to blossom into a woman with stronger body and logical mind is much higher in a western society as compared to India.

If the kid cannot read Rabindra Nath Tagore, cannot enjoy Durga Puja, can not eat hilsa fish, but enjoy reading Rohl Dahl, sign Celine Dion, enjoy rib-eye steaks, but is a good, honest, bold, straight talking, educated human being who dream to make this world a better place, I’ll be proud of such kids, despite of being a proud Indian and Bengali myself.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/PBoRg3

Urban terrorism in India

These days we are hearing a lot about “urban terrorism” in India. Many Indians now wonder if that will be a part of our daily lives. Such noise became lauder after some recent bomb blasts in many Indian cities like Hyderabad, Mumbai, Ajmer shrine, Ludhiana etc. Modern day terrorism almost always target urban areas to maximize damage and collateral impact. Though the foot soldiers are recruited form the impoverished population in both rural and urban areas. On the other hand rural India always suffers from terrorism, be it by religious fundamentalism/superstition, oppression by landlords, politicians and police/bureaucrats. Rural mass in India accepted terrorism as a way of life since independence. After some sporadic violent movements in the past (e.g Naxal movement in West Bengal in 70's), rural India is now showing some sign of systematic opposition against rural terrorism and neglect by the political masters and ruling class of India. Now we see in almost all the states in India are affected by extremist Mao-ist, communist movements. Proponents of such violent movements think that they can cure cancer by infecting with HIV-AIDS virus. On the other hand, such movements can simply be described as an expression of frustration against existing law and order system and social and economic injustices. Many Indians think that India never got true freedom on 15th August 1947; only the power to rule India and its people simply changed hands. Before it was the British and later a few “brown sahibs” of Indian origin got that power. Situation for common Indians did not change. Quality of lives of majority Indians could not keep pace with that of common people in many other countries in the world and also with India’s own economic prosperity since 90's.

The “hunger index” of India is worse than even Pakistan in recently published report (2007). A recent (2008) BBC article citing International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report ranks India at 66 out 88 countries, so far hunger is concerned. That report also points out that economic prosperity of a state in India does not always translate to a better, overall situation for common people. Highly prosperous states like Gujarat and Karnataka (that houses Indian silicone-valley, Bangalore) are worse in hunger index as compared to less developed states like Assam. India is slipping down in that key index as compared to its own position in 1990, despite a spectacular growth in GDP. Now India has the second fastest growing economy in the world and third largest in Asia. But, like many other social and environmental issues, the target fixed by India itself to reduce hunger was fallen far behind. The “Corruption index” for India is deteriorating further (1). India now has the highest death due to diarrhoea in the world. Nearly two-third of India has no access to sanitation even today. In terms of malnutrition among children, India today found itself ranked with Ethiopia. India is now home for one third of the world’s 146 million undernourished children according to a recent Unicef report. As expected, India is widely off track of the child mortality target as well. Judiciary is as good as non-functional (1).

What does it all mean? Only a handful of people are being benefited by the economic prosperity so far. Common people are facing the same hardship, all round corruption and environmental pollutions. So it’s not surprising that people in many states are not reporting crimes to police but punishing any suspected criminals by their own. Mass fury is unleashing against alleged corrupt “fair price” shop, popularly known as “ration” dealers in rural areas in West Bengal state. Now there is almost no one to complain to, against any social or economic injustices and expect a speedy redressal. What options people do have but to take laws in their own hands? It was the same for rural India since independence. But now due to wide reach of TV, Internet and other sources of information, they are becoming aware and have started demanding their share. We are generally oblivious about rural India, as that does not affect our daily lives in the cities with sparkling shopping malls, flyovers, 5-star hotels etc. But when a bomb rips apart a bus or a train or a temple, we suddenly wake up and start shouting about “urban terrorism”. We never think that it was inevitable. India is facing and will continue to face this modern form of urban terrorism unless overall change in the system is enforced. Huge unemployment, poverty and lack of impartial law and order implementation (please don’t confuse that to laws and clauses in the constitution) will always add fuel to the religion and caste based hatred and violence. Indian society and politics are too weak and fragmented to stop it. Although we will hear the same song and excuses by our political masters after every instance of terrorism, be it in Ajmer or Ludhiana or Hyderabad or Mumbai or Kashmir or NE states, the list is too long. After every act of terrorism our masters will congratulate us for “showing courage” in ignoring terrorism. They probably are too scared and/or too shrewd to admit that common Indians have no option but to go to their works for their families to survive.

India on its 60th Birthday

I read a nice article in BBC news web site about Pakistani society. The situation in Pakistan, just one day older nation than ours, is not much different than most of the countries in the third world, particularly in Asia, including Indian subcontinent and Middle East. In all these countries "It is the ruling class that routinely breaks the law and considers it a privilege". Indian ruling class is no different than that of its Pakistani counterpart. "The people of this country have learnt to live in a system heavily skewed against them. They look for short cuts, they bribe their way, they use friends' and family's influence, they lie through their teeth, they plead and they threaten because there is no straightforward way to get things done"- is equally true for India.

Situation has not much changed since independence; so far common people of the country are concerned. In fact, according to many reports it has been deteriorated, despite of huge improvement in financial situation of some people of the country. Today when we see flood pictures from Bihar, UP, Assam and many other parts in India, we hardly can differentiate between Bangladesh, Pakistan and some sub-Saharan African states with India. General health index of common Indians are among the worst in the world (according to UN report), so does education; the two main pillars of any civilized society and prosperous nation. Please don’t site 4000 IIT grads or 5 lakhs IT professionals or so in a country of about 120 crores. Quality of education, wide spread corruption even in different joint entrance exams, drop out rate and literacy rate in India is still very worrying.

We are still maintaining a feudal society. Even today, sons and daughters of powerful people go abroad, buy degrees from prestigious universities in Europe or US but hardly get true education. These people comeback and do the same thing as their parents and grand parents did. The cycle goes on. Many of our corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and industry captains do possess heavy-weight degrees.

It’s due to the same reason why many Indians, particularly Non Residential Indians, behave like feudal lords and demand royal treatment particularly when they are in India but sometimes in abroad as well. A truly educated person will be ashamed to its core to behave in such a way. The most unfortunate thing is that many of these people themselves prefer to settle in a western country rather than in a country, which has same type (Indian style) of society and law and order situation. They want the peaceful and prosperous life of a western country but at the same time they desire to have all the extra-constitutional privileges they are so used to in their own countries and societies. It’s not surprising that middle class and upper class Pakistanis and people from such societies/countries are the main driving force to organize and mobilize the jehadi agenda in US and Europe, as they do not get the extra-constitutional privileges here and get upset. These extra-constitutional privileges are also one of the main reasons why many such people prefer to go back to thier home countries.

The most deprived, under-privileged people are taking up arms to protest against such feudal system in India these days. Many times they are highly exploited by religious leaders, rich businessmen/industrialists and shrewd politicians. It’s not very surprising that practically no state in India is free from organized extremist violence these days. Is that the way to solve our problems? May be yes, may be no; but one thing I am sure about, India is maturing. It’s like bringing up an intelligent, healthy child who has loads of curiosity but don't know what and how to prioritize and the consequences. With proper, honest guidance and effort it has the ability and resources to become a prosperous and happy nation. But who will give this honest, able guidance? We can blame the politicians, but the fact remains that this situation will not change until a good number of honest people take up politics as a profession. They may not be able to do so while studying or working, but can think of it after retirement. If “good” people do not come, the positions will not remain vacant but will be occupied by these parasites and the country will continue to suffer.

The least we can do, for the time being, is to speak up in whatever forum we can against hypocrisy, corruption and cruelty we encounter in our daily life.