FOR all our claims as a scientific powerhouse and a leading knowledge centre, a country with the fourth largest science and technology workforce in the world, there is growing disquiet over the loss of energy, creativity, and quality in our scientific institutions. True, there are centres of excellence – the Indian Institute of Science, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, various centres under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research or the Department of Atomic Energy, the IITs and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, to name a few – but given both the size of the country as also the large number of institutions, these appear as islands surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Apologists would aver, pointing to the global respect for the IITs, the growth in the computer software industry, the impressive work done by the Department of Space, even the growing number of patents being filed by Indian scientists and institutions. Nevertheless, the spectacular failures of the Defence Research and Development Organization, the virtual collapse of the agricultural universities and the Krishi Vigyan Kendras, the decline of science departments in our universities, even the repeated inability to accurately predict weather, point to a different story.
All this seems a far cry from the situation in the early years of independence, particularly under Jawaharlal Nehru who laid great emphasis on developing an autonomous, self-reliant and high quality S&T structure, dedicated to both teaching and theoretical and applied research. Be it the science policy resolution of 1958, the setting up of the National Commission on Science and Technology, or the call to inculcate a ‘scientific temper’, the attempt was both to harness ‘the benefits that can accrue from the acquisition and application of scientific knowledge’ as also foreground the importance of rationality in public and private thinking.
When and why we slipped remains a matter of intense debate. In part, the issue can be traced to under-funding. Not only have we never reached the desired target of six per cent of GNP being earmarked for education, within even what was allocated, the proportion for higher education, particularly research, suffered neglect. And nowhere has this impacted more severely than on colleges and universities. Unbridled expansion without adequate concern for infrastructure and quality resulted in these institutions becoming essentially degree producing factories such that the few interested in pursuing research were pushed out into government or private labs.
The consequent disjunction of teaching and research, in particular the absence of young minds to interact with, may explain the consequent decline in vitality. Unfortunately, the migration away from the university did not add to the research impulse. If the governmental system was plagued by a stultifying bureaucracy and lack of academic autonomy, the private institutions linked to industry were much too subservient to the profit motive, engaged more in cloning research carried out elsewhere for speedy development of products than basic research. All this had an inevitable impact on selection of research themes, the organization, including methodologies, of research, and the modes of validation and certification.
Much of this has been highlighted in numerous studies and committee reports, viz. the Abid Hussain committee report on the CSIR. Among others, the lack of accountability and transparency in our official labs, (despite the many negative comments of the Comptroller and Accountant General’s office or the reports of the Public Accounts Committees), an inadequate appreciation of merit and performance when deciding postings and promotions, the weak linkage between research and application go some way in explaining why our system not only does not encourage quality research but equally why the research-innovation- adaptation chain remains weak.
Not to be underestimated is the impact of the global system and community of science and technology researchers. Knowledge cannot grow in isolation. Yet, what constitutes a worthwhile problem to study, selection of methodologies, processes of certification and validation are all differentially influenced by global forces and trends, in ways not always suited to the country’s requirements. Local knowledge, skills and intellectual traditions are neglected and downgraded as the scientific community pursues agendas conforming to the latest fashions abroad. Just examine what has happened in areas of agriculture, forestry and medicine.
Few bemoan the shift away from a system wherein bureaucratic and political masters effectively called the shots. But do we have the systems in place to creatively engage in an interdependent world with outsourcing, public-private partnerships (including with foreign labs), the new regime of intellectual property regulation being put into place under the aegis of the World Trade Organization, and more stringent fiscal considerations? Alongside concerns about a diminution of autonomy and sovereignty is the possibility that India may get relegated to the lower end of the knowledge production chain, as seems to have happened in the software industry.
Intellectual creativity, particularly in the sciences, both theoretical and applied, demands not only an open and vibrant culture of frank and fearless peer review but equally a live linkage between teaching, research and application, not the deadening impact of the vagaries of politics. If shifts in political fashion – from scientific temper to Vedic creationism – represents one hurdle, the need to cultivate proximity to political leaders for recognition and power is another.
Despite constraining circumstances, there is no cause for despair. Various issues of Seminar – ‘Science’ (26), ‘The Scientist’ (36), ‘Scientific Attitude’ (55), ‘Science Policy’ (169), ‘New Dimensions in Science’ (349), ‘Our Scientists’ (409), to list a few – explored individual and institutional biographies to indicate ways forward. The current rethinking on both globalization and public-private partnerships provide clues on how we could begin the process of renewal and reconstruction without relapsing into older ways of organizing knowledge production. Hopefully, this trust will not remain confined to a few high profile collaborative ventures in research dense sites like Bangalore, but will extend to the more complex and organizationally demanding task of upgrading basic teaching and training in the sciences.
Fortunately, there is no shortage of scientists and technologists wedded to subserving quality and the national purpose, working to enlarge and deepen the process of imparting greater creativity to our scientific endeavour. As knowledge becomes the key factor of production, we cannot afford to be left behind.
