Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 November 2009 | Nature 462, 152 (2009) | doi:10.1038/462152a
News
Report row ousts top Indian scientist
Ruckus over call for reform at national science agency raises questions about attracting expatriate talent.
Bangalore
The first appointment in a scheme to recruit expatriate scientists to senior positions in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) — India's largest science agency — seems to have misfired badly.
A US scientist of Indian origin has been dismissed just five months after he was offered the position of 'outstanding scientist' and tasked with helping to commercialize technologies developed at CSIR institutes.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It is common in indian science and scientific community.
One is IISC, Hyderabad, banglore and chennai group and other is delhi and calcutta group. I am not saying that all scientist are like that but it is true. Bramcahri is showing his monoply even though he become DG because of IISC group only. He has to change his nature and support science only. He should learn some thing from earlier DG and put his ego down.
This is the problem of combining the two extremes. Indian scientific brain is equivalent to any other developed country but drawback is the system in which it is working. Still, in India scientific system is compared with regular official job in terms of rules and regulations. It should be kept in mind that serious science is something else than regular 8 hours job. In some prudence Dr. Shiva is right but the alterations can't be made in a day and it is impossible to transform this much big organization over night. It will take time and resource but the main keys are continuous reformation and never give up attitude. There are so many scientists who are really willing to join India but the system has to be change to extract maximum from them. There is no alternate of a work environment and positive competition and these two are lacking in Indian science.
Rajiv Lochan Gaur (Stanford)
This is the problem of combining the two extremes. Indian scientific brain is equivalent to any other developed country but drawback is the system in which it is working. Still, in India scientific system is compared with regular official job in terms of rules and regulations. It should be kept in mind that serious science is something else than regular 8 hours job. In some prudence Dr. Shiva is right but the alterations can't be made in a day and it is impossible to transform this much big organization over night. It will take time and resource but the main keys are continuous reformation and never give up attitude. There are so many scientists who are really willing to join India but the system has to be change to extract maximum from them. There is no alternate of a work environment and positive competition and these two are lacking in Indian science.
Rajiv Lochan Gaur, Stanford
Its time to say good bye to politics in Indian Science!
It is difficult to conclude from the article that who is at wrong side. The matter has shifted its course from the betterment of R&D institutes to respect, ego and sentiment. Such confrontations are widely observed in most of the research institutions. I think the culprit is lack of team work, disrespect and not being honest in positive mindset. Nutral personalities from outside the desputed periphery should judge and kick out those who has lost kindness and down to earth mentallity under the infuuence of power of position.
From the perspective of CSIR, it looks like Shiva demanded more remuneration for his services and being denied that, resorted to mud slinging. Shiva, on the other hand seems to be a hard nut to crack, which is good in the business of science. If the CSIT would dare, will it publish the report prepared by Shiva so that the general public knows the issue before jumping into conclusions?
This is the most difficult problem with the INDIAN science that the higher authority ("BABA" of the Science OR you can say Grandpa of the Indian Science) of science institution are headed by some highly egoist people and they want to show one side that they are devoted to the best science but other side they want to satisfy their ego as well. Its nothing wrong what Shiva is concluded about the CSIR and supported by Prof. Pushpa Bhargava, because the environment of science in the INDIA or in the CSIR is not good for good science, its what that can do better service to the authority not to the science can get better position in the institution. If you are agree with them, whatever they want you will be in your position. Decision like Shiva's case is very bad for reformation in the Indian science.As Brahmachari says that many of the Indian scientist want to come with CSIR, it can be true but they all will disappointed if the present environment will continue in the future.
It seems that DG wants upper hand and monopoly in science and administration of CSIR. Proper solution of this issue will be necessary and important milestone for Indian Science. If it will be left unresolved or solved on the basis of lobbying and political interference in scientific community-I think Indian Science and scientists will loose a good chance to disclose the truth. PM-Dr Singh should take charge himself as he is eminent scholar.Alok Mishra, NIH, USA
I believe the next generation researchers will come up competitively if they are not selected based on INFLUENCE by politicians or just by using MONEY power. Mostly, the people at the top in Government research institutions are influential or financially sound. Very few reach to the secondary top level with meritorious background. If they have earned their position only with hard work, these egoistic people would not have existed. We, the budding researchers shouldn't encourage recommendations and influence when we seek job. It is a bit tough but there is no alternative for merit. Have to fight hard to become an effective researcher.!!
The words of Dr. P N Bhargava and Dr. V. Ramamurthy should be taken with right seriousness. Instead of blaming the system and time taken for 'evolution', we should be creative enough to redesign and remodel our scientific administration in right time if it does not work out. What binds you abroad in science is the total work environment combining right approach and proper funding fitting a scientific business. Nothing is wrong if can adopt it or form a better novel one.
So far quality is concerned; India comes at 177, out of 229 countries (as per scopius database. as of 2007, in all branches of science). Quality of research is going down since independence although funding has increased significantly. This is mainly because there is no accountability and transparency in Indian science today. I have no doubt that many Indian postdocs/scientists will return to India and many will join CSIR, even if there is absolutely no research facility and scope to do any meaningful research there. Simply an assured monthly salary is enough to attract that lot. The question comes for those productive candidates who can deliver research output and have a strong backbone with a decent sense of morality and honesty. Future of Indian science depends on such people; not on the majority of average or below average technicians in the guise of a “scientistâ€.
I do not agree with the view that the problem is the result of two extreme views. It is the prevailing system in Indian science primarily due to difference in individual opinions with the respective leadership. The leadership has the experience of facing this type of criticisms. In the past1, a director of CSIR chain of laboratories has termed it as “fiefdomâ€, while head of another laboratory called the then leadership as “mafia†in pre-Mashelkar era. Even eminent scientist MGK Menon, has also been reported1 to have observed that the science bureaucracy has too firm grip on the scientific muse in India. The nobel laureate CV Raman had, similarly, reported to have criticized1 the then CSIR under SS Bhatnagar in the 1950’s for “palace syndrome†and politicization of science (1Sense and Science, The Times of India, May 8, 2002). Let us keep in mind that what is possible in developed countries may not be possible in existing system in India. Nevertheless, Indian science is undergoing the desired reform and progressing in right direction. It always takes time to change a system, fuctioning for years.
Posted by: Anil Kumar, 11 November, 2009
Indian society is highly feudal and this seaps in to every walk of life including science departments.In addition psycophancy alone at least in the past was often sufficient to go up the ladder in scientific institutions in India while else where it alone is not sufficient.Often if any thing is accomplished by lone scientists here it is often inspite of the establishment.That is my impression.
ramaiah.abburi
I agree with Joseph that report prepared by Shiva should be made public. A high lavel international inquiry team should be setup to investigate the matter & give report within a month.It's a burocratic behaviour of DG CSIR or higher demands by Shiva will become clear to us. Anurag chaurasia, ICAR, India, anurag@nbaim.org, anurag_vns1@yahoo.co.in, +919452196686 (M)
"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."
CSIR offers neither an intellectually simulating environment nor a decent remuneration. The only reason why Indians abroad want to return is to be closer to their families and aging parents. There have been several cases like that of Dr Ayyadurai. No wonder there is such a large exodus of scientists from India to foreign labs.
The other problem is the innate inability of most Indians in positions of responsibility to heed good advice coming from someone much younger to them. People like Dr.Ayyadurai are considered whistle blowers and mavericks in India, and being an Indian himself he should have known that better.
Indian science and R and D organizations and even institutions of higher learning suffer from a kind of feudalism. The academic/scientists/pseudoscientists(feudal)lords control money and authority.The funding agencies and government organizations are guided/most of the time misguided by these lords who are there for years and will remain for centuries.God knows when this will disappear from land of Gandhi,Rama,Vivekananda.Many of these lords/academic thakurs/maharaj shree/ maharajas go to international organiztions to show their knwoledge and manipulative expertise. God bless us ,the Indians.
As a layman, it is indeed difficult to judge who and what went wrong. I agree with Joseph Antony that the report should be made public so as to enable the entire scientific community know who is actually wrong. It should not be treated a a just another incident for gossip. I had the opportunity to listen to both Prof. Brahmachari and Dr. Shiva on different occassions, speaking on different issues. From thier speaches I could conclude that both of them are passionate in thier own ways to breathe in fresh air into CSIR system. Prof. Brahmachari has taken several innovative steps to reform the CSIR system i.e. quick hire of Scientist of Indian origin under SOIR programme, preparation of database of the entire CSIR workfore under OASIS-CSIR portal. Appointment of Directors, to several CSIR institutes which were run by acting directors for several years etc. On the other hand scholars like Dr. Shiva are worthy of praise, who took tangible steps to sacrifice positions abroad to join "not so lucrative" position in CSIR only to eleviate Indian science. However, the views of a scholar of his order (with degrees from many reputed institutions in the world)cannot be taken lightly. He certainly might have observed certain thing worthy of reform.
I must quote the old story of five blind person trying to explain elephant by touching. One Person said that elephant is like a rope, touching its tail and someone sait it is like a pipe, touching it snout. Both of them are correct in thier respective positions but were far from reality. Therefore, Both Prof Brahmachari and Dr Shiva may be correct but needs to be seen in totality by a bystander.
The views are commentators personal views.
"Our interaction with CSIR scientists revealed that they work in a medieval, feudal environment...innovation cannot take place in this environment."
I wonder what would be required in order to have Dr. Ayyadurai examine many American academic institutions that suffer similar problems?
It seems that DG CSIR may not be right in his reasoning for dismissing Siva. Siva joined CSIR and remained there for few months. Obviously he signed written contract agreeing his salary and other benefits offered by CSIR. Then CSIR gave him a job to submit a report on status of CSIR. He did his job. I am not sure at this point (from this article), if Siva took the job voluntarily or given by CSIR. The matter worsened when the report was not very encouraging from CSIR point of view and probably DG CSIR told him to revise it and he not only refused but went public (within CSIR). It is a very likely scenario if anyone knows how majority of Indian reports/committees work. CSIR never assumed or did not care (thinking all such controversies always die down soon), but Siva’s MIT degrees and never-die attitude (so far) created such little ripples. In India, system or tradition is more important than progress. DO not worry, everything will be as before, It will be business as usual soon.
Dear Scott, That’s why Siva went back to India thinking that it will be easier (armed with his MIT degrees) to do some reform there and then come back to US to take care few US institutes… ha… ha…. Now in serious note, Majority of Indian students and postdocs do not have the social understanding and scientific connections to think about reforming of US science. So the best way to prosper in US is to accept the system as it is and then fit oneself there. Glory of US research is mainly due to its huge weight (spending wise) and huge influx of fresh minds and more importantly hands (mainly for social reasons) from all over the world, not because of its education system and its efficiency.
Such things have been happening from time to time since India attained independence over 60 years back. The problem clearly lies in the different environment and social ethos that prevails in India from what exists in the developed world. Further, there is a serious problem with character, integrity of the persons involved. Not all 'top' scientists desiring to return here from abroad have a genuine interest in serving this nation, as they had primarily gone or decided to live abroad for pure selfish reasons. Serving this nation requires personal sacrifice that one should be willing to accept whole-heartedly. Also, today's science requires the capability to build many good mission oriented teams. This kind of job requires a high degree of character and integrity from the scientist returning home. That does not get tested much abroad as the environments of work are different for him/her there. Status consciousness is far less abroad than here.It is therefore necessary that we should work out the reforms locally and not be guided by persons who have hardly worked in the country and have returned after long stays abroad. There is no dearth of good scientists here provided we have the nation's interest dominate our thinking compared with what we get for ourselves in return. Grades /salary increase here have not resulted in the improvement of academic/scientific merit of scientists. We hardly have the right checks and balances necessary along with accountability existing in the system.Further, our ethical practices are different for persons depending on their status rather on their intrinsic established merit.
Narendra Nath
People returning to India, to serve the mother land, should not expect anything but what Dr. Shiva experienced. I agree to Joseph Antony and others that Shiva’s report should be made public.
Thomas Kodenkandath (Ascent Solar Techonolgies)
Many interesting comments on the above subject by a number of people. Here are my two cents worth from a former CSIR alumni. CSIR and all other government research organizations like ICAR, ICMR, DRDO, BARC are a complex beaurocratic system where scientists are hired for life and promoted every five years if not earlier whether they have done any useful science or not. Everyone (almost) gets these promotions unless one is extra smart in chumchagiri of bosses and gets one sooner. Many Ph.D.s wouldn't get promotion against second class B.Sc.s if not in boss' good books. Invite them to your child's birthday party or some other occassion and you are in. There are some exceptions, of course. I don't have the statistics, but there are more than a thousand deputy directors and higher(scientist F, G, etc. as they are called now) in forty odd CSIR laboratories because of these promotion policies. Research instruments are available but not properly utilized because often inexperienced people are made incharge who are not experts in the field but bosses' pets. In my six and half years I saw many projects being initiated with big showoffs but forgotten after gaining promotion and all chemicals dumped into drainage. Most of the CSIR technology has been copying foreign patents and modifying the process a bit here and there as allowed by the Indian patent system until recently.
The whole system needs to be revamped from top to bottom but the question is who and how. As long as politicians run the system (I don't understand why the PM and a minister have to be the president and vice president of CSIR) and the old gang stays in power, no outsider, however brilliant and enterprenurial, can make any changes there. All these outstanding scientists' positions CSIR has made available are for those who are interested in going there to show off and have fun with some science and not for any serious changes that may challenge the system. We all can write here and to the PM and anyone else but it's not going to change anything. I have been following it for the last thirty years now. India's scientific contribution to the world is the export of scientists/engineers/doctors to the rest of the world- not bad though.
It is good to evalute constructive criticism and improve the system rather than ousting the person who criticized
This is unfortunate our own indian do not have confidence on self and on their colleagues. No one take own responsibility, if we are part of system and system is fails, we should take responsibility of its failure. We are criticizing whole scientific community of India as Indian scientist have no existence. This is the problem we suffering because we are destroying our own image for your information Indian have rank #12 based on papers total published by a country in a year, see http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php . Our scientist got salary one fifth of the salary scientist and our student trained in this country work abroad due to money. Our budget is small part of budget spend by developed country. In india/CSIR we have scientist which are performing as good as other colleagues in the world. Only problem is percentage of dedicated scientist is less, we have large number of non-performing scientist because we can not fire a scientist. It means once you join you are safe till retirement. See reaction of public against CSIR when they fire a person (shiva) who have only work for few months and was not on permanent job. Think if CSIR have fire any person who is on permanent job. This is the reason once we got permanent job we start to behave we are god. We know that nobody can fire us from job. We can not progress till we have policy of hire and fire.
It seems that Dr Ayyadurai felt that he should reform the CSIR system first before starting his assignment. It was unfortunate that he started the process even before he settled himself in CSIR. This individual frailty appears to have come in the way.
"CSIR" has frailties too. Now that the issue got international attention thanks to Dr. Jayaraman's note in "Nature", CSIR DG may, for the sake of record, publish the exact description of the job assigned to Dr Ayyadurai.
CSIR is such a big organization that whatever we write about will be true; the reverse will also be true.
I recollect when a new Additional Secretary joined the Department of Atomic Energy, one of the first thing he did was to send a questionnaire and ask for their response from senior scientists. I was not privy to the responses but I gather that he received interesting material. Many senior scientists got a chance to unburden their mind; they never got a chance like that till then.
I have also heard many constructive suggestions to "reform" DAE [ DAE must be more transparent!! etc] from retired scientists; they forgot they were totally opaque in their dealings while in service!At least one of them was always attending a "meeting", whenever some journalist sought information.
Dr.Ayyadurai must have made very many constructive suggestions, as he had exposure to the academic/industry interactions while in US. There is a need to clear the air.
Every country has well entrenched bureaucracy. India is no exception.I had occasion to appreciate the way Dr Homi Bhabha interacted with others to achieve his objectives through well written notes and letters. May be he achieved his goals because of similar commitment of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
Ayyadurais have a role to play. Ayyadurai should have played his role first before assigning himself the role of a referee
The Indian society basically is feudal in its structure and one cannot expect the scientists to be any different. Naturally vested interests take precedence and money and favors are distributed in mafia-like fashion. One can (perhaps cannot will be more accurate) easily guess the conditions of the people at large from the way the scientists behave and act. One of my colleague mentioned during a meeting that we were doing better before more money became available. The funds must be spread more thinly and uniformly. Most Europeans cannot imagine the conditions typical universities run. That we are trying to achieve something is our greatest achievement.
One interesting pointer will be the courts, in which many people still have some faith. The complaints are rather petty in most of the cases but the case goes on and on for years and finally ruins the scientist both economically and emotionally. The final outcome is actually irrelevant.
According to the report, Shiva was dismissed just five months after he was offered the position. Shiva claims that he was sacked for sending senior CSIR scientists a report that was critical of the agency's leadership and organization.
Clearly, Shiva joined CSIR and remained there for a few months. Obviously he also must have signed written contract that spelled out his salary and other benefits, as per CSIR rules.
Hence the statement by Samir Brahmachari, director general of the CSIR, that "The offer was withdrawn as he did not accept the terms and conditions and demanded unreasonable compensation", sounds hollow.
Reading between the lines, it is clear that the ruckus is because of the report being critical of the leadership – read the DG. This is perhaps a case of bruised egos, because a senior's leadership is being questioned by an 'up-start' junior, which is a common problem anywhere. But in India, it has an added
dimension, since 'junior' in India means not just some one younger, but some one who could even be 'senior' in age and expertise, but in a Government bureaucracy, he is in the lower rungs of the career hierarchy, so he has to defer to the 'seniors' .
If Shiva sent his report to all the senior CSIR scientists, many of these 'seniors' may also have felt miffed that an upstart younger fellow is making so much noise.
Had CSIR made Shiva directly report to the Minister of Science and Technology, the situation would have been entirely different.
The PM should make Shiva's report public, as well as publicise the nature of the contract drawn up between CSIR and Shiva. Let the scientific community decide what went wrong.
CSIR mind set should change considerably.though they are doing well in bringing up bright researchers by the fellowship.instead of publishing and leaving the scientific problem just like that, they should make some products also for the needs of scientific community in india.only scientists working in ISRO (may be few people in some other organisations)work with real scientific spirit beyond time and family.this is the only organisation in india giving to the society multiples of budget spent.other organisations should learn much from ISRO and transform accordingly.
I have read all the comments posted here.I share simply my views that the status of Indian scientists has degradated in the past 10 years. Grades /salary increase here have not resulted in the improvement of academic/scientific merit of scientists as per Mr. Narendra Nath. The grade pay of senior scientists GP Rs. 8900/ is less than the associate professor's GP of 9000/-.I am afraid that such anomalies coupled with unhealthy environment as clearly pointed out by Shri narpat shekhawat will worsen the situations in all scientific/R&D Govt. Institutions, if proper checks are not immplemented. Inspite of these circumstances, I appeal to all to dedicate yourselves for the best in the interest of the country.Your sincere efforts will definitely be appreciated by the international scientific community,if not, at least you can leave this materialistic world peacefully with self-satisfaction.All documents now a days are digitized and are freely available.So contribute your best efforts.God is watching u......
Nothing new in indian R&D organizations and Indian systems. It all depends on the mind set of competent authority.Of course,there is a need of good R&D managers, who can take failures as their responsibilities and credit of successes to their juniors.It was rightly quoted by Dr.Kalam, Ex-President of India, about the need for managers.So have patience, try hard and do your best in the interest of organizations and country.So wanted reformers not for others but for yourself.
I do not agree with the title. Dr. Shiva is not 'top Indian Scientist'. How he has been rated as top scientist in first place. Moreover he is not Indian. He spends too little time to understand DG,CSIR, CSIR and overall whole Indian Science. His agenda might not be to help Indian Science (read CSIR) but to help himself. Every system has its own shortcomings. Criticizing a system shows his weaknesses.
http://calcuttachronicles.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-ascetic-among-women/
Calcutta Chronicles
Views of Calcutta, India, Life and Physics
-------------------------------------------------------The Ascetic among women
By Hutom
A while ago, there was a conference in New Delhi on Women in science (I think this one). It was inaugurated by the President of India. One man addressed the gathering, and said “I am surrounded by women, but I have no fear, since I am a Brahmachari.†While Brahmachari does mean an ascetic (in particular someone abstaining from sex), he is not really one, as he has a family and children. This was a pun on his own last name, a pun in very poor taste, as it indicated that he thought of women in terms only of their sexuality, even when they are present in the capacity of scientists.
He went on to say that (he thought) women did not succeed as scientists because they did not want to succeed, i.e. they did not have the same drive as men, not because of any discrimnation. In any civilised nation, such a comment would have people baying for his blood, and he would have had to apologise, and perhaps resign from his post.
In India, however, this man continues to head a major funding agency of the Government, in charge of providing research grants to scientists. I have no idea if the Ayyadurai-Sardana report discusses problems faced by women scientists in CSIR labs. I hope somebody looks into that.
Mr Ayyadurai's episode is actual reflection from the working environment in the CSIR. The working environment needs to be overhauled and needs to make it attractive.Often politics in the scientific institutions makes the worst. The scientists in the CSIR need to be given the freedom in their research which is often lacking. Often scientists are asked to execute the proposed projects which come from somewhere nobody knows. This makes the hell for the students as well as scientists as this scientific exercise of theirs makes no innovation and development of ideas.
Mr Prime Minister should himself give a deep thought into the matter and set up a committee of apolitical eminent scientists of the country to overhaul the what is called CSIR.
Dear Honorable Prime Minister (Dr. Manmohan Singh)and Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Kapil Sibal),
Please see the news and take suitable actions against the DG for mentally and physically harassing (even Ayyadurai had to surrender his residence) a scientist who came to India for developing Indian science. We trust you because both of you had taken extraordinary steps to renovate Indian science.
My personal experiences taught me that if you are really interested to do something positive for India, want to change any aspect of society or science in that country; you should keep yourself away from that country, outside the control of the immediate higher authorities there. It’s almost impossible to loudly demand accountability and transparency in India, yet not getting personally affected. Politicization of science-research in India took place long ago (during late 70s). By now, almost all the constitutional authorities are ruined there. That’s why many famous Indian academicians/scientists never return to India even if they harbor a burning desire and spend a lot of personal money and energy for development of India. Many such people do not care for fame or have hidden agenda of profiteering from those activities. A rational human being and good scientist only returns back to India when s/he does not know the reality there (was too busy in research) or have some politically powerful Godfather to protect him/her.
There is almost no meaning to discuss any reform/developmental issue (in an institutional manner) within four walls of research organizations, among scientocrates ("bureaucrats" in guise of a scientist) in India. Majority of the scientists occupying high positions or aspiring for such positions will never accept the limitations of the system and fix responsibility to correct that. It’s better to contact politicians directly or go to general public and put forward your views. There is some chance that your message will get through.
Sir,
It pains me to read the status of Mr. Shivayyadurai, who has opted to work for csir unit.What is the amount of public fund gone inresearch under govt; guidance, what is the percentage accrual in monetary terms on '"Tech-Transfer/ Patent utility " in industry etc; It may be in crores of Rupees over the years.
He should have studied the set up ,before venturing , and he can standby his contract with csir.
Many indian boys after 7-8 years ,Work abroad are disenchanted with the working system in Europe/ USA . and they are afraid to join work., In INDIAN environment.
"Our interaction with CSIR scientists revealed that they work in a medieval, feudal environment," says Ayyadurai. "Our report said the system required a major overhaul because innovation cannot take place in this environment."
I agree in to to with Ayyadurai and his report. There is no hypocrisy in it. The hypocrisy and problems are with the autocratic, feudal machinary of Indian Science. Now one can imagine, if it is the case in CSIR laboratories, what is there in the university system of India, which contributes to the man power development and also having research laboratories!!!
The prime minsiter of India should intervene in the whole matter, if India needs to improve his scientific contributions. The Present DG of CSIR is a trained politician who by default happened to be a scientist. The report should be made public, committee should be formed to enquire the diversion of funds allocated to his dream institute IGIB? It should check the ratio of funds to the performance ratio of the institute. I have evidence to show the world, that his past students from his IIsc labs enjoy the government funded money to come out with new institutes to boost their carrier with zero output. Its time that scientific politician like our present DG to be kicked out for the betterment of science in India.
Alok Srivastava, Denmark
It was JBS Haldane who christened CSIR to be the Council for Suppression of Independent Research and this recent lofty initiative of STIOs could be understood as 'Systematic Thrashing of Intellectual Originality' by CSIR. Dr. Ayyadurai’s case is just the tip of the iceberg and a timely symptom manifesting the deeper malaise of nepotism and sciolism that have plagued many associated with Indian science since ages. Any rationale and impartial assessment of the processes of Indian science would categorically highlight the lack of space and opportunity for critical but constructive engagements. Criticism of any kind does provoke the ego and is calculated as an uncalled for challenge to the scientific knowledge and authority of the scientists/science administrators. Attitudes of this kind and the actions that follow could be seen as ‘scientific hooliganism’. This case may not set a precedent for other potential STIOs (as opined!) but certainly this will spark off an informed debate among the scientific community and common citizens; a debate about ‘Indian Science’s New Social Contract’. Past incidences may provoke one to question whether we as scientists and science enthusiasts are even aware of the ‘social contract’ we are in to, let alone the ‘new’ social contract! For science and scientific endeavors do take place in a neatly knitted ‘society’ and not in an imagined vacuum. Gagan Pratap suggests decoupling science from policy (and scientists from engagement with policy makers) which will be absolutely fatal in an emerging knowledge-based society like India aspiring to gain greater heights in a globalized world where uncertainties and multi-level complexities are the order of the day rather than exceptions. Thus ‘science-based policy’ has become the cornerstone for governance and plannings for societal development. Let one and all associated with science step down from the self-established ivory towers of knowledge (and remember Power is Knowledge these days and not the other way around!) and build on the opportunities of constructive engagements and collaborative learning emerging through this well-calculated ‘mishap’ in Indian science. The need of the hour is to shift gear from a ‘science-as-usual’ mode to ‘constructive and accountable’ science. The sooner the better!
Its very true that the kind of research going on in India is not top notch as MIT-CAMBRIDGE but as quoted in one of the comments in the article, there is also good science happening(I personally believe that, looking at the personal scenario at my own institute). I wouldn't say the policy makers are perfect(or perhaps medivial) but its just that it hasn't changed much because the same system is going on fine and they do not feel the need for revolution. Drastic changes are never acceptable but rather its a subtle changes over the years that bring a real change.Thats the concept of evolution/or directed evolution (where too many mutations may crash the protein). And obviously Ayyadurai was terminated from job because he was perhaps too blunt? It would happen to anybody who plans to throw stone at the place where he/she is employed(not only CSIR) dont you agree??You have to be in the system(go with the flow) to bring upon a change in the direction of the tide.
Straight away believing Ayyadurai’s report on CSIR functioning at its face value will be like judging a book by it's cover. At the moment, the CSIR deserves benefit of doubt on both Ayyadurai’s appointment and its revocation. Mahatma Gandhi once said “President means chief servantâ€; for all we know the DG must have taken these decisions in the best interest of CSIR. As we are not privy to the details of why and how these decisions were after all taken, one needs to have faith in the system and believe that no government department in present India would like to risk its performance by not acting in the most prudent manner possible.
Just wanted at emphasize that one needs to believe in the system. It is commonsensical that CSIR, like any other government department at present India, would not like to risk its performance by not acting in the most prudent manner possible. The decisions must have been unavoidable. Some of Ayyadurai's concerns may have equally been justified but then one may be forced to take a difficult decision in larger interest.