To observe the National Scientific Temper day on August 20, 2025, Confluence, the online discussion forum supported by the Indian Academy of Sciences, hosted a panel discussion on the origins, the background and the debates around the idea of the scientific temper. Conceptualised by Shubashree Desikan and Gita Chadha, the panel discussion contextualises the idea of the Scientific Temper in history and as it shaped the modern Indian nation state, it critically examines the role of scientific communities and cultures in promoting (or not) the idea of scientific temper, it makes an attempt to retrieve and reimagine principles of scientific temper itself to make science more inclusive and to bring it closer to the moral project of building a just society.
In the discussion, Ram Ramasway draws upon Kosambi’s vision of science as does Archishman Raju. Raju further integrates this vision with the Nehruvian-Gandhian perspective on modern science. Prajval Shastri brings in perspectives from the people’s science movement and draws upon her experience of scientific institutions and their apolitical cultures to strongly urge for a scientific worldview. Gita Chadha frames the debate within the discipline of sociology and speaks of a need to integrate liberal, socialist and post-colonial perspectives to science. The discussion ends with the need to integrate philosophy, science and politics in the process of reimagining scientific temper.
Video edited by: G. V. Pavan Kumar
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
A society that does not have trust and respect as two-way streets is inherently unjust. It would also be unstable, if it becomes institutionalized and people on the wrong side accept it for fear or favor. While it is difficult to know how our nation, society and families were in ancient times, the time in which I grew up, both trust and respect were one-way streets. One can see the fallout of this all around us today. I decided to write about this, more for everyone to think and discuss than for pointing fingers at anyone or a group.
Hierarchy is important and perhaps essential for an institution to be functional. By nature, it must be a one-way street. We do need leaders at every level, from a Family to an Institution to a State and Nation! They are needed to make the final decision, when there are diverse views. If not, there will be anarchy! An ideal leader would discuss with all concerned and make a decision that is good for the system, without any personal bias. Listening to all and ensuring that everyone is allowed to have a say are both important. I am doubtful about leaders who believe they know what is good for everyone. I do realise that there could be times when the leader needs to decide based on his/her conviction, that a majority does not like. In a democracy, such decisions are validated in the next election and the people would approve if they saw the benefits of such a decision. Leaders do need some privilege and protection to avoid frivolous complaints which could hamper their functioning. However, such privileges and protection should not be misused to bully any individual or group being led.
Our tradition encourages students to fall at the feet of their teachers. Addressing teachers as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ continues everywhere. I remember reading somewhere that ‘Sir’ stands for ‘Slave I remain’. Our society trains everyone to be either a master or a slave. Standing as equals and talking to each other seems alien. As fellow humans today, I do not see any reason for anyone to fall on another person’s feet. On 29th September 2010 our past Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was handing out the first Adhaar card to a person from a tribal area. On live TV, the tribal person fell on the PM’s feet. The Prime Minister was not doing a favour by giving the Aadhaar to a citizen. This should not have been allowed and yet it was happening live.
Academic bullying is real and is discussed regularly. A sponsored feature article in Science says 8 out of 10 scientists face hostile behaviour during their careers (source link). Prof. Sherry Moss, co-author from Wake Forest University is quoted as saying “those who had been bullied or abused were unlikely to report the abuse due to fear of retaliation”. This article mentions about the foundation of ‘Academic Parity Movement’ founded by nanotechnologist Morteza Mahmoudi and activist Saya Ameli Hajebi, to help end “academic discrimination, violence, and bullying”. Moss and Mahmoudi have published an article titled “STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science” in 2021. (source link) American Society for Cell Biology hosts an article by M. Perillo titled “Bullying in Science: Let us face the problem” (source link). It appears that Springer has introduced a Journal to discuss this: “International Journal of Bullying Prevention”. Publishers would not lose an opportunity to start one more Journal.
Several Academic Institutions in India, including the Indian Institute of Science have recognized this and have formed Committees to investigate this. They organize talks, workshops and interactive sessions to address and reduce academic bullying. In addition to sexual harassment, a general workplace harassment is being discussed. We had a talk by Sasha group organized on 19th March 2025 at the Inorganic and Physical Chemistry Department. I learned about a comprehensive study carried out by Indian National Bar Association resulting in a report titled “Sexual Harassment at Work Place” written by Garima (Prabhat Books, 2017). The report has 47 pages. Let me quote two alarming statistics. Nearly 88 % of the respondents have said sexual harassment happens and about 69 % did not raise a complaint to the internal committee. In the informal survey conducted by the speaker in our Department, 30 respondents mentioned that they are either victims or aware of sexual harassment to someone else. I do hope our Institute and every organization finds a way to reduce and eliminate this. Beyond rules and regulations, raising awareness and preventive measures would yield better results.
A faculty-student relation has a hierarchy that is needed. Typically, the teacher has experience in a field and the student is a beginner. A student needs to follow the suggestions in carrying out research. A faculty member can only decide when some work can be written for publication and which Journal is more appropriate or when a student could submit his/her Thesis. I have heard from some students disagreeing with such decisions by their mentors and my response has always been, faculty members know better to make these decisions. This hierarchy is indeed needed. However, it should not lead to bullying for personal benefits. Some years ago, a faculty member of Indian origin at the University of Missouri, Kansas City was accused of exploiting his students. The news report mentions the following: “the professor compelled his students to act as his personal servants. They hauled equipment and bused tables at his social events. They were expected to tend his lawn, look after his dog and water the house plants, sometimes for weeks at a time when he and his wife were away.” (source link) I suspect such bullying happening in our midst goes unreported largely.
Let me focus now on bullying by some members who sit in the committee to decide funding, promotion, appointment and so on. As a new investigator submitting a project to DST, my presentation was stopped after a few minutes and irrelevant comments were made which silenced me. When I was presenting my first research project for funding, Chair of the committee stopped and asked me: “How many papers have you published after returning to India?”. After an energetic and enthusiastic presentation for the first 10 minutes, I became dumb staring at the committee, listening to comments that had no relevance to the project for another 10 minutes. Thankfully, some members who remained silent during the presentation understood the significance of the project. I was asked to submit again adding a co-investigator with Engineering background. I eventually got the funds to build the pulsed nozzle Fourier transform microwave spectrometer. We built the first one in India, which remains the only one as of today.
I became a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Department of Science and Technology for Physical Chemistry and had the opportunity to see the other side. In the very first meeting we had, a senior member in my committee was treating a principal investigator in a patronizing and condescending way. I did not like this. As a new and young member of the committee, I kept quiet during this first interaction. When it was over and the principal investigator left the room, I complained to the Chair of the committee about the behaviour of the senior member. Thankfully again, all other members of the committee agreed with my observation and the senior member was asked not to talk like this to any investigator seeking funds. Approving or rejecting a proposal is the prerogative of the committee. However, no member of the committee has any right to talk rudely to an investigator.
I have heard horror stories from young faculty about bullying by a senior colleague / committee member / chair / anyone who considers him/her superior. Several such comments are difficult to believe. Why do some experts behave this way? It is clear that no one had told them it is inappropriate. A young assistant professor, incidentally an accomplished woman, was making a presentation about her progress. One old expert stops her and shouts: Your advisor never did anything, and you will not do anything either! The young faculty had tears in her eyes. The Director should have stopped this abuse, and it did not happen. This same expert was invited to give an Institute Colloquium in an IISER. He finds a young faculty member doing research in an area which he thought was useless. We do have experts with very little breadth in science coming to such illogical conclusions. At the beginning of this Institute colloquium, with all students and faculty members from all disciplines attending, the expert starts by saying: “I cannot believe you guys hired this guy!” This was not only insulting the young faculty member, but also the collective wisdom of the Institute. A proverb in Tamil says the following: Any speaker should be mindful of what to speak based on the place, circumstance, context, and audience. Several of our leaders in Science have not been mindful of this. When I started my career about 30 years ago, I was hoping such inappropriate comments by senior faculty would stop with that generation. My own experience and experience from several young colleagues indicate that it is worsening, if anything.
Academic researchers who make it to any committee that can decide the fate of a young researcher should treat this as an important and enabling duty. It is not for wielding power to put down people and stop research by some youngsters who may appear to be a threat. While this is expected of anyone joining a committee, it is important that funding agencies ensure that no expert resorts to such bullying. It is also important for the Chairs of committees to stop an erring member and assure the presenters. Presenters should be given opportunities to bring any such act by a member in a confidential manner to higher authorities. I do hope people coming to the highest level do not resort to such activities. It is not easy for any system to handle a king who does wrong. I am aware of a Latin legal maxim, which means ‘king can do no wrong’. This is taken care of in a democracy by ensuring that no one is given indefinite power. Let us find a way to stop bullying at home, workplace, our streets, city and country.
Prof. E. Arunan is a renowned experimental physical chemist focusing on spectroscopy and dynamics of molecules and clusters. He is a Professor in the Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
“So, what do you teach in Srishti?” This has been the most commonly asked question in the last two and half years of my association as a teaching faculty member at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology (henceforth SMI). As a person trained in ecological sciences, ending up as an art and design school facilitator was perhaps beyond my intellectual prospect.
My academic journey began with a postgraduate degree in Wildlife Sciences at the Wildlife Institute of India followed by a PhD at ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment). Both these spaces and the interspersed work stints prior to joining SMI, involved field ecology, a rigour of research-based methods and a three years’ experience in research administration. The closest I approached art and creativity was through my personal interest in creating art from trash or the occasional doodles I did to unwind. Needless to say, the course of my professional engagements and personal interests allowed me to embrace this space with excitement and trepidation.
My quickest answer to the question posed above is “I bring in the ecological lens for students in this space” and while this statement may seem simple, it is layered with the challenges, anxiousness and a sense of feeling a misfit in a space like SMI. While the sense of being an oddball has not subsided; I have learnt to understand that the structure of SMI itself accepts each of us like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to create a complete picture for the students who come to study.
Over the course of two and half years at SMI, I have facilitated curriculum spaces in the form of unit-based studios for both UG and PG students, electives and a pre-thesis project for the UG students. Each of these spaces has been challenging but rewarding in many ways. A lot of the time, I am surrounded by students across cohorts, who have had sparse experience in seeing the natural world around them. Thus, engaging them through observations, reflection and journaling comes with an even bigger challenge of having to sustain their patience in a world dominated by 15 sec reels! However, what is astonishing are the ways in which students make sense of the natural world through their creative mediums.
As a means of initial ice breaking, I usually engage the students in a nature walk/day field trip in the beginning of my course. Field immersions become an important space to observe, document the natural world and the linkages around us. Students are encouraged to journal and map these through visual tools (this could be both digital/a hand-made one!) helping them to understand how connected we are to the ecological realm. Documenting surroundings through nature journaling is a wonderful way to crystallize our observations and thoughts. It also becomes an important tool to remember and integrate new information alongside the existing knowledge.
Field visit to the nearby Gantiganahalli Lake as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities“Nature journal of a first-year student after a campus walk as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities”Personal excerpt of journaling during a field trip with students for the 7th Semester Project
As a facilitator each space has been a learning experience. As a person trained in ecological research, breaking the ecological components down for students who mostly do not come with a background in biology, can be both gruelling and thought provoking. For example, while introducing the socio-zoological scale (coined by Arluke and Sanders1) as a context within my Animals and Society elective course, I played a game where students were asked to ranked images of different animals that they liked based on a scale of 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). At the end of the exercise, what stood out was the human perception of species and how the perceived cognitive ability matters in terms of our receptivity and how we feel for them.
Finding innovative mediums (such as films, images, animations, newspaper text reading analysis) have been a go-to resource for contextualizing a range of connections that we make with the environment (human-animal interactions, policy, dilemmas in conservation, ecological linkages etc). These mediums have also helped challenge the moral and ethical boundaries while delving into the narratives. Early 2024, I facilitated a five-week studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making” through which I introduced human-animal interaction and understanding the various dilemmas and decision-making processes associated with the context. The final output of this studio was designing a game (as a group endeavour) that demonstrated the dilemmas in human-animal interactions, which also meant pushing my own boundaries as a facilitator. The students were instructed to build these games with recyclable material and not purchase any new stationery to build the game prototype.
The studio resulted in two games titled “Beeyond” and “Tidal Trails”. Beeyond was inspired by the human-rock bee interaction on campus to bring in an awareness about their role as ecosystem service providers while Tidal Trails was inspired by “Hungry Tide” bringing in the dilemmas of human tiger interaction in the Sundarbans. Both these games were able to bring out the interaction between people and animals through their game mechanics i.e. in the form of action or dilemma cards (Beeyond) or paths interacting between players (Tidal trails). This studio piqued my interest in exploring games to facilitate a greater awareness of environmental issues and mitigate the disconnect with the natural world.
The board game “Beeyond” explored human-bee conflict on campus as a part of a studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making”The board game “Tidal Trails” explored the dilemma of the tiger while navigating the Sundarbans as it encountered the researcher, the hunter and the forest guard. Note: All the game pawns were made as Origami forms by the student.
The studio gave me an impetus to facilitate a four month pre-thesis project space for the UG students in the discipline of Information Arts and Information Design Program. Perhaps, the sheer excitement of how students perceive an ecological brief through creative mediums spurred me to engage in this capacity. The project was titled “The Disentangled Bank” (inspired by Carl Zimmer’s famous evolutionary ecology book titled “Tangled Bank”2) to highlight the loss of ecological connections that we are increasingly seeing in the Anthropocene. In the larger context of the brief, the students were encouraged to pursue a specific enquiry resulting in an art and design output. The nature of the output was kept largely open-ended with a list of potential creatives that could be explored. These included educational aids, graphic novels/illustrations/comics, multimedia/digital art, film/documentary/animation or a research paper. Students immersed themselves in the project space through field immersions, reading resources, discussions on how to probe for questions, and masterclasses that helped them orient to the larger context of ecological loss. They were encouraged to come up with their own line of enquiry situated in India, justify their context and delve deeper for a meaningful design output.
A four-month long project space with three assessment criteria mandated the students to document their design process and iterations. Eighteen students over a course of four months consumed me and while the one-on-one mentorship seemed exhausting in the beginning, over time as they settled in with their ideas, it opened a window to how each of them interpreted the context of loss. At the end of four months, the project space culminated in an exhibition displaying various design outputs that brought out the context of ecological connections and subsequent loss. These included games, animations, tapestry, paintings, data exploration and a range of books and zines.
Some of the outputs of noteworthy mention included:
A board game on ants where players navigated ant colonies focusing on ecological functions, survival and invasion by other colonies.
An illustrated book of poems on vulture decline.
An online interactive narrative game that uses the context of human-leopard interactions to talk about its representation in media.
An illustrated book on the context of self, identity and community using waterbirds and wetlands which are diminishing habitats in urban ecosystems.
Three oil-on-canvas paintings depicting the role of communication in forest ecosystems and the anthropogenic impacts on communication breakdown.
Two animations; one on firefly decline and one questioning the role of decay and decaying matter supporting life in forests.
The context of umwelt in Olive Ridley turtles and the role of sensory pollution and heat on their ecology depicted in a zine.
Drawing narrative parallels to tigers and tiger widows in Sundarbans through an illustrated graphic zine.
An activity book for children about gharials and their importance within riverine ecosystems.
A coffee table book on the river Cauvery and the changes in landscapes.
The artistic impression of how trees are connected with mycorrhizal networks underground and crown shyness near canopies. Painting by Shreya Ann Mathew.“The Wonder Bone”, an illustrated anthology of poems on vulture decline by Aditi PuttigeIllustrated Zine on Umwelt and Olive Ridleys by Parveen IsmailCoffee table book on Cauvery as a shifting sacred landscape by Nayana HR
As I reminisce the last two and half years of teaching, it has been a blend of different mediums and methods to connect the students to the context. Needless to say, it has been a learning experience for me especially when trying to understand design processes and iterations. Specifically, teaching at SMI has challenged me to think in more ways than one to engage with students. In my courses, I engage with the students through a range of pedagogical tools that goes beyond classroom lectures. These include field visits, movies, artwork, mind maps and visual thinking tools, role plays, and project-based learning methods. Resources such as Project Zero, Nature Classroom, HHMI, Ted talks and DW Documentaries on YouTube have aided in making my classes more engaging and interactive. Simultaneously, it has also been a tussle to navigate the newly emerged AI landscape while devising curriculum assessments.
Despite the challenges, the only thing that reinforces the sense of accomplishment is when I am able to pass on the euphoria of being captivated by our environment and understand the nuances of living with non-human lives around us. In an ever changing world where human innovation has been shaping processes, we often tend to ignore how nature is the greatest inspiration. As art and design students, understanding how nature moulds each element through eons of change and adaptation should perhaps be central to the concept of design. This perhaps provides me some solace and motivation to my existence in a design school!
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. Soundarya Iyer and Dr. Alok Bang for their comments that helped improve the flow and content of the article.
Zimmer, Carl. The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. Roberts and Company Publication, 2010.
The author, Dr. Chandrima Home, is an Assistant Professor at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
On the occasion of National Science Day 2025, we present a collection of articles which discuss major issues that are relevant to the community of scientists, as well as society. Our constitution highlights the need to develop scientific temper among the people of the nation, but how far have we come towards attaining that goal, 75 years since? Where do we stand in terms of scientific progress and promise? What ails scientific practice in the country? These are poignant questions that have been discussed in the articles in this collection.
Predatory publishing is a growing crisis in academia, exploiting researchers and undermining the credibility of scholarly work. It involves unethical and deceptive practices by certain journals, publishers, and conferences that prioritize financial gain over academic quality and integrity. This issue poses a significant threat to academia, leading to a widespread loss of trust in scholarly publishing. By facilitating the dissemination of poor-quality research and misinformation, predatory journals weaken the credibility of genuine scientific advancements. Furthermore, they contribute to the loss of valuable funding and resources, diverting support away from legitimate research efforts. The proliferation of fraudulent scientific work, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, further highlights the dangers of predatory publishing and underscores the need for stricter regulations and increased awareness within the academic community.
Predatory publishing has witnessed an alarming surge over the past decade, with the number of predatory articles rising from 53,000 in 2010 to a staggering 787,000 in 2022. This exponential increase reflects the expanding influence of deceptive publishing practices, which not only compromise research integrity but also exploit unsuspecting authors. The financial scale of this issue is equally concerning, as predatory journals have amassed an estimated USD 393 million in revenue by preying on researchers eager to publish their work. Among the most affected nations, India stands out as both a major contributor and a significant host of predatory publishers, highlighting systemic challenges in academic publishing. Addressing this crisis requires urgent intervention through policy reforms, researcher awareness, and institutional accountability.
Despite growing awareness, many researchers—particularly early-career scholars—continue to fall victim to predatory publishing due to several key factors. A significant challenge is the lack of awareness, as many researchers struggle to differentiate between legitimate and predatory journals. Additionally, pressure to publish plays a crucial role, with institutions and funding agencies often valuing publication quantity over quality for career progression. High article processing charges (APCs) in reputable journals further push researchers toward predatory alternatives, which offer seemingly lower costs but lack proper peer review and credibility. Moreover, false indexing claims by predatory journals, including deceptive listings in reputable databases like Scopus, mislead authors into believing they are publishing in legitimate venues. These challenges underscore the necessity of enhanced awareness and training programs to equip researchers with the knowledge needed to make informed publishing decisions and safeguard the integrity of academic research.
Leading publication houses are actively combating unethical practices by implementing AI-driven fraud detection systems to identify and reject fraudulent submissions, reinforcing peer review processes to uphold high research standards, and providing free training resources—such as Nature Masterclasses—to educate researchers on ethical publishing. In an online panel discussion organized by the Indian National Young Academy of Science on March 22, 2024, Dr. Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity at Springer Nature, revealed that in October 2023, Springer Nature rejected 11,000 manuscripts due to concerns over research integrity, underscoring their proactive stance against predatory publishing. On the same occasion, Sarah Jenkins, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Elsevier, emphasized that Elsevier has implemented several strategic measures, including the use of technology-driven solutions to detect unethical submissions before publication, regular updates to editorial policies and ethical guidelines to prevent manipulation, and the organization of training workshops and awareness programs to educate researchers and journal editors on maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing. Similarly, Dr. Deeksha Gupta, Director of Global Strategy for Society Programs at the American Chemical Society, highlighted several initiatives, including the ACS Author Lab, a free training platform that educates researchers on ethical publishing practices. Dr. Gupta also stressed the importance of institutional support in funding legitimate Open Access (OA) publishing, which can deter researchers from resorting to predatory journals. Another potential solution to address the issue of predatory publishing is the promotion of Open Access (OA), which aims to make research widely accessible. However, limited awareness among researchers restricts its practical usability.
The above discussion emphasizes the need for policy reforms, as academic evaluation systems should prioritize research quality over sheer publication volume, thereby alleviating the pressure that often drives researchers toward unethical publishing practices. Slow policy changes remain a major hurdle, as academic appraisal systems still prioritize the quantity of publications over their quality, incentivizing researchers to seek rapid and often questionable publication avenues. Additionally, the temptation of fast peer review lures authors toward predatory journals, which promise quick acceptance and publication without the rigorous scrutiny that legitimate journals require. The expanding market for fraudulent research, fueled by paper mills and fake journals, persists because many researchers, under immense pressure to publish, resort to these unethical avenues. Stronger collaboration between publishers and academia is essential, with universities integrating publisher-led training programs into their research curriculum to educate young researchers on ethical publishing practices. By fostering a culture of integrity and quality-driven publishing, the academic community can work toward eliminating predatory practices and ensuring a more reliable, ethical scholarly landscape.
Acknowledgement
Dr. Kutubuddin Molla, ICAR-CRRI, Cuttack and Dr. Moumita Koley, DST-CPR, Bengaluru and Dr. Rajendra Singh Dhaka, IIT Delhi
Dr. Sriparna Chatterjee is a Materials Chemist in the Materials Chemistry & Interfacial Engineering Department, CSIR-Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar. She is a member of Indian National Young Academy of Science (INYAS), Indian National Science Academy (INSA).
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
When do we know we have gained an objective understanding of a phenomenon? Is it based on an individual’s knowledge because that person claims to have followed an unbiased approach, or when the majority come to the same understanding or all of humanity conclude the same? None of these will help us to achieve objectivity, given the limitations of our perception and cognitive processes. We sense the world with the help of our sensory organs, all of which have limitations. We perceive the world with the help of evolutionarily evolved cognitive skills, which include memorising all our experiences and comparing new sensory information with those experiences. This makes all our perceptions inherently biased.
Scientific methods have evolved over millennia to overcome our limited ability to be objective in our pursuit of knowledge, enabling us to understand the natural and human worlds across the scale of size, complexity, and time. Scientific methods involve framing specific hypotheses based on an observation/experience comparing the same against the prior knowledge or by a logical extension of what is known. Next, systematically test/validate the hypothesis by generating evidence both in its favour and against it. Since all humans are biased, scientific methods include three critical steps to generate unbiased knowledge. One, by designing the efforts of generating new evidence by focusing on disproving a hypothesis rather than proving it. Second, all new information generated is subjected to peer review. Third, even after peer review, all information is continuously evaluated against newly generated ones using the latest methods. This is how scientists can perceive the world beyond “human perception”. A telltale example of what scientific methods can achieve: even if all living humans see the sun moving around us, science has shown that reality is just the opposite.
A major misconception of scientific methods, specifically among Indians, is that they represent Western science. Scientific methods have been used for millennia to make hypotheses and validate the same. Methods of validation were mostly dialogue, argumentation, and deductive logic. Modern methods of experimental validation using technology such as microscopes, telescopes, spectroscopy, etc., were first developed in Europe and spread elsewhere. This helped scientists see the world in a way normal eyes can’t see. As science progressed, a larger community was involved, and they shared their work; this expansion of the scientific community and rapid methods of communication (printing press, faster modes for human mobility, etc.) helped Europe dominate science. This dominance does not make them own science and scientific methods. They existed and exist across all human societies; perhaps their origin goes back to when humans evolved with the ability to express their thoughts through syntactic languages.
What does this mean for the practice of science? (i) Absolute honesty in how we design our studies, how we report, and how flexible we should be in accepting alternate views. (ii) Scientists must understand that they should strictly adhere to scientific methods and they can’t speculate beyond what logic and rationality allow. They should subject all their speculations to scientific scrutiny. (iii) Since scientists are humans with one or the other inherent form of bias, subjecting everything they conceive needs to be validated as rigorously as anyone else’s opinion. This also indicates that if scientists belong to one gender, one socio-economic group, one geographical location or one community, science will progress only in specific directions. The more diversity and inclusivity in the scientific community, the more hypothesis diversity. As all are subject to the same scientific evaluation, ultimately, science would be enriched with more objectivity and the validated knowledge would be further expanded. It also helps to scientifically validate a large body of knowledge generated by trial-and-error methods or intuitive methods.
What does this mean for the general public and society at large –(i) given that often, the entire human population’s perception can be on the wrong side of reality, people should realise that the majoritarian view cannot be construed as the correct interpretation of any phenomenon. (ii) they should not take any information that comes to them through various modes as factual unless it comes from sources known to communicate only validated information.
The summary of all this is that people should be inquisitive, question authority and demand evidence; they should be tolerant of diverse views and practices. Differences in opinions must be discussed rationally and adjudicated using scientific methods such as seeking evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, etc. Even when no objective conclusion can be drawn, or universal truth can be established, someone’s views should still be respected if they are personal and do not influence others or vitiate social harmony. If they harm individuals, such beliefs are to be eliminated through a process of science and not by coercion. We need to espouse and practice this essence of scientific temper.
Thus, Scientific temper involves not submitting to dogmas, beliefs, irrational thoughts/views/opinions, authority, etc., without critically thinking and evaluating the available evidence. Often, deductive logic alone helps us to achieve some of these goals. For example, can we interpret a historical event with our perspective of today’s society? Scientific temper ultimately helps us understand ourselves better, our identity in our societies, the entire humanity, the living world and the universe at large. More importantly, it allows us to understand our fellow human beings better, thereby achieving true harmony and non-violence in society without losing freedom of our thoughts, opinions, and views.
Prof. L S Shashidhara is a renowned developmental biologist currently serving as the Director of National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bengaluru, India.
Note: This article were written in response to Prof. Gita Chadha’s talk on Re-envisioning Scientific Temper, delivered on 18th March 2024 during her tenure as Obaid Siddiqi Chair (2023–24).
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
With the rise of the knowledge economy and the need for a learning society, highly qualified human capital is essential, necessitating the advancement of higher education, science, and technology. As pointed out in the NITI Aayog’s India Innovation Index-2021 report, numerous studies have shown a positive association between per capita R&D expenditure and per capita GDP, with nations with high per capita R&D expenditure also having higher per capita GDP. Kaur and Singh (2016) examined 23 emerging economies (including India) from 1991 to 2010, finding that even a 1% increase in R&D expenditure results in 0.30% economic growth. Evenson and Singh (1997) found that a country’s R&D expenditure positively influences its output after reviewing data for 11 Asian countries from 1970 to 1993.
The founding leaders of newly independent India saw the importance of science and technology in addressing their challenges, which included public health, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment. The Scientific Policy Resolution of 1958 stated that “the dominating feature of the contemporary world is the intense cultivation of science on a large scale, and its application to meet a country’s requirements”. It argued that “it is only through the scientific approach and method and the use of scientific knowledge that reasonable material and cultural amenities and services can be provided for every member.”
The edifice of the Indian scientific ecosystem was created modestly, brick by brick. The policy’s implementation was marked by the establishment of key organisations such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), laying the foundation for research and development in various sectors, with a focus on building scientific infrastructure and human resources.
If we look at our achievements, such as being the preferred destination for ‘health tourism’ or the high number of H-1B visas issued to Indian nationals, we can see the potential for further growth. The seeds we have planted are bearing fruit now, and there is still more to be harvested.
The old public health concerns, poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment have been augmented by emerging ones, such as global warming, the energy crisis, and environmental degradation. We must become ‘friends with science’ now more than ever.
However, recent trends are worrying and raise the question of whether the fruit-bearing plants will continue to be nurtured and cared for and whether the grove will be sown with fresh seeds to meet future demands. This is the key question facing us.
Where are we?
If we go by the policy pronouncements, nothing is lacking. The Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy of 2013 said that it has long been a national aim to boost gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) to 2% of GDP, as well as to “increase the number of R&D personnel by 66% in the next five years.” The most recent draft of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020 proposes “to double the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers, gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), and private sector contribution to the GERD every five years.” If this was true, the future is bright. We would be not only sustaining our old gains but also breaking new ground. There would have been adequate human and financial resources for science, technology and innovation. Nevertheless, sadly, there is a significant gap between policy and practice.
Human resources are critical for science and innovation. Unfortunately, India has far fewer researchers per million inhabitants, at 262, than many other countries. It is superfluous to argue that without an appropriate number of researchers, India’s goal to catch up with the industrialised world and become an economic superpower will be a pipe dream. We will not even be able to provide basic necessities to all our fellow citizens. Figure 1 depicts India’s “researchers per million” compared to other selected countries. Forget China and the other BRICS+ nations; it is a pity that we not only fall significantly below the global average but also lag behind our closest neighbour. The numbers are not growing fast enough; they are lingering, causing despondency.
Figure 1: Researchers Per Million Inhabitants (FTE) for Select Countries, 2020 (data compiled from ‘S&T Indicators Tables Research and Development Statistics 2022-23’, DST)
Trends in higher education
The key to boosting the number of researchers in our country lies in the active participation of our youth in higher education and research. Each individual’s contribution is crucial, and by expanding higher education and attracting students from all backgrounds, we can build a stronger, more inclusive research community. Without increased funding for higher education and science, providing adequate instruction and job facilities will be difficult.
What are the recent trends in higher education and funding for research and innovation? PRS Legislative Research is an Indian non-profit organisation founded as an independent research institute to enhance the Indian legislative process. They have frequently analysed budgets and provided insightful analysis. They prepared two reports: “Demand for Grants 2024-25 Analysis: Science and Technology” and “Demand for Grants 2025-26 Analysis: Education.” This short note is essentially a review of these two reports.
NEP (2020) ambitiously aims to increase the gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education to 50% by 2035. The gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education is the percentage of students enrolled relative to the total population aged 18 to 23. This is a measure of youth participation in education. Indeed, expanding higher education is critical to producing a competent, skilled workforce. One would anticipate that some of these youngsters would be drawn to research, strengthening the scientific and innovation workforce. However, the outlook for higher education in the country is dark and grey. Some states, like Tamil Nadu (47%) and Kerala (41%), are on track to meet this aim. Nonetheless, the GERs of states such as Bihar (17%), Jharkhand (19%), and Uttar Pradesh (24%) lag behind, raising the question of whether they would be able to sprint to fulfil the NEP objective. Given the reality, the target of 50% GER by 2035 looks like a faraway dream.
If wishes were horses, we could ride our way to educating our country’s youngsters with wannabe, grandiose educational policy pledges. However, significant public expenditure is required to draw more young people to higher education. Unfortunately, governmental investment in the sector of higher education does not meet our aspirations.
With governmental funding in higher education declining, aspiring students are forced to attend more expensive private institutions. But this is not an option for everyone.
In 2021-22, 78% of all colleges are privately owned, with 66% of college enrolment in privately run institutions. According to the NSS (2017-18), the cost of studying at a private, unaided higher educational institution (HEI) was about twice that of a government university (see Figure 2). A detailed report of the NSS 2002 survey is yet to be released. Nonetheless, after examining the trends, a recent paper by Motkuri, V. and E. Revathi (2020) states that the growth in public expenditure on education was higher than that of private during the first four decades, from the 1950s through the 1980s, but thereafter, from 1990s through the present decade, it is the reverse. The ratio of public to private expenditure in education has increased from 0.7 in 1951-52 to whooping 1.6 in 2019-20. Such a trend reflects the increasing privatisation of education in India and has far-reaching policy implications.
Given that the poorest members of society have yet to enter higher education, expensive private institutions will discourage youth from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds from enrolling in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs). As a result, the GER will not grow.
Figure 2: The cost of higher education as compared to private institutions
To add insult to injury, the PRS study reveals that the Union Government’s investment in scholarships and interest subsidies is dropping, imperilling the participation among females and socially and economically disadvantaged groups, making the ideal of 50% GER even more distant (see Figure 3).
The government covers nearly 34% of the cost of education in private HEIs in OECD countries through scholarships and loans. Even in the United States, where universities are administered mainly by private interest, endowments bear 33% of the expense. With shrinking scholarships and rising higher education costs, achieving 50% GER is becoming an increasingly distant goal.
Figure 3: The scholarships and subsidies available to students are decreasing, dissuading youngsters from higher education
Unfilled teaching positions
Academic positions in educational institutions help to increase the pool of researchers, improve training, and give jobs, consequently creating a promising employment ecosystem to attract talented young people to science and innovation. As of March 2023, more than one-third of positions at centrally funded institutions were vacant, resulting in a negative environment (see Figure 4). According to reports, the empty posts are still unfilled due to a lack of funding. However, we can observe that the money allocated for higher education is not adequately used. For example, the revised projections for 2024-25 of Rs 46,482 crore are lower than the budget estimate of Rs 47,620 crore for higher education. In 2024-25, more than 1200 crore will be spent, less than the planned amount. This money may have boosted teacher appointments at higher education institutions.
Figure 4: One-third of posts in centrally funded universities were vacant as of March 2023
Dwindling investment in science
In the scientific and technology area, public announcements and remarks are pleasant. According to media sources, the union budget for 2025-26 includes a significant investment in research and innovation. The Hindu newspaper stated, “Union Budget 2025: Science Ministry gets a hefty hike powered by corpus to finance private R&D” and continued: “Budget allocation of 20,000 is almost triple the usual amount; will be used to fund the private sector and startups in sunrise sectors, says DST Secy; currently, less than 1% of GDP spent on R&D due to low private participation”. Indeed, the main four scientific and technology ministry/departments’ budget projections for 2025-26 (DST -28508.90, DBT 3446.64, DSIR/CSIR 6657.78, and MOES 3649.81) are much higher than the previous year.
However, the devil is in the details. Budget forecasts have recently lost their sanctity; they are now viewed mostly as a wish list with pomp. The reality lies in the specifics, or what is known as ‘actuals’; that is, the amount ‘actually’ issued and spent on the budget item. First, the budget forecasts are ‘ revised’ based on ‘actual’ cost spent in mid-course, around November. The ‘actuals’ represent the actual spending released. As a result, actuals are often lower than revised projections, which are significantly lower than budget estimates.
Let us look at the track record for 2024-25 in Table 1. The actuals for 2024-25 have yet to be determined. We just have the budget estimate and a revised estimate.
Table 1: The 2024 budget of the Science and Technology Ministry at a glance
Organisation
Budget Estimate( in crores)
Revised Estimate( in crores)
Difference in percentage
DST
8029.01
5661.45
70.51
DBT
2275.00
2460.13
108.14
DSIR/CSIR
6323.41
6350.54
100.43
MOES
3064.80
3632.78
118.53
The rise in MOES RE is attributed to increased capital outlay, whereas the variances in DST, DBT, and DSIR RE are related to revenue. Now, let us delve further. DST is one of the primary financing agencies for science and technology initiatives. The money was initially allocated through SERB and later NRF. The TDB is also an important agency that grants research funding.
Table 2: The 2024 budget of key funding agencies of DST at a glance
Budget Estimate( in crores)
Revised Estimate( in crores)
Difference in percentage
SERB
803
766
95.39
TDB
100
6
6
NRF
2000
200
10
Interestingly, the budget estimates for SERB for 2025-26 are only 693.25, TDB 7, and NRF 2000.
The stark contrast between what is announced in the budget and what is actually released for spending is clear. Table 3 shows the budget estimate and actual expenditures. Real spending has significantly declined recently, resulting in a severe drop in research support.
Table 3: Budget estimate and the actual investment of DST
Budget Estimates
Revised Estimates
Actual
Percentage of actuals over budget estimates
2019-20
5600
5501
5453
97.38
2020-21
6313
5012
4913
77.82
2021-22
6071
5244
5146
84.76
2022-23
6002
4907
4436
73.90
2023-24
7932
4892
61.67*
* based on RE
This has been the pattern over the previous few years, as seen in Figure 5. What was once a 3 to 5% disparity has slowly expanded, and by 2023-24, it was a whopping 38-40%! Despite apparent budget increases, the research community’s fear that financing has become increasingly limited in recent years appears correct.
Figure 5: Actual spending has been lower than the budget estimates
However, these four core institutions are not the only agencies that support research. Business enterprises, higher education institutions, governments, and private non-profit groups all fund research, often in tiny ways. Investment in science and technology research, including all entities’ expenditures, is quantified in terms of gross research and development expenditure (GERD). Since 2009-10, the GERD as a proportion of GDP has been steadily declining (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: GERD falling since 2009-10 (figures in % of GDP)
Glory and Gore
India’s spectacular successes in the space sector, such as landing on the Moon and developing cryogenic engines, are supplemented by considerable effort in other fields of science, technology, and innovation that are mostly unnoticed by the public. However, these are equally important to our economy’s growth and our citizens’ well-being. These are just the rewards of previous generations’ efforts. Failure to supply consistent nutrition will cause withering and stunted development.
Unfortunately, few new institutions have been founded in the recent two decades, except for name changes or ‘mergers’. Most legacy institutions were formed at least two to three decades ago. Unfortunately, when demand exceeds supply, many institutions and research units close. Of course, one must update and reposition in response to changes in technology and emphasis, but if closures are not accompanied by adequate new seeding, the research ecosystem will inevitably decline. All central funding is proposed to be routed through ANRF. Such centralisation will seriously hamper the timely evaluation and dispersal of funds. Also, the line departments will be hampered in seeking research in areas of their immediate interest.
In key technological areas, we seem to be happy with imports and reliance on others, compromising self-reliance, admanirbar, make-in-India, and security. Take the case of 6G; we are rushing head-on for its implementation without any basic R&D in relevant areas. The same is the case for AI. The allocation of Rs 2,000 crore for the IndiaAI Mission for 2025-26, which is nearly a fifth of the scheme’s total outlay of Rs 10,370 crore, is made in this budget. The outlay itself is suboptimal; billions are required to develop LLMs. If we do not gear up and mobilise the resources, we will miss this bus, too.
Science and technology are swiftly evolving, and as the Red Queen once said, one must run faster to merely stay in the same location. The patterns observed over the last two decades are not promising or inspiring. Will this budget alter the path of higher education, science, technology, and innovation? We have no option but to keep hoping.
References
Evenson, R. E., & Singh, L., (1997). Economic Growth, International Technological Spillovers and Public Policy: Theory and Empirical Evidence from Asia. Centre Discussion Paper, No. 777, Yale University, Economic Growth Centre, New Haven, CT.
India Innovation Index 2021, Niti Ayog (Source Link)
Kaur, M. & Singh, L. (2016). R&D Expenditure and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 15(3), 195-213
Motkuri, V. and E. Revathi (18 September 2020). Private and Public Expenditure on Education in India: Trend over last Seven Decades, CESS-RSEPPG Research Brief #2, Research Cell on Education (RSEPPG), Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad
PRSIndia Demand for Grants 2024-25 Analysis: Science and Technology (Source Link)
PRSIndia Demand for Grants 2025-26 Analysis: Education (Source Link)
S&T Indicators Tables Research and Development Statistics 2022-23, Department of Science and Technology (Source Link)
Dr. T. V. Venkateswaran is a science writer, science communication trainer, and visiting professor at IISER Mohali.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
ONOS (One nation, one subscription) for India, a scheme by which the government centrally subscribes to journals to make them accessible to all, was announced on 25 November 2024. This idea was first proposed in a report by India’s three science academies in 2019, but it did not go into details beyond suggesting a centralised system to minimise costs. Also in 2019, the office of the Principal Scientific Advisor (PSA) to the Government of India organised a meeting (which I attended) to discuss a “National framework for open access of scientific literature”, where it was recommended that a team of negotiators negotiate with publishers for national subscription packages starting January 2021 “for universal access of scientific literature to Indian citizens” (from the minutes of the meeting).
The COVID pandemic intervened, but work on this pressed ahead. The then PSA, K VijayRaghavan (a developmental biologist), emphasised the importance of all citizens, including school students and teachers, journalists, independent researchers, and the general public, being able to access the scientific literature without paywalls. Another thorny question was of article processing charges (APCs) increasingly levied by journals for making publications “open access”, running to several thousand dollars/euros per paper. Most Indian researchers don’t have resources in terms of grants to foot these expenses, and journals increasingly decline waivers to Indian authors. I and others argued for ONOS to include APC waivers for Indian authors.
Negotiations continued, with some publishers more receptive than others. Prof VijayRaghavan retired as PSA, and Ajay Sood, a condensed-matter physicist, took over. After over two years of presumed committee meetings, a version of ONOS was finally announced on 25 November. This is an agreement with 30 publishers of academic journals to enable access via a common platform to about 13,000 journals from these publishers for users in 6,300 government-run higher educational institutions (HEIs).
While this falls short of the access to all Indians that was envisioned, it is nevertheless a one-of-its-kind agreement globally: a welcome first step but hopefully not the end of the story. In a press conference on 10 December, the PSA clarified that extensions, to non-government HEIs and to cover APCs, are being worked on and will be implemented in later phases. These extensions are important.
Even in 2019, author-pays APCs (which were invented in 1999 by open access advocates) were getting co-opted by large publishers, including Elsevier and Springer-Nature. This trend has accelerated to the point that most biomedical research is now APC-based open access, rendering ONOS moot in several fields of science, at least for contemporary research (archives are still paywalled). APC-based open access publishing is a double-edged sword. It increases public access to research, which is beneficial for knowledge dissemination and societal progress. But it disproportionately disadvantages researchers from lower-income countries, who often struggle to afford APCs, limiting their ability to contribute to the global scientific discourse. It has exchanged inequity at the consumption level for inequity at the production level. The Indian government and other developing countries must address this, ideally as part of an expanded ONOS package that includes APC waivers for authors from their countries, and must conclude agreements with the more receptive publishers as and when they can.
Moreover, the original justification for country-wide access remains valid. ONOS as announced this week is a budgetary and logistical optimisation that enables expanded access to thousands of government colleges, universities and institutions, but still excludes the rest of the country. In the short term, all public HEIs should open their libraries to the general public (as many already do) to be able to access this research; in the long term a truly inclusive ONOS is needed. In the December 10 press conference, it was mentioned that access to the public in phase 3 will be provided via access points in public libraries. This should not be the end goal: everyone geographically in India, as identified by their IP address, should have access. Contrary arguments from the Publishers about VPN users from other countries can be countered with numbers.
There are reports that universities have been asked to stop individual subscriptions to journals and route them via INFLIBNET, the ONOS implementing agency. But only 30 publishers and 13000 journals are covered; there is a legitimate worry that researchers that require highly specialized journal titles will be forgotten, and this fear should be dispelled or addressed.
The outlay for ONOS is ₹2,000 crore (₹20 billion, or about US$ 250 million) every year for three years. This may seem enormous but, according to the 2019 academies’ report, India was already spending ₹1,500 crore a year on subscriptions that failed to benefit most HEIs. So ONOS has indeed expanded access at a not much greater cost; nevertheless it would not be surprising if publishers see it as a locked-in windfall, especially given the move towards open access (another reason to include APCs in the ambit of ONOS).
Madhan Muthu, Director of Global Library at O. P. Jindal Global University and a visiting scholar at the DST Centre for Policy Research at IISc, Bengaluru, argues that the deal is “too big to fail”, and that increased access at the same or slightly higher cost is not worth the price, pointing out that in most institutions researchers read only a handful of the journals that they subscribed to. He also argues that a pay-per-view system would be more economical than mass subscriptions. Both points are true, but in an ideal world we should be able to access literature without jumping through hoops. For example, a couple of years ago I needed to access two papers published in the 1990s in a journal called Growth, Development and Aging. The journal no longer exists and has no online archives; I wrote to the library of the (deceased) lead author, at the University of Missouri, and they declined to share a copy with me for copyright reasons! Luckily I eventually found it on archive.org – but this should not be necessary. A pay-per-view model may save money, but largely, I suspect, by most people not bothering at all. That said, the current ONOS model should be aggressively renegotiated every few years.
In the press conference of 10 December, it was mentioned that a fund is being set up to cover APCs for Indian authors in “selected good quality journals” and that APC discounts would be negotiated “as far as possible”. This is a good start, but the devil is in the details. The government should move quickly to set up payment mechanisms for the selected journals such that the authors do not have to worry about this at the time of submission. It should not happen that the author submits a paper, which is accepted, and then the author has to beg the government for coverage! Anyway, this scheme is described as a “pilot”, and hopefully the government prioritises it.
Just as the author-pays OA movement arose as a backlash against the exorbitant subscription costs of journal publishers, there is increasingly a backlash against APCs and an argument for a “diamond OA” world, where journals are funded by governments, societies and philanthropies (as repositories like arXiv and bioRxiv already are), free to read and free to publish in. In such a world, journals would be overlays of reviews on publicly-accessible preprints. The old system is broken and India and other developing countries should lead in creating a new system. It could be argued that ONOS is, instead, entrenching the old system for another few years. However, scientists have to work in the publishing landscape as it exists now, even while working to change it. ONOS is an incremental change, and in many ways a welcome one. Much more is required, globally, and maybe India can contribute more fresh ideas.
One concrete idea to change things is for India to set up a high-quality, APC-free open-access journal family. This is not for nationalistic reasons but because the world needs it. Prof Sood (PSA) said on December 10 that in a democracy Indian scientists cannot be asked to publish only in Indian journals, and science is a global enterprise. Quite so. One solution could be for India to set up a truly global family of journals, with global editorial boards, that scientists around the world will want to publish in. We certainly have the technical and scientific expertise and the resources.
All in all, though ONOS should be seen as a first step and not the end, I am optimistic about the noises being made. Here’s hoping.
Rahul Siddharthan is a professor at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai. This piece first appeared in his blog at horadecubitus.wordpress.com, and is reproduced here with permission.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
Sujit Kumar Chakrabarti is a faculty member at IIITB, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.
For the other cartoons in this series, please click here.
Why do we walk on two legs? Why are antibiotics becoming increasingly ineffective? Why do we need vitamin B in our diet? Why do people with serious disabilities continue to be born? Why are people in the tropics darker-skinned than those in temperate zones? Why do bats fly only at night? Why are flowers brightly coloured and patterned? Why do people get covid even after they are vaccinated? The detailed answers to those questions vary from case to case, but there is also a common answer: because of evolution. Evolution is the central organising principle behind living matter. That means all of us – viruses, microbes, fungi, plants and animals.
It is rightly said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just as physical laws account for fire, rain, earthquakes, motor cars, aeroplanes, artificial satellites and mobile phones, evolution accounts for the makeup and functioning of living organisms. Evolution explains how the huge variety of living creatures came into being. It is a history of life on earth, and not merely a descriptive history. It explains why particular features are characteristic of different forms of life. The explanations fall into three broad groups: those that depend on accidents of chance alone, those that depend on chance combined with reproductive advantage, and those that depend on chance combined with mutual advantage. Let me give examples of each. They are chosen deliberately to illustrate how an understanding of evolution clarifies aspects of human life.
Among the roughly 300 year-old Amish sect in the US, a significantly higher proportion have more fingers or toes than the usual five. Why? It so happened that very early, some Amish had a genetic condition which leads to extra digits. The number of Amish has always been small, and they largely married within themselves. Therefore, purely on account of chance (to which the small population size also contributed), extra digits occur in the Amish more frequently than in others. Next, consider the evolution of resistance to an antibiotic. It originates from a chance event, a mutation, in a single bacterium. In someone who is taking the antibiotic (and also in environmental waste that contains the antibiotic), resistance gives that bacterium and its descendants an advantage. They survive and reproduce more effectively than bacteria that are sensitive to the antibiotic. Eventually, resistant bacteria become widespread. In this case evolution has taken place because of chance and reproductive advantage. Finally, consider vitamin B. It is an essential nutrient, but our body cannot produce it. We depend on the bacteria which live in our gut to make vitamin B for us. In return, our metabolism provides the bacteria with the food that they need. The original association between the two species must have occurred by chance. Once it did, mutual benefit ensured its persistence.
As these examples show, evolution can take place in several ways. Among them, the second in our list has become famous. In it, evolution is the result of cumulative changes, each spreading within a population following a chance event that results in a slightly improved ability to reproduce. That way of evolving is known as natural selection. It was proposed simultaneously by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace in 1858. Popularly, it goes by the name ‘survival of the fittest’ – an expression that has given rise to so much confusion that biologists hardly ever use it. Sometimes natural selection is also called Darwinian evolution (most unfairly to Wallace). It remains the dominant explanation for evolution, especially when the outcome appears to be an adaptation. Adaptation is an evolutionary outcome which makes the members of a species respond optimally to the challenges posed by their surroundings, which include other living creatures too. Optimality is judged as an engineer would, and roughly means ‘as efficiently as possible’. Adaptive evolution leads to better swimmers, fliers, runners, or an improved ability to digest food, see, hear or smell, resist infections, and so on. Molecular biology illustrates the first evolutionary mechanism in our list – chance alone – dramatically. Chance is behind a large number of evolutionary changes in DNA and protein sequences that persist even though they are neither beneficial nor harmful. The third mechanism, in which chance and cooperation combine, makes us look at evolution in a new way. We now see that living creatures (including ourselves) are not isolated individuals. Rather, they are communities that include a huge number of microbial species that live on and within them in an arrangement that helps both sides – or one should say all sides. The emphasis on cooperation reflects a shift in perspective from simple-minded Darwinian evolution, which stresses competition.
Unexpected facets of evolution are emerging. The role of the external environment as a stimulus for evolutionary change is one. The role played by the mechanics of cells and tissues in guiding the development of form is another. Thanks to technical advances in molecular biology and computer analysis, the study of evolution is passing through an exciting phase today. We are learning with whom we share our roots and how long ago that was. The deep history of our own species, Homo sapiens, is acquiring shape. We know that our forefathers originated in Africa and, as hopeful migrants, went out from there to populate other continents. There are tantalising glimpses of the people whose descendants we present-day Indians are. They include the earliest humans to reach here from Africa as well as immigrants who arrived in diverse streams from the north-west, north-east, and south Asia. Two statements sum up what evolution tells us so far. First, life on earth is a spectacular example of unity and diversity, both of them based on common ancestry. Second, the diversity has come about through a combination of accidental events, the laws of physics, and natural selection. In the memorable words Darwin used at the end of The Origin of Species (a book that repays reading even today), there is grandeur in this view of life. The study of evolution is endlessly fascinating. Its goal is to explain the most striking aspects of living creatures, the sorts of things that attract a child’s wonder. At the same time, it throws light on the deepest doubts that have engaged humans. Who are we? Where did we come from?
However, there is a question that evolution seems ill-equipped to answer. Why on earth would anyone want to deny young Indians such richness, when it costs nothing? NCERT appears to have done just that by omitting the topic of evolution from its X standard text book. The reasons given for the removal that I have come across (it is too difficult, Darwin is a controversial figure) make no sense. It used to be thought that evolutionary biology was not utilitarian in the sense that mathematics, chemistry, computer science or engineering are. In this age of organ transplants across species and strategies to counter the impact of climate change, even that is not true. But there is a far more important point behind the teaching of evolution to children at several levels and in progressively increasing detail. An appreciation of evolution enriches the mind. To delete it from the syllabus is as foolish as not teaching a language, or poetry, or history (though I seem to recall an entrepreneur saying that teaching language was a waste of time). Being exposed to evolutionary thinking should be considered an essential element of human culture, on a par with being told about the planets, stars and galaxies and where they come from. One does not have to know about evolution to make a living. Also, cutting down on its teaching will not matter to those who study in private institutions that use their own curricula. They will find, or be directed to, sources of knowledge other than officially prescribed texts. On the other hand, the move will hit precisely those children whose needs should be addressed by a progressive educational policy, those who come from deprived backgrounds, are compelled to study in publicly funded schools, and retain the hope that education is liberating.
Vidyanand Nanjundiah used to be at the Indian Institute of Science and is now at the Centre for Human Genetics. He studies evolution, especially the evolution of social behaviour in microorganisms. He can be contacted at vidyan@alumni.iisc.ac.in. The views expressed in this piece are personal.
