Scientists and Journalists Square Off Over Covering Science and ‘Getting it Right’

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Should journalists allow scientists to review their quotes or text before publication? At first glance, this fundamental journalism question appears to be black and white, but it turns out to have a lot of gray.

The question was posed early last month on Twitter by neuroscientist Kyle Jasmin, an independent research fellow at the University of London’s Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck. After more than 4,600 responses, 79 percent — the majority of them scientists — voted that they should be allowed to review an article before publication. The discussion that erupted in follow-up comments, however, was far more mixed. Many in the press raised the issue of journalistic integrity: A White House reporter, after all, would never allow a politician to review a quote. Scientists countered with tales of being misquoted or maligned by bad reporting.

It is concerning that these two symbiotic disciplines appear to misunderstand each other on such a fundamental issue. But even within each profession, opinions are far from aligned.

Freelance science journalist Erin Biba was outspoken in her response to the poll. She said not showing sources their quotes is a hard rule in journalism, although she admitted there can be rare exceptions. But the onus is on the reporter to get the facts right. “We have to care about the facts, and we have to fact check ourselves, and we have to not be embarrassed to admit if we don’t get it,” Biba told me.

“Sending the story to the source to read it is an easy way out,” she added.

It must be acknowledged, of course, that some journalists do not have time to be as thorough as they would like. And even if the writer does their best, headlines produced by editors can turn a thoughtful, tempered article into a one-sided exaggeration. “These headlines are doing real damage,” Biba said. “There were scientists who said to me during this argument, ‘I’ve stopped speaking to journalists because of the factual inaccuracy of these click-bait headlines.’ And I could not blame them.”

Emily Conover, a writer for Science News, recommended scientists who are wary of the press do their own due diligence on the journalist and outlet before an interview. If past articles seem particularly sensational then perhaps the scientist should decline. For her part, Conover says she has a strict policy about not sharing copy with sources. If they don’t like it, they don’t have to be interviewed.

Veteran science writer Philip Ball was more sympathetic to the scientists. He wrote on his blog that his first priority was to get the science and the story right, and if that meant running quotes or text by sources, he was happy to do so. “Mistakes happen. But they don’t have to, or not so often, if the scientist gets to see the text,” he wrote.

Tellingly, many of the scientists who responded to the Twitter poll, upon being contacted for an interview for this story, either declined or insisted on communicating only via email, citing a mistrust of journalists. Those who did respond acknowledged that journalists should have editorial control over their articles and said they would not insist upon seeing quotes before publication. However, the researchers rightly pointed out that science can be complicated, and a single word can change the meaning or implication of a finding.

“I think in cases where journalists are not well-versed in the domains they’re covering, it’s often a really good idea for them to ask scientists to review what they’ve written for accuracy,” wrote Tal Yarkoni, a research associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. “Science is hard, and it’s often easy to think that one understands enough about the big picture to avoid making serious mistakes, when in reality the devil really is in the details a huge proportion of the time.”

Matthew Huber, a professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Purdue University, told me that inaccuracies can slip in when journalists paraphrase rather than quote him. “Even under the best of circumstances it is very easy for two people to misunderstand each other. Therefore, from my point of view it’s in the best interest of everyone to have the opportunity to review the text,” he said. “Do I think scientists should have the opportunity to review it? Yes. Does that mean that I think scientists have to have final authority about what goes out? No.”

Jon Foley, executive director of the California Academy of Sciences, pushed back against this view. He pointed out that even when a well-meaning journalist gets something wrong, the damage is being overstated, and that he had never met a scientist whose career had been tanked by a misleading quote or an inaccurate explanation of their research. In this regard, Foley said that many of his fellow scientists were being “shockingly naïve and kind of arrogant.”

“It’s as if scientists are saying, ‘Journalists are too dumb to get the science right, and so I have to check their work,'” Foley said.

This debate is far from new. In 2011, David Kroll raised the issue in a blog post for PLOS about an interview with former Chicago Tribune science writer Trine Tsouderos in which she admitted to showing sources quotes, paragraphs, and even full drafts as a form of fact checking. A thoughtful discussion ensued in the comments section (Kroll said a colleague referred to it as a “master class in science journalism”), with the consensus being that fact checking — preferably through verbal summaries — is acceptable and even encouraged to ensure accuracy, and on rare occasions text can be shared if the topic is particularly tricky, but wresting editorial control is a non-starter.

The conclusion fits with the policies of several publications, with some variation over whether text and quotes should be paraphrased or could sometimes be shared verbatim.

Editors at The Washington Post, Discover, and Nature told me that reporters are not allowed to share quotes, text, or drafts with sources before publication. However, all three encourage reporters to fact check their articles to ensure they are representing the science and the source accurately, primarily by summarizing material. Discover also uses official fact checkers for all print magazine stories.

STAT News says it does some general fact checking during the copy editing process, and that in some situations they do read back quotes or share short excerpts to verify accuracy. Undark, meanwhile, has formal fact checkers on staff who, among other things, verify the spirit of quotes — though they discourage writers from sending verbatim quotes and passages directly to sources. Scientific American’s policy was the most lenient. Former editor in chief John Rennie commented in the 2011 debate that the magazine would occasionally show sources copy if there were questions about precision. Current neuroscience editor Gary Stix (for whom I often write) agreed that showing a scientist the text is sometimes the only way to avoid errors in technical descriptions.

For his part, Jasmin wrote me that he “posted the poll after hearing conflicting accounts of what is supposed to happen after an interview. I’d heard experienced scientists say they had always been allowed to look at drafts, and I’d heard from journalists that their professional ethics explicitly forbade this.”

So how do we get the two professions on the same page?

Foley said media training would go a long way toward improving scientists’ view of journalists. A supportive press office at his old university and building personal relationships with reporters helped his understanding and appreciation of the field. On the journalists’ side, Biba said assuring scientists that their research is in good hands can help alleviate concerns. “Scientists just want to know that you give a shit,” she said. “That you respect them and you respect their work and that you’re not just trying to get the clicks.

“We have to remember,” she added, “that this is people’s livelihood.”

 

 

Dana Smith is a freelance science writer specializing in brains and bodies. She has written for The Atlantic, The Guardian, Scientific American, Discover, and Fast Company, among others. In a previous life, she earned a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Cambridge. You can find more of her writing at danagsmith.com.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Science and Technology in Economic Survey 2018

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Albert Einstein thought that the ‘hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax’. At least in India, income tax is just one piece of a larger financial jigsaw puzzle called the budget. One can only imagine how Einstein would have reacted to the often confusing budget figures and analysis.  In this backdrop, the Economic Survey’s chapter on Transforming science and technology in India is a lucid and well-written document largely steering clear of the routine budget jargon.

 

In the list of India’s hoary budget related traditions, this is indeed a welcome change. Economic Survey, generally presented a day before the union budget every year, is the Finance ministry’s official view point on the state of the economy and is supplemented with statistics. For nearly seven decades from 1951 to 2017, the Economic Surveys were largely confined to discussions of core economic issues ranging from agricultural and industrial production to fiscal deficit. This is the first time that it has focussed on the transformative role of science and technology for addressing India’s developmental issues.

 

For nearly a decade between 2005 to 2016, India’s spending on research has been stagnant at about 0.7-0.8% of the gross domestic product (GDP). This point has been repeated many times over and a demand for its upward revision was even part of a bouquet of demands of the Indian version of the March for Science held in August 2017. India under-spends on research and, as the Economic Survey points out, what makes it glaring is that it under-spends even relative to its economic strength as measured by the GDP. Even as India would inch closer to reach the economic might of China or the USA, we are still likely to spend far less on research than both these countries at the same level of economic strength.

 

What is the source of science budget? It is contributed mainly by the central government while the state governments do not make significant contribution. In order to increase the research expenditure to well beyond 1% of GDP, Economic Survey puts the onus entirely on the state governments and the private industries. This might be a reasonable corollary derived from the data presented in the Economic Survey, but it is also true that the idea of scientific research as a tool for social transformation has not sufficiently percolated down to the levels of the state governments. Not surprisingly, projects such as the Neutrino Observatory and establishment of some of the new IIT/IISER/NITs have been delayed due to lack of support from the respective state governments. As the Economic Survey too points out, state governments should be incentivised to focus on applied research relevant to their region and people. Even as more resources are demanded from the government of India, it is also imperative to press the state governments to move ahead on this front.

 

The demands for fund infusion for research has always hogged the limelight, though the research output have not generally received the attention it deserves. The Economic Survey paints a not-so-rosy picture of research output, both in terms of number of publications and patents. In the 1990s, India was ahead of China in the publications race but by 2010 China had gone past India by a big margin. Faced with an onslaught of fake journals with no clear solutions in sight (UGC had even given them sanctity by approving several fake journals), statistics such as these, especially pertaining to the last decade, need to be carefully examined. Measuring quality of published papers using citations or other similar metrics is controversial (some science academies outside of India, such as the Royal Society, have argued against it) but it is sufficient to say that quality is a paramount concern that needs to be continuously addressed by the scientific community as a whole.

 

Two significant statements in the Economic Survey, in my opinion, reflect the mood and emphasis of the present government. It says, “India needs to redouble its efforts to improve science and R&D in the country first and foremost by doubling national expenditures on R&D with most of the increase coming from the private sector and universities. But the metrics also need to go beyond papers and patents to a broader contribution to providing value for society.” If this is any indication, the central government is probably not going to share most of the burden for sharp increase desired in research outlay in the short term. This is of course a status quo that dates back to 2005. Any moderate increase is likely to be selectively targeted at research that has the potential to address societal problems. The latter cannot be faulted per se, provided the importance and the place for fundamental research is also given its due recognition.

 

Somewhat like the 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm : Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future produced by the National Academies of  Science, Engineering and Medicine in the USA, the Economic Survey too goes beyond the contours of economics and research, and briefly addresses the status of science and math education for children in schools. In another bold effort, it attempts to outline possible research priorities ranging from dark matter to energy storage and cyber-physical systems.  This manifests right intentions though it is likely to remain contentious.

 

The important take-away is that research is getting the recognition it deserves as an indispensable part of the nation building process but is unlikely to corner the desired budget allocation unless state governments and industries significantly increase their contribution. With this recognition, it is also incumbent upon the researchers and the academies to engage with the government and the public in a continuous dialogue to showcase the tangible and intangible value of supporting research.

 

Here is why I believe this is a well-intentioned document that tries to balance many disparate factors that shape the budget allocation process in India. Firstly, it calls for orienting more funds for the research projects of individual scientists as opposed to mega projects. Secondly, this is probably the first time that an official document says that “Government rules such as those requiring L1 for procurement are simply not geared to providing the flexibility that is needed at the frontiers of research ….”. Budgets and allocations apart, action on carrying forward some of these ideas is long overdue.

 

MS Santhanam is an Associate Professor of Physics at IISER Pune.

The return of ‘divide and rule’ policy

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

On February 8, 2018, the Union cabinet has given a green signal to the Prime Minister Research Fellowship scheme. This scheme will allow “around 1,000 best students who have completed (or are in the final year of) B.Tech or Integrated M.Tech or M.Sc. in Science and Technology streams from IISc/IITs/NITs/IISERs/IIITs under this scheme will be offered direct admission in PhD programme in the IITs/IISc. Those students will be offered a fellowship of Rs.70, 000/- per month for the first two years, Rs.75, 000/- per month for the 3rd year, and Rs.80, 000/- per month in the 4th and 5th years. Apart from this, a research grant of Rs.2.00 lakh will be provided to each of the Fellows for a period of 5 years to enable them to participate in international research conferences and present research papers. A maximum of 3,000 Fellows would be selected in a three year period beginning 2018-19.”. This comes after 3 years have passed following the last fellowship hike for research scholars in 2014, when there has been a recent pan-India ‘March for Science’ movement in 2017, and at a time when the CSIR and UGC research fellows are not receiving fellowships and contingencies on a regular basis. Amidst such events, the announcement of such a differential fellowship to a select few is bound to raise few eyebrows!

 

The attractiveness of this scheme lies in its financial benefits to the PhD scholars, which is has been claimed to encourage students from IISc/IITs/NITs/IISERs/IIITs to stay back in India after completing B.Tech/M.Tech/M.Sc. and pursue PhD in IITs and IISc. And as per the Minster for Human Resource and Development, Shri Prakash Javadekar, “Prime Minister’s Research Fellows Scheme will convert brain drain to brain gain” . Now such claims appear to be promising from outside. But alas, all that glitters is not gold!

 

The main criticism that this scheme is facing is the differential treatment of the research scholars, as well as the research institutes and universities. The default assumption underlying this scheme is that students pursuing B.Tech, M.Tech and M.Sc. from a select few institutes are more ‘valuable’ to this country, and hence should be made to stay back. Now there is no denial of the fact these students under question are intelligent and perhaps constitute most of the so-called ‘creamy layer’, but that does not prove that students pursuing degree courses other Indian institutes and university are less intelligent than the former.

 

Also, the direct admission of the former set of students in PhD programmes of IISc and IITs might also deny opportunity to several deserving students just because they have not received training from one of the ‘elite institutes’.

 

Next, not everyone enrolled for B.Tech/M.Tech/M.Sc from the set of elite institutes mentioned are eligible for the fellowship, and the criteria for selecting the ‘1000 best students’ has not been described anywhere till now. This not only leaves substantial doubt about the implementation of the schemes, but also probably leaves room for corruption to creep in. If this fellowship scheme is materialized, such differentiation might eventually end up creating a sharp division among the research scholars (not only intra-institute but inter-institutes as well), who till now have remained united, have organised the country-wide hike fellowship movement and are still struggling together for regular disbursal of fellowships and contingencies. Who will benefit from such division? To find an answer to this question, one could look into the infamous ‘divide and rule’ policy implemented by the British during the pre-independence era. There is a certain possibility that such a differential fellowship scheme will create a division among the research scholars, and hence might eventually weaken the growing protests and movements across the country in demand of increasing research funding, regular disbursal of fellowships etc. And the weaker the students’ voices grow, the easier will be to ‘govern’ them.

 

The very claim that such a scheme will reverse the brain-drain situation has numerous flaws. First, PhD is not the end of the academic career, rather it is the beginning. If academic jobs are not created, research funding is not adequate, these ‘elite’ fellows will eventually end up leaving the country for post-doctoral research and other academic jobs. Second, the major brain drain happens during post-PhD phases, and no change at those levels of career will not reverse brain drain at all; in fact, the fellowship scheme under question might eventually add to that brain drain scenario. If the government really wants to reverse the brain-drain scenario in this country, then it must first create lucrative opportunities to attract scholars who have completed or are towards completion of post-doctoral research in this country or abroad and are all set for starting independent research careers, and not fall prey to the divisive policies which might do more harm than the good.

 

Anindita Brahma is a Research Associate at Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science

 

Science: From the grassroots to the laboratory

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Not all roads leading to scientific and technological research pass through scholarly degrees like PhDs. Lay people, even those with hardly any formal education, often chart the path of science and make significant discoveries.

Discussions regarding the relationship of science and society usually stress that science should be socially-oriented. And perhaps that is how it should be. However, if the society itself is scientifically oriented, it could lead to miracles. There are several illustrious examples of people who have done wonders in science and technology without actually undergoing formal education in these fields. Unfortunately, the society has largely remained unaware of them. There are many lessons for teachers, students, and engineers in such chronicles of scientific achievements of the common man. In this regard, The Indian Academy of Science is organizing a discussion session called “Science: From the grassroots to the laboratory” to be held on February 25, 2018 (2 PM to 6 PM) at Abasaheb Garware College.

Research workers including Geetanjali Date, Kaustubh Pandhripande, Vijjay Dethe, and Milind Watve will be participating in the discussion session, which would be compered by Preeti O. Members of the Pardhi and Gond communities will also take part in the discussion and share the anecdotes of scientific achievements made by the common people of their regions. These achievements include technologies for generating local power from perennial streams, water management by tribal communities, research done by the local people on rare species, and several examples of systematic planning done at the level of Gram-sabhaas for sustainable use of natural resources.  Apart from this, some fundamental research conducted on the mathematics and logic used by people devoid of formal education will also be discussed.

Although the program will be in Marathi, it will be video recorded and presented on the youtube channel of Dialogue, with a brief English summary in Confluence.

 

The details of the various talks are as follows:

  1. Technology from the grassroots: What formal engineering can take away by Geetanjali Date
  2. Science and community collaboration for the conservation of savannah grasslands and endangered Lesser florican by Kaustubh Pandharipande
  3. Forest based sustainable development by Gramsabha of Pachgaon by Vijay Dethe
  4. The reverse flow: What scientists can learn from illiterate people by Milind Watve

 

=====================================

विज्ञान-तंत्रज्ञानात संशोधन करण्याचा मार्ग पदवी आणि पी एच डी वरूनच जायला पाहिजे असे बंधन नाही. सामान्य माणूस, अगदी अशिक्षितही अनेकदा आपल्या समस्या सोडविण्यासाठी विज्ञानाच्या मार्गाने वाटचाल करतात. उत्तम दर्जाचे संशोधन करतात.

विज्ञान आणि समाजाच्या संबंधाविषयी चर्चा होते तेंव्हा विज्ञानाने समाजाभिमुख असेल पाहिजे यावर भर दिला जातो. तो योग्य ही आहे. पण समाज विज्ञानाभिमुख असल्याने आणखी मोठे चमत्कार घडू शकतात. विज्ञान तंत्रज्ञानाचे औपचारिक शिक्षण न घेतलेल्या व्यक्तींनी उपयुक्त संशोधन केल्याची अनेक उदाहरणे आज आपल्या आजुबाजूला घडत आहेत. पण ही उदाहरणे पुरेशा प्रमाणात समाजापुढे आलेली नाहीत. त्यातून विद्यार्थ्यांना, शिक्षणसंस्थांना, अभियंत्यांना आणि वैज्ञानिकांना ही घेण्याजोगे अनेक धडे आहेत. याविषयी एक चर्चासत्र (विज्ञान: तळागाळांपासून प्रयोगशाळांपर्यंत) आयोजित केले आहे इंडियन अकॅडमी ऑफ सायंस विद्यमाने आबासाहेब गरवारे महाविद्यालयात रविवार दिनांक २५ फेब्रु रोजी दुपारी २ ते ६ या वेळात.

यात सहभागी होणार-या संशोधकांमधे गीतांजलि दाते, कौस्तुभ पांढरीपांडे, विजय देठे व मिलिंद वाटवे यांचा समावेश असून प्रीती ओ. सूत्रसंचालन करतील. याखेरीज पारधी समाज व गोंड समाजातील कार्यकर्तेही सामिल होणार असून आपापल्या भागातील सामान्य माणसांनी केलेल्या संशोधनाची माहिती देणार आहेत. यात बारमाही ओढ्यांवर स्थानिक पातळीवर वीज तयार करण्याचे तंत्रज्ञान, आदिवासींचे पाणी व्यवस्थापन, दुर्मिळ प्रजातींवर स्थानिक लोकांनी केलेले संशोधन, आपल्या नैसर्गिक संसाधनांचे ग्रामसभेने केलेले शास्त्रीय नियोजन यासारखी अनेक उदहारणे चर्चिली जातील. याखेरीज अशिक्षित माणसांचे गणित आणि तर्कशास्त्र यावरील काही मूलभूत संशोधनही सादर होणार आहे.

 

  1. तळागाळातले तंत्रज्ञान: अभियांत्रिकीसाठी शोध व बोध (गीतांजलि दाते)
  2. गवताळ माळराने आणि दुर्मीळ तणमोर पक्ष्यांच्या संवर्धनासाठी विज्ञान आणि लोकसमूहांचा सहभागी उपक्रम (कौस्‍तुभ पांढरीपांडे)
  3. ग्रामसभा पाचगावचा वन आधारित शाश्वत विकास (विजय देठे)
  4. उलटी गंगा: अशिक्षितांकडून वैज्ञानिकांनी घेण्याजोगे धडे (मिलिंद वाटवे)

Let’s Create Budgetary Literacy

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Most scientists in India working in Universities and specialized research institutes have to apply for extra-mural funding for their research. And they usually do so by applying to government agencies such as DST, SERB, DBT, CSIR, DAE, ICAR, ICMR and a few others. This is because more than half of India’s R&D budget comes from the Government. The quantum and pattern of allocation of money for R&D is announced promptly every year in the Finance Minister’s budget speech in Parliament in the month of February. A great deal of information about the quantum of money and its distribution to different departments and different major projects, new and old, is given in that speech. And yet the majority of working scientists in India are strikingly ignorant and illiterate about the contents of the Finance Minister’s speech. What is this year’s allocation to science as a function of the GDP, how much for DST and for DBT and what about ICMR?  How much for major new schemes and how much might be left for small individual projects? How do these numbers compare with the previous year and the year before, and with those of the previous Government?  Most scientists, whose careers depend on successfully accessing research funding from Government departments, rarely have any detailed knowledge of these simple facts. Yet they are all seriously concerned about whether their own projects will be funded and they participate in endless debates and discussions about why their projects are not funded and even about why some others’ projects are funded. Such profound near-sightedness does not befit the scientific community. Besides, ignorance and illiteracy can legitimately be interpreted by the Government as indifference.

 

Fortunately, this serious problem can be fixed relatively easily. Without doubt, there are at least some individuals who are literate and knowledgeable and who follow the Finance Minister’s speech and are able to understand all the nuances that go with such a speech. We just have to organize ourselves and appoint one or a few such experts to educate the rest of us in a language that we understand and in a timely manner. Some of them can specialize in providing the facts and, where necessary, translating them into layman-speak, while others can specialize in analysis, interpretation and comparisons. The latter group of people will have all the lead time they need because the date of the Finance Minister’s speech is known well in advance. A reasonably detailed report of the facts and their interpretation can surely be prepared within 24 hours of the speech itself. Needless to say, we must accord credit, prestige and gratitude to these messengers. Then the science Academies can chip in by disseminating the report in their instant online organs such as Dialogue and Confluence. Facebook, Twitter and other social media can then multiply the reach almost infinitely. If we also add some social prestige to knowing, discussing and disseminating these facts, we can have essentially instant budgetary literacy before the end of every February. And then will follow the comments, clarifications and criticisms, in the bottom-up manner that social media is so good at. I have no doubt that with a little planning, perhaps by the Science Academies, or even just by the editors of Dialogue and Confluence, we can pull this off. Let’s resolve to begin in February 2019!

 

Now that was the easy part. The much more difficult but also the much more important part is to do a post-mortem of the budget. There is always a slip between the cup and the lip, between promise and delivery. It is common knowledge that money promised at the beginning of the financial year is sometimes not released, and often not released in time to be useful. But it is also common knowledge that sometimes more money can be released than was originally promised. I have had scores of encounters with individual scientists with their individual stories. And yet we have no accurate picture of the situation in the country as a whole. Here there is even greater ignorance and illiteracy, even the Finance Minister does not know it all! We need field work, data collection, statistical analysis, interpretation and recommendations. But isn’t that what we scientists mostly do? Then why not for the that which affects all of us the most? Of course this is a more difficult job and needs to be done in a project mode. The Academies should fund a small team of well-chosen scientists, students and post-docs included, to undertake a detailed study in the months of April, May and July, maybe with a different team every year. They need to collect data on the quantum and time course of money released to several randomly chosen individul projects, institutes and even Government science departments. They need to do field surveys, conduct interviews, access publicly available information, use RTI, or whatever it takes to get the data. While this will surely be a demanding task it will, I have no doubt, provide significant opportunities for creativity and innovation, especially in the statistical analysis and interpretation. The Academies should not only fund the expenses involved including salaries of students and assistants but even more importantly, find a way to reward the team with formal credit and social prestige. A quick publication in Dialogue and Confluence and wide dissemination in the social media will complete the job. For the whole exercise to be viewed as applied research rather than mere theory, it is imperative to do this in a time-bound manner and produce recommendations well in time to be useful for course correction in the current financial year. If we pull this off, it will be the first of its kind in the world and constitute true budgetary literacy. Are we up for the challenge?

Indian Science must attract more International Students

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Globalization of economy has had an indirect impact on the mobility of students across the world. Today over 4 million students are studying outside their home countries and will soon join the global workforce. India, with its 200,000 students studying abroad contributes just about 5% to this potential global workforce. This workforce consists of Chinese, South East Asians, Africans and students from Middle East. Indian students have  a tough competition in the global employment market unless we start locally producing graduates who have a direct or indirect exposure to the professional global employment needs. Increasingly, the required employability skills  tend towards soft skills like, communication in a multicultural society, cultural adaptability, and interpersonal skills  The ‘domain expertise’ of a specialized degree accounts for only 28% of all the needed skills. The major employment market in the corporate sector is looking more for a well rounded “global citizen” than a topper in examinations with a gold medal! This writer believes that the Indian higher education system is not geared to producing “global citizens”, but is targeting to the examination oriented gold medalists. The local employment market is also  indicating that less than 25% of our professional graduates are employable. If this is the scene with local employers, how can we expect our graduates to be easily employed in the global market? India is very proud of its demographic dividend (65 % of population being less than 35 years of age) and is therefore forecasting that we can supply skilled manpower to the rest of the world. This ‘demographic dividend’ could end up being a ‘demographic disaster’ of unemployable graduates. It is here that the Indian science community can play an important  role in helping our undergraduate, postgraduate and even PhD. students, becoming globally exposed while still remaining at home. They can be exposed to cultural and academic global developments by actually interacting and working, at home, with their counterpart international students from the world. Indian science can attract international student talent, if we evolve a planned strategy. Let us first see the magnitude of the need for exposing our student community to students of the world.

Today, roughly 35 million Indian students are enrolled in all inclusive Indian higher education institutions. These institutions collectively host approximately only 45 thousand international students from 161 countries – mainly from developing countries. Thus for every 800 Indian students, there is only one international student with whom he or she is likely to interact and learn about the culture and life of that foreign country. Indian students are also not exposed to international faculty.  Their academic calendar, their rigid examination based system, and financial status does not allow them to travel and get some international exposure. Less than 1% of our 35 million students can afford to go abroad for higher education. There are no, or very few, national open scholarships for students to go abroad for higher education. There is total isolation for an average Indian student (barring the elites) to be exposed to the global professional environment. By the time these students come out of their institutions, they are considered “unemployable” by the national and international employers. Our system is producing graduates that are not “global citizens” that the world employment market is looking for. So what is the solution and what role can the Indian science play?

A preliminary analysis of the subject areas for which international students come to India has indicated that over 26 thousand (more than 62 %)  come to study areas of Agriculture, Science, Technology and Engineering; Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy and specialized areas like Computer Science, Environment and Modern Biology. The subject areas are mainly pursued under a regular degree course. Students from developed countries are not interested in Indian degrees, but they would be interested in short term internships or research scholar assignments, which are not offered. If our institutions open up to providing such short term research opportunities, many more international students, particularly from the developed world would be interested in coming to India. Their faculty would encourage their students to take such international visits to enrich their global experience. Today the number of international students who come to India from the developed world is miniscule. Compare this with American universities where the international students are welcome to join the research and education environment of their universities. Talented Indian students are attracted by offering scholarships and research assistantships. India makes no such efforts to attract talented students from the developed or developing world. Working with international students and occasionally their faculty members will not only give an international cultural exposure to our students, but also result in long term international collaborations. As a case study one can mention about a successful, non-degree Study India Program (SIP) that was introduced at the University of Hyderabad, which regularly attracts students from developed countries who come to India to study the socio-economic and political aspects of India. Surely, course modules on areas like Environment, Rural Energy, Digital India and Make in India, if academically well developed, with credit hours assigned to them, can further attract students from developed countries.  This is where the Indian Science establishment, as a whole – national laboratories and Universities – can play a major role. Some of the measures are discussed below.

Firstly, our National Scientific agencies – DAE, DBT, DST, ISRO, ICAR, ICMR and others having active research and educational institutes under them, should evolve special schemes for offering short term research scholarships to talented international students from developed as well as developing countries. These students should work under Indian faculty having Indian research students with them. During recent years, agencies like the DST have significantly strengthened co-operation with Australia, Canada, EU, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, UK and USA. Co-operation with African countries has also been strengthened through India Africa S&T Initiative. In all these collaborations, apart from exchange of scientists, student exchanges should also be emphasized, giving opportunities for Indian and international students to participate in short term projects that will give them global exposure of working in an international environment. Unfortunately, our national laboratories are not playing a dynamic role in integrating education with research and many Indian students (or even faculty) do not get an opportunity to see the active research programmes of our national laboratories. This writer has earlier emphasized in a commentary in Current Science, the importance of teaching in our national laboratories which have acquired the status of “deemed university”. The bringing in of international students could be a joint exercise between the universities and the national laboratories. The Department of Science of Technology of the Govt. of India currently supports three bi-national S&T centres, which are independent entities established under inter-governmental bilateral agreements with France, USA and Germany. In each of these Centres, inclusion of international and Indian students should be incorporated as part of the various joint programmes undertaken by these Centres. The international students may not be regular degree students, but their work should help them to get the necessary credit hours in their own home institutions. Universities in the developed countries are very flexible about the education experience their students get abroad and how it can be incorporated in their degree requirement. Some of the Indian universities that are autonomous (and the new ones that are to be specially designated as institutes of national importance) should not find it difficult to adopt a similar flexible approach for their students undergoing international research experience. A sincere interagency effort has to be made if Indian students have to be encouraged to get involved in international research with foreign students and widen their research interest to challenging global research problems. In this process, many more Indian students are likely to be “global citizens”, ready for the global employment market.

Indian University system  can also  attract international students to science related areas like Environment, Climate Change, Rural Technologies, Non-renewable energy sources, Water Resources management, Healthcare etc. Universities with expertise in these areas must develop short, semester based or certificate/diploma courses which will attract international students from developed countries. These courses will be attractive “Study Abroad” opportunities for students from developed countries like USA, UK, Germany, France, Singapore and Japan. These countries have evolved policies for sending their students abroad for what is often called “a global immersion” experience. Some of these countries have even set target for the number of students that they would like to send abroad. UK has a specific target for India of several thousand students in the coming years. These countries are looking for appropriate educational institutions that are willing to offer such short term, science related studies. Unlike China, Indian universities have not grabbed this market, for lack of interest and vision in this area of international education. Indian universities should not only aggressively attract students from developing countries for our degrees, but also make special efforts to attract students from developed countries to come and interact with Indian students. Our universities must be made sensitive to this large market of international students who are awaiting arrival in India. The Government of India’s GIAN program of welcoming foreign faculty to come and teach in Indian universities should be opened up also for international students who could accompany the GIAN awardees and expose them to Indian science.

In conclusion, the large Science and Education infrastructure that India has built over the years can and should be suitably geared up and made more international-student friendly.  For this, innovative short term, credit based education and research programmes should be developed and marketed to attract many more international students – particularly from the science rich developed countries. Today, Indian students lack the exposure to international and global environment. With the coming of larger number of international students to India, our students are likely to be more conscious of the global developments.   Such initiatives will help making Indian students “global citizens”  ready to be absorbed in the national and global employment market. India must use its Science base to leverage the demographic dividend. The science-rich national laboratories and University departments must  aggressively reach out to this international student community. It may be worth our while to take some lessons from the Chinese efforts in this area which has suddenly made China an interesting destination for a much larger number of international students studying in China. If the Indian science community from the national laboratories and universities join hands,  it will be a great boon to Indian and international students.

This article originally appeared in Current Science. Published here with the author’s and the journal’s permission.

Compromise and complicity in international student mobility: the ethnographic case of Indian medical students at a Chinese university

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Yang, P. (2018). Compromise and complicity in international student mobility: the ethnographic case of Indian medical students at a Chinese university. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education.  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01596306.2018.1435600

 

 

Author during field trip in India, January 2016

ABSTRACT

Existing scholarship on international student mobility (ISM) often draws on Bourdieu to interpret such mobility as a strategy of capital conversion used by privileged classes to reproduce their social advantage. This perspective stems from and also reinforces a rationalistic interpretation of student mobility. A shift of focus to interAsian educational mobilities involving non-elite individuals and institutions can reveal logics of behavior and of social interaction that are at discrepancy with the dominant perspective, thereby advancing the theorization of educational mobilities. This paper examines a case of Indian youths of less affluent backgrounds pursuing English-medium medical degrees (MBBS) at a provincial university in China. Through ethnography, the paper illustrates how various parties – individual, organizational and institutional – to this somewhat ‘unlikely’ project of knowledge mobility follow the discrepant logics of compromise and complicity to seek to realize their educational desires, social aspirations, and organizational objectives amidst realities of class disadvantage and resource inadequacy.

 

This article examines a thus-far little-known and arguably ‘unlikely’ case of international student mobility (ISM): Indian youths of less affluent backgrounds pursuing English-medium undergraduate medical education (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, or MBBS) in China.

Indian students started heading to China for MBBS in their ‘hundreds’ since early 2000s (Aiyar, 2006). As of 2015, the majority of the 16,694 Indian students in China (CAFSA, 2016) can be assumed to be on MBBS programmes, although no precise statistics seems available. Students from India are very likely the largest single-nationality group among foreign students pursuing English-medium MBBS in China. In recent years, China has also become the top destination for Indian students seeking medical training abroad (Mishra, 2012).

Prevailing theorization of ISM tends to employ a Bourdieusian theoretical framework and assumes mobility to be ‘overwhelmingly pursued by privileged individuals’ (Waters, Brooks, & Pimlott-Wilson, 2011, p. 460). The underlying logic of ISM, according to this dominant perspective, is about using study-abroad as a ‘social alchemy’ to realize the conversion between economic, social and cultural capitals, thus ultimately to reproduce class advantage.

The case of Indian MBBS students in China raises numerous points of discrepancy with this prevailing narrative. Most Indian students I encountered during my fieldwork at a provincial university (pseudonym ‘CNU’) in southeastern China came from non-affluent families in small-town or rural India. They belong to the emergent lower middle classes in India, with little true class advantage or ‘eliteness’ to speak of. Their destination – Chinese provincial capital city ‘CN’ – lies outside the coveted global spheres of elite knowledge production and circulation. There was also limited evidence that their India-to-China mobility would eventually generate any meaningful ‘cultural capital’ for them.

Thus, my paper sets out to understand and articulate the logics or rationalities underpinning such a ‘discrepant’ case of ISM. In a nutshell, I argue that the mundane thought processes, decision making, behavioral patterns, and social interactions of the various parties to this case can be understood in terms of what I call the logics of compromise and complicity.

The study is based on three short but intensive ethnographic fieldtrips conducted in China and Indian over 2014-2016.

 

Compromise

The term ‘compromise’ captures the very preconditions of this case of ISM, which in turn underpin various actors’ behaviours.

With government-subsidized public medical schools being extremely competitive while the private alternative extremely expensive, coming to CNU, China for MBBS could be understood primarily as a compromise made by a group of Indian doctor-aspirants who are academically as well as financially excluded from medical education in India.

One manifestation of this state of compromise was the manner in which my Indian informants and their parents settled upon the destination country and institution for study. Contrary to an informed, calculative and careful decision-making process that a rationalistic interpretation of ISM tends to portray, my informants’ choices were often made in a haphazard way, shaped by elements of chance and contingency. Many of them admitted to having, to greater or lesser extent, made ‘blind choices’ when deciding upon coming to China for MBBS, and in choosing institutions.

On the other hand, it was found that CNU’s international MBBS programme suffered from serious issues with regard to admission screening and programme quality. In my ethnographic field trips and interactions with the Indian students, I encountered multiple instances – some of which rather unsettling – that indicate this provincial Chinese university’s own compromised situation as an educational provider.

In short, for tuition fee revenue and supposed prestige of ‘internationalization’, CNU compromised its admission standards to accept Indian students (among other nationalities) who were themselves operating on a logic of compromise due to their own lack of choice. Meanwhile, owing to resource inadequacy and lack of preparedness, CNU was only able to offer an education of clearly compromised quality.

 

Complicity

In his work on rural China, social anthropologist Steinmüller’s (2010) defines a ‘community of complicity’ as one characterized by shared embarrassing (self-)knowledge. He argues that the sharing of embarrassing (self-)knowledge reaffirms a sense of community membership and sociality amidst contradictions and social tensions.

Borrowing this anthropological notion of complicity, I argue that the various parties to the India-to-China MBBS project at CNU can be regarded as forming a community of complicity of sorts. Here, complicity entails embarrassment that is mutually known, but unspoken to preserve the veneer of normalcy and respectability. Its ultimate aim is mutual accommodation and conflict avoidance.

Ethnographically, I show how complicity exists between the Indian students and CNU; between the students and their parents; and between the students and the educational intermediaries that facilitated their mobility.

Between the Indian MBBS students and CNU, complicity manifests in a mutual silence about each other’s compromises, which serves to sustain this otherwise precarious educational project. Put bluntly, the Indian students refrain from complaining about CNU’s problematic programme because they are acutely aware of their own lack of choice. On the other hand, equally conscious of their mediocre institutional standing and resources and the lack of readiness in running medical education in English, CNU sometimes uses measures such as leaking exam questions to help students progress in their studies instead of insisting on academic rigour. Maintaining this mutual complicitous silence helped both parties avoid situations of awkwardness and potential conflict where both parties could be greatly embarrassed or indeed provoked should their respective compromises be exposed.

Between the students and their parents, complicity manifests in a mutual silence and a lack of communication about the problematic realities of their MBBS programme in CNU China. Such a silence or lack of communication is difficult to comprehend considering that parents have invested heavily into the students’ education despite humble family socioeconomic circumstances. Drawing on Jakimow (2016), my interpretation in this paper is that the Indian students and their parents are locked in a complicitous relationship vis-à-vis each other so as to preserve the appearancethat each is fulfilling their moral obligations to the other. This precarious mutual performances of moral duties – for parents to give their children a chance at social mobility by sponsoring their education and for children to study hard to realize that social mobility by becoming doctors – could only be preserved in this case through a complicitous silence about what actual went on in the programmes at CNU.

Finally, between the students and the educational intermediaries, complicity manifests in the otherwise surprising ways in which the problematic reality of the India-to-China MBBS programme never seemed to affect a cordial – sometimes even familial – relationship between the two parties. Their relationship seems far from a legalistic one between the customer and the service provider where the paying customer supposedly has the upper hand. It is argued, the students (and their parents) can be regarded as somewhat complicitous in their weak position vis-à-vis the intermediaries, thus allowing the latter to profit from their compromises.

 

Conclusion

The paper does not suggest that compromise and complicity are logics unique or exclusive to this case study. Arguably, elements of compromise and complicity are present in all forms of educational choices. In this account, however, they are so central as to warrant theorization on their own. Compromise and complicity may seem nothing more than matters of pragmatism. However, in this paper, I have chosen to interpret them as ingenious solutions devised by social actors who try to materialize their educational desires, social aspirations and organizational objectives amidst realities of class disadvantage and resource inadequacy.

 

References

Aiyar, P. (2006). Made in China Indian doctors.   Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/made-in-china-indian-doctors/article3134132.ece

CAFSA. (China Association for International Education). (2016). Statistics for international students in China 2015.   Retrieved from http://www.cafsa.org.cn/main/research/show-1662.html

Jakimow, T. (2016). Clinging to hope through education: The consequences of hope for rural labourers in Telangana, India. ETHOS, 44(1), 11–31.

Mishra, A. (2012). China has become preferred destination for medical education.   Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120904100946519

Steinmüller, H. (2010). Communities of complicity: Notes on state formation and local sociality in rural China. American Ethnologist, 37(3), 539–549.

Waters, J., Brooks, R., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2011). Youthful escapes? British students, overseas education and the pursuit of happiness. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(5), 455–469.

 

Peidong Yang (DPhil, Oxford) is a Lecturer in Humanities and Social Studies Education at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore. His research interests are located at the intersections between education, migration/mobility, and media. Past and present research projects include Singapore’s “foreign talent” policy in relation to Chinese students’ international mobility; immigration tensions and immigrant integration in Singapore; Indian medical students in China; and cultural analysis of (online) media memes in contemporary China. He is the author of International Mobility and Educational Desire: Chinese Foreign Talent Students in Singapore (Palgrave, 2016) and more than a dozen international peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. At NIE Singapore, he teaches courses on identity, globalization, and sociology of education to student teachers. www.peidongyang.com

 

This article was originally published in Network for Research into Chinese Educational Mobilities (NRCEM). 

Indian Industry – Institution R&D Partnership: An Overdue Imperative

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Most developed economies have had a tradition of deep science & technology capabilities and an ecosystem where industry, scientific research centres and academic institutions continuously collaborated to deliver powerful innovations. The USA, Germany, Japan are prime examples of the success of such partnerships. In recent years, other nations like Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and now China are reaping the dividend of creating integrated R&D networks.

 

More than any other nation, USA stands out as a great example of how such an industry- institution R&D partnership flourished. Industry for years provided generous research grants to institutions for R&D in frontier areas of science & technology – especially where their own R&D capabilities were limited. These funds in turn built world class R&D infrastructure at institutions and thus fostered high expertise. Japan’s technology edge approach has been to develop a research strategy derived from its national industrial policy and the government then facilitated its execution through an interdependent R&D partnership between selected industry and institutional centres of excellence. Likewise Taiwan’s Industrial & Technical Research Institute (ITRI) is a government funded Science & Technology establishment (much like India’s CSIR labs), dedicated to serving high technology research needs of Taiwanese industry. ITRI has been the leader in semi-conductor revolution which has helped Taiwan become a world leader in electronics industry.

 

Current global economic dynamics are re-shaping the contours of industry at a furious pace. Industry today is confronted with several challenges which require it to reinvent the way it organizes itself and conducts its business.  At the same time, giant advances in science & technology – increasingly pioneered at scientific & institutional R&D establishments – are creating immense possibilities which can power growth.  The various salient forces at play and their implications are summarized below:

[ultimatetables 1 /]

 

Amongst above, of particular long term significance is the scale-back of research in industry, where much of the effort is now more developmental in nature. In contrast, institutional research – in centres for scientific & industrial research as well as academia – has continued to expand.

 

India has had a deep and longstanding commitment to science & technology. The creation of several technology specific CSIR labs soon after independence exemplified this. Established with a vision of finding solutions to societal problems, these have succeeded in creating a scientific temper, and have delivered several uniquely Indian innovations. However, programs at these labs were largely insulated from an engagement with industry. Thus, the full value of their prodigious R&D effort has gone unrealized as many technologies were not scaled up – which otherwise would have been possible with a robust partnership with industry.

 

R&D in Indian academic institutions too has been hamstrung by an over-weighted focus on pedagogy over learning through R&D, inadequate infrastructure, lack of clear central policy on R&D in academia (with exceptions), prioritisation of strategic technologies of national significance to be run in specific institutes, as well as creation of technology lead centres for identified technologies. There are small steps underway, for eg: Center of Excellence for Biotechnology at the Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT) – an outstanding facility – but these are more exceptions rather than the norm.

 

In recognition of the need to be a knowledge economy, recently some ambitious investments have been made in spurring R&D through programs like TEQUIP, which is funding new lab infrastructure at leading technical institutes. The government has also tried to expand the footprint of research in scientific institutions by creating the well-resourced network of IISERs. Yet, unless a more robust industry & institution R&D partnership is systemically encouraged, India is unlikely to become an innovation powerhouse riding on its rich science & technology R&D.

 

A strong industry-institution R&D partnership in India has been one imperative which unfortunately has been overlooked for too long, despite both industry and institution R&D circles acknowledging its obvious advantages. The synergies of it are in several areas as outlined below:

 

[ultimatetables 2 /]

 

More recently, the Department of Science & Technology has begun nudging central R&D centres to reach out and initiate collaborative research with industry. Although this overdue policy shift is  welcome , yet better collaboration on ground will not materialize until the fundamental gaps in orientation of institutional and industry R&Ds are addressed. These gaps are summarized further in the following table.

 

[ultimatetables 3 /]

 

Industry is increasingly looking to access high quality research partnership, which institution R&D is well positioned to provide today. It though needs institution R&D and the framers of Science & Technology policy to address some areas enumerated below:

 

  • Institution R&D priority areas

Core institution R&D priorities as articulated in the recent Science Technology & Innovation Policy (STIP) are still framed by the higher objective of finding affordable solutions for those at the bottom of the pyramid. These do not necessarily meet research areas which the industry seeks. Neither will it raise India’s technology competitiveness, if the policy is not broadened to encompass advanced technology too in its ambit of research focus.

 

  • Pro-active industry R&D outreach by institution R&D and industry R&D relationship building

There are few national forums where institutional and industry R&D engage – on matters of policy or to review state of technology development. Most outreach today is by industry initiative rather than a mutual effort. Institution R&D processes could do well to encourage pro-active reach out by leading scientist to share and establish industry R&D relationships.

 

  • Long term partnerships vs project specific association

Joint industry-institution R&D presently is mostly project specific. It needs to expand and define fields where long term science & technology partnerships would be of mutual interest and of national benefit. This could be immediately initiated in the following significant areas of research – (i) alternative energy generation (ii) automotive efficiencies (iii) energy storage (iv) air/ waste treatment (v) electronics & lighting (vi) specialized coating & paint (vii) alternative materials (viii) advanced packaging (ix) affordable medical devices.

 

  • Flexibility in IP sharing

This is a real sticking point for industry sponsored research projects. Current IP ownership guideline exclusively favors institutional R&D irrespective of industry R&D IP used to generate the additional IP. Present guidelines need to be tweaked to accommodate industry concerns on jointly generated IP.

  • Project Management effectiveness

Collaborative projects with industry will demand higher order project management skills that institutional R&Ds are not readily equipped with.

 

  • One step forward from bench-scale “proof of principle”  to successful pilot design

Institution R&D will have to plan beyond successful bench top experimentation which while adequate for “proof of principle” demonstration, is insufficient for industry R&D to pick and scale-up further. Therefore pilot plant studies to establish product & process design and complete techno-commercial evaluation is essential. Pilot plant infrastructure at leading CSIR labs has unfortunately been neglected in the last 10 years or so, and requires urgent revitalization.

 

Policy changes in this respect would act as timely enablers for this essential partnership to take-off.

 

Atul Bhatia is currently President, R&D at Pidilite, a leading adhesives and art manufacturing company.  Mr. Bhatia is an industry veteran who previously worked with Hindustan Unilever and at Cadbury’s. The views expressed are his own.

ਤਰਕ ਤੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੋਹਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਖੰਡਨ

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Read the original in English

ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਕੲੀ ਮੀਡੀਅਾ ਅਦਾਰਿਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਮਾਣਯੋਗ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਵਸੀਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਰਾਜ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਸਤਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ਟਿਪਣੀ ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰਿਅਾ ਹੈ ਬਾਰੇ ਰਿਪੋਰਟ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ। ੲਿਹ ਟਿਪਣੀ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਅੌਰਾਂਗਾਬਾਦ (ਮਹਾਂਰਾਸ਼ਟਰ) ਵਿਖੇ ਅਖਿੱਲ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵੈਦਿਕ ਸਮੇਲਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਤਰਕਾਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ਦੋਰਾਨ ਕੀਤੀ। ਮੰਤਰਾਲੇ ਦੀ ਵੈਬਸੲੀਟ ਤੇ ੲਿੱਸ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ਦੇ ਟਵੀਟ ਦਾ ਵਿਡੀਓ ਮੋਜੂਦ ਹੈ। ਹਿੰਦੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਗੱਲਬਾਤ ਕਰਦਿਅਾਂ, ਡਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਸਾਡੇ ਪੂਰਵਜਾਂ ਜਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਨੇ, ਲਿਖਿਤ ਜਾਂ ਜ਼ਬਾਨੀ ਕਦੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਸ਼ਹਿਰ ਜਾਂ ਜੰਗਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਾਂਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬਣਦਾ ਵੇਖਿਅਾ ਹੈ। ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦਾ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ। ਮਨੁੱਖ ਜਦੋਂ ਦਾ ਧਰਤੀ ਤੇ ਅਾੲਿਅਾ ਹੈ, ਮਨੁੱਖ ਹੀ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਹੀ ਰਹੇਗਾ। ੳੁਹਨਾ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਸਾਡੇ ਸਕੂਲਾਂ ਤੇ ਕਾਲਜਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੜਾੲੀ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿਸ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ। ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ੲਿਹ ਵੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਬਹੁਤ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸ਼ਾੲਿਦ ਨਾ ਪਤਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਕਿ 35 ਸਾਲ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੀ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਸਿੱਧ ਕਰ ਦਿਤਾ ਸੀ ਕਿ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੋੲੀ ਸੱਚ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ।

 

ਜੋ ਡਾ਼ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਹੈ ੳੁਹ ਕੲੀ ਸੱਤਹ ਤੇ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ। ਸੱਚ ਤਾਂ ੲਿਹ ਹੈ ਕਿਹ, ੲਿਹ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਤੇ ਤਰਕ ਦੁਹਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਖੰਡਨ ਹੈ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਮੋਟੇ ਤੱਥ, ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਕਿਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਤੇ ਕਿਨੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਵਿਚ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਨਸਲਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਦਲਾਵ ਅਾੳੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਾਦਿ ਬਾਰੇ ਦੁਨੀਅਾਂ ਭਰ ਦੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਹਿਮਤੀ ਹੈ। ਬੇਸ਼ੱਕ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ-ਬਾੲਿਅਾਲੋਜੀ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਦੇ ਵਿਸ਼ਿਅਾਂ ਤੇ, ਹੋਰਨਾਂ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਵਿਸ਼ਿਅਾਂ ਵਾਂਗ ਬਹਿਸਾਂ ਹੁੰਦੀਅਾਂ ਹਨ। ੲਿਸ ਦਾ ਮਤਲਬ ੲਿਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਪਹਿਲੂਅਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਕੋੲੀ ਝਗੜਾ ਹੈ। ਕਿਸੇ ਕਿਸਮ ਦਾ ਕੋੲੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਪਰਮਾਣ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਗਲਤ ਸਾਬਿਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦਾ। ਬਹੁਤ ਲੋਕ, ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਨੇ, ਅਾਪਣੀਅਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਯੋਗਸ਼ਾਲਾਵਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਅਾੳੁਂਦੇ ਬਦਲਾਵ ਅਾਮ ਹੀ ਵੇਖਦੇ ਹਨ, ਤੇ ੲਿਹਨਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਵੀਅਾਂ ਨਸਲਾਂ ਦੀ ੳੁਤਪਤੀ ਵੱਲ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਕਦਮ ਵੀ ਵੇਖੇ ਗੲੇ ਹਨ।

 

ਮੈਨੂੰ ਬਿਲਕੁਲ ਸਮਝ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਗੀ ਕਿ ੳੁਹ ਕਿਹੜੇ ਤੱਥ ਨੇ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਸਦਕਾ 35 ਸਾਲ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੀ ਗਲਤ ਧਾਰਣਾ ਕਰਾਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਅਾ ਸੀ। ਮੈਂ ਸਿਰਫ ਕਿਅਾਸ ਹੀ ਕਰ ਸਕਦਾਂ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਾੲਿਦ ਡਾ. ਸਿੰਘ ਪੰਕਚੂੲੇਟਿਡ ੲਿਕੂਲਿਬ੍ਰੀਅਮ’ (‘punctuated equilibrium’) ਨਾਲ ਸਬੰਧਤ ਬਹਿਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਗੱਲ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਨੇ, ਜੋ 1970ਵਿਅਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋੲੀ, ਤੇ ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਵਿਸ਼ਾ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੋਰਾਨ ਬਦਲਾਵ ਦੇ ਕੁਝ ਸਮਿਅਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਤੇ ੳੁਸ ੳੁਪਰੰਤ ਲੰਬੇ ਸਮੇ ਲੲੀ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੋਲੀ ਹੋਲੀ ਹੋਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਸੀ। ਅਗਰ ੲਿਹ ਸੱਚ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ੲਿਸ ਬਹਿਸ ਦੀ ਸਮਝ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਲੱਗੀ। ੲਿਸ ਤੋਂ ਵਿਲਾਵਾ ਜੇ ਤਰਕ ਦੇ ਅਾਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਗਲ ਕਰੀੲੇ, ਜੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਦੇ ਕੁਝ ਵੇਖਣ ਦਾ ਕੋੲੀ ਰਿਕਾਰਡ ਨਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ੲਿਹ ਅਾਪਣੇ ਅਾਪ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿਹ ਮਨਣ ਦਾ ਕੋੲੀ ਕਾਰਣ ਨਹੀ ਕਿ ੳੁਹ ਵਰਤਾਰਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਵਾਪਰਿਅਾ। ੲਿਸ ਤੋਂ ਵੀ ਹੈਰਾਨੀ ਵਾਲੀ ਡਾ. ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ੳੁਮੀਦ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਾਡੇ ਪੂਰਵਜ ਜੋ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬਣ ਚੁਕੇ ਸਨ ਤੇ ਅਾਪਣੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਬੋਲ ਤੇ ਲਿੱਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਸਨ, ਬਾਂਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬਣਨ ਦੇ ਵਰਤਾਰੇ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਖਕੇ ੳੁਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਲਿਖਦੇ ਜਾਂ ਬੋਲਦੇ। ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਂਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬਣਨ ਨਾਲ ਮੇਲਣਾ ਵੀ ੲਿੱਕ ਵਡੀ ਗਲਤੀ ਹੈ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ-ਜੀਵਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਦਸਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ, ਮਨੁੱਖ, ਬਾਂਦਰ ਤੇ ਬਾਂਦਰਾਂ ਤੇ ਲੰਗੂਰਾਂ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਹੋਰ ਨਸਲਾਂ ੲਿਕੋ ਹੀ ਪੂਰਵਜਾਂ ਤੋਂ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਮੇ ਪੈਮਾਨੇ ਤੇ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਕੁਝ ਹੀ ਸਮੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਣੀਅਾਂ ਹਨ। ੲਿਸ ਧਾਰਣਾ ਦੇ ਡੀ ਅੈਨ ੲੇ ਸੀਕੁਅੈਂਸਿੰਗ (DNA-sequencing) ਤੇ ਮਾਲੀਕੁਲਰ ਪੋਪੂਲੇਸ਼ਨ ਜਨੈਟਟਿਕਸ (molecular population genetics) ਰਾਹੀ ਸਪਸ਼ਟ ਪਰਿਮਾਣ ਮਿਲਦੇ ਹਨ, ਜੋ ਕਿ ਅਜਿਹੀਅਾਂ ਵਿਧੀਅਾਂ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਸਿਹਤ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਤਰੱਕੀ ਦੇ ਪਿਛੇ ਹਨ ਤੇ ਸਾਡੀ ਸਰਕਾਰ ੲਿਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੱਡੇ ਪੱਧਰ ਤੇ ਪੈਸਾ ਵੀ ਲਗਾ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ।

 

ਮਾਣਯੋਗ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਦੀ ਟਿਪਣੀ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੇ ੲਿਸ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਯੋਗਦਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਖਦੇ ਹੋੲੇ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੀ ਧਾਰਣਾ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ੲਿਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਜੀਵਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਵੇਂ ਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ, ਹੋਰ ਵੀ ਦੁਖਦਾੲੀ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ । ਭਾਰਤੀ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਜੀਵਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੇ ੲਿਸ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਤੱਥਾਂ ਤੇ ਧਾਰਣਾਵਾਂ ੳੁਤੇ ਕੰਮ ਦੀ ਅੰਤਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਪੱਧਰ ਤੇ ਪਹਿਚਾਣ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੋਦਿਅਾਂ ਤੇ ਕੀੜਿਅਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਹ-ਵਿਕਾਸ (coevolution), ਬਚਿਅਾ ਤੇ ਮਾਪਿਅਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਵੰਦ, ਨਸਲਾਂ ਦੀ ਬਣਤਰ ਤੇ ਸੁਮੇਲ, ਸਮਾਜ ਦਾ ਵਿਕਸਤ ਹੋਣਾ, ਮੁਕਾਬਲੇ ਦੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਦਾ ਵਿਕਾਸ, ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਨਸਲਾਂ ਦੀ ੳੁਤਪਤੀ ਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਦਾ ੳੁਪਮਹਾਂਦੀਪ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿਤਿਹਾਸ, ਨਰ-ਮਾਦਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੀਨਜ਼ ਦੀ ਸਤਹ ਤੇ ਦਵੰਦ ਤੇ ਬਦਲਦੇ ਅਾਲੇ ਦੁਅਾਲੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਹਨ। ਅਜੇ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਸਾਲ ਹੀ ਭਾਰਤ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਤੇ ਤਕਨੀਕ ਵਿਭਾਗ ਨੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੀਅਾਂ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਦੇ ਸੰਕਲਪਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਢ ਬਾਰੇ ਪਰਾਪਤੀਅਾਂ ਨੂੰ ੳੁਜਾਗਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ।

 

ੲਿਤਫਾਕ ਨਾਲ, ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ ਤੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ ਦੋਹਵੇ 2006 ਦੀ ਬਹੁ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ ਪੈਨਲ ਦੇ ‘ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਪੜਾੳੁਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਬਿਅਾਨ’ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਹਸਤਾਖਰਕਾਰ ਹਨ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਸ਼ਵ ਦੀਅਾਂ 67 ਅਕਾਦਮੀਅਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੈ। ੲਿਸ ਬਿਅਾਨ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਵਿੱਚ, ਅਕਾਦਮੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਅਾਪਣਾ ਸਰੋਕਾਰ ਦਸਿਅਾ ਹੈ: ਅਸੀਂ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀਅਾਂ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਦਸਤਖੱਤ ਹੇਠਾਂ ਹਨ, ਨੂੰ ਪਤਾ ਲਗਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਦੁਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੇ ਕੲੀ ਹਿਸਿੱਅਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਨਤਕ ਵਿਦਿਅਾ ਦੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੇ ਪਾਠਕ੍ਰਮ ਵਿੱਚ, ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤਥਾਂ ਤੇ ਪਰਮਾਣਾਂ ੳੁਪਰ ਅਧਾਰਿਤ ਤੇ ਜਾਂਚੇ ਜਾ ਸਕਣ, ਵਾਲੇ ਧਰਤੀ ੳੁਪਰ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੀ ੳੁਤਪਤੀ ਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਲੁਕਾੲਿਅਾ, ਨਰਾਰਿਅਾ ਜਾਂ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਨਾ ਜਾਂਚੇ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਰਲਗਡ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਅਸੀ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲਿਅਾਂ, ਅਧਿਅਾਪਕਾਂ ਤੇ ਮਾਪਿਅਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਬੱਚਿਅਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਤੇ ਖੋਜਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਪੜਾੳੁਣ ਤੇ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਦੁਨੀਅਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੀ ਸਮਝ ਨੂੰ ੳੁਜਾਗਰ ਕਰਨ। ਲੋਕ ਜਿਸ ਦੁਨੀਅਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਰਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ੳੁਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਗਿਅਾਨ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਲੋੜਾਂ ਪੂਰੀਅਾਂ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਤੇ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਾੳੁਣ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸਾਡੀ ਸਹਿਮਤੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਧਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਜਨਮ ਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ੳੁਪਰ ਜੀਵਨ ਦੀ ੳੁਤਪਤੀ ਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਹੇਠ ਲਿਖੇ ਪਰਮਾਣਕ ਤੱਥ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਤਜਬਰਿਅਾਂ ਤੇ ਨਰੀਖਣਾਂ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਤੇ ਵੱਖ ਵੱਖ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਾ ਦੁਅਾਰਾ ਅਲੱਗ ਅਲੱਗ ਤਰੀਕਿਅਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਹੋ ਚੁਕੇ ਹਨ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਬਦਲਾਵ ਬਾਰੇ ਕੲੀ ਸੁਅਾਲ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਅਜੇ ਬਾਕੀ ਹਨ, ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੱਥਾਂ ਨੇ ਅੱਜ ਤੱਕ ਕਦੀ ੲਿਸ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰਿਅਾ ਨਹੀਂ:

1. ਬ੍ਰਹਿਮੰਡ ਅਾਪਣੀ ਅਜੋਕੀ ਹਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ 11-12 ਅਰਬ ਸਾਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾੲਿਅਾ ਹੈ, ਸਾਡੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਲਗਭਗ 4.5 ਅਰਬ ਸਾਲ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੋਂਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾੲੀ।

2. ਜਦੋਂ ਤੋਂ ਧਰਤੀ ਹੋਂਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾੲੀ ਹੈ – ੲਿਸ ਦੀ ਬਣਤਰ ਤੇ ਵਾਤਾਵਰਣ- ਭੋਤਿਕ ਤੇ ਰਸਾੲਿਣਕ ਬਲਾਂ ਕਾਰਣ ਬਦਲਦਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਬਦਲ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ।

3. ਧਰਤੀ ਤੇ ਜੀਵਨ 2.5 ਅਰਬ ਸਾਲ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਹੋਂਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾੲਿਅਾ। ੳੁਸਤੋਂ ਬਾਦ, ਵਿਕਾਸ ਹੋੲਿਅਾ ਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਸਂਸਲੇਸ਼ਨ (photosynthesis) ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਅਾ ਦੁਅਾਰਾ 2 ਅਰਬ ਸਾਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੋਲੀ ਹੋਲੀ ਧਰਤੀ ਦੇ ਵਾਤਾਵਰਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਾਫੀ ਮਾਤਰਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾਕਸੀਜਨ ਅਾ ਗੲੀ। ਸਾਡੇ ਸਾਹ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਅਾਕਸੀਜਨ ਨੂੰ ਵਾਤਾਵਰਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਿਅਾੳੁਣ ਤੋਂ ਵਿਲਾਵਾ ਪਕਾਸ਼ਸਂਸਲੇਸ਼ਨ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਹੀ ਖੁਰਾਕ ਤੇ ੳੂਰਜਾ ਬੱਝਦੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਜੀਵਨ ਨਿਰਭਰ ਹੈ।

4. ਜੀਵਨ ਨੇ ਹੋਂਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾੳੁਣ ੳੁਪਰੰਤ ਬਹੁਤ ਰੂਪ ਅਖਤਿਅਾਰ ਕੀਤੇ ਨੇ, ਜੋ ਨਿਰੰਤਰ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਨੇ, ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਦੀ ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀ ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਜੀਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ, ਅਜੋਕਾ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ, ਜੀਵ-ਰਸਾੲਿਣ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਵੱਖ ਵੱਖ ਤਰੀਕਿਅਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਤੇ ਵੱਧਦੀ ਸੂਖਮਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੀਵਾਂ ਜਿਹਨਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਨੁੱਕ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਹੈ, ਵਿਚਲੀ ਸਮਾਨਤਾ ਤੇ ੳੁਹਨਾ ਦੇ ਜੀਨ-ਕੁੰਜੀ (genetic-code) ਵਿਚਲੀ ਸਮਾਨਤਾ ੲਿਹ ਦਰਸਾੳੁਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਾਰੇ ਜੀਵਨ ਦਾ ਪੁਰਾਣਾ ਮੁੱਢ ੲਿਕੋ ਹੈ।

 

ਬੇਸ਼ਕ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੀਅਾਂ ਵੈਬਸਾੲੀਟਾਂ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਜ਼ਿਅਾਦਾ ਅਮਰੀਕਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਨੇ, ੲੀਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੁਅਾਰਾ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਮਨਣ ਵਾਲਿਅਾਂ (creationists) ਵਲੋਂ ਬਣਾੲੀਅਾਂ ਗੲੀਅਾਂ ਹਨ, ੲਿਹ ਪੱਖ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਲਿਅਾੳੁਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕਰਦੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਕਿ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਮਹਿਜ਼ ੲਿੱਕ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਹੈ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ਕੁਝ ਵਿਅਕਤੀ ਜੋ ਡਾ. ਸਿੰਘ ਵਰਗੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਰੱਖਦੇ ਨੇ ੲਿਹਨਾਂ ਵੈਬਸਾੲੀਟਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਅਾਪਣੇ ਟਵੀਟਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿਹ ਸਿੱਧ ਕਰਨ ਲੲੀ ਵਰਤਦੇ ਨੇ ਕਿ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ ਸਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ੲਿੱਕ ਲੇਖ ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ੲਿਹਨਾਂ ਟਵੀਟਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਾਮ ਅਾੳੁਂਦਾ ਹੈ ਬੜੇ ਗੁਮਰਾਹਕੁਨ ਸਿਰਲੇਖ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ, ‘500 ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਤੇ ਸ਼ੰਕਾ ਜਤਾੲਿਅਾ’ (Over 500 Scientists Proclaim their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution’)। ਪਰੰਤੂ ੲਿਹ ਲੇਖ ੲਿੱਕ ਪੁਰਾਣੇ ਸੰਧਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੈ ਜਦੋਂ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਦੀ ੲਿੱਕ ਸੂਚੀ ਦਿਤੀ ਗੲੀ ਸੀ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ੲਿੱਕ ਬਿਅਾਨ ਤੇ ਦਸਤਖਤ ਕੀਤੇ ਸਨ ਜੋ ੲਿਹ ਸੀ, “ਸਾਨੂੰ ਬੇਤਰਤੀਬ ਪਰਵਰਤਨਾਂ, ਤੇ ਕੁਦਰਤੀ ਚੋਣ ਦੀ ਜੀਵਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਾੲੀ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਗੁੰਜਲਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਤੇ ਸ਼ੰਕਾ ਹੈ। ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਬਾਰੇ ਸਬੂਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੌਰ ਨਾਲ ਘੋਖਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ।”ੲਿਸ ਸੂਚੀ ਦੀ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ ਵਲੋਂ ਅਲੋਚਨਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਗੲੀ ਹੈ। ੲਿਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਸਾੲੀਟਾਂ ੲਿੱਕ ਬਰੀਕੀ ਦੀ ਬਹਿਸ ਨੂੰ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਮੁੱਦਾ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਪਰਕਿਰਿਅਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੁਦਰਤੀ ਚੋਣ ਦੀ ਛੋਟੇ ਪਰਵਰਤਨਾ ਤੇ ਕਿਰਿਅਾ ਤੇ ਪਰਵਰਤਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਬੇਤਰਤੀਬ ਨਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਦਾ ਅਾਪਸੀ ਵਜ਼ਨ ਹੈ, ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰਨ ਲੲੀ ਵਰਤਦੀਅਾਂ ਹਨ। ੲਿਹ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੈ, ਕਿ ਕੋੲੀ ਵੀ ੲਿਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੀਅਾ ਵੈਬਸਾੲੀਟਾਂ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਗੁਮਰਾਹ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰੰਤੂ, ਅਾਸ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਡਾ. ਸਿੰਘ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਨੂੰ ਗਲਤ ਗਰਦਾਨਣ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਪੜਾੳੁਣ ਬਾਰੇ ਬਿਅਾਨ ਦੇਣ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ, ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਜੀਵਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੇ ਮਾਨਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਰਾੲੇ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਚੋਂ ਜ਼ਿਅਾਦਾ ਤੱਰ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਵਲੋਂ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਸੰਸਥਾਵਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਨੇ।

 

ੲਿਸ ਗੱਲ ਦੀ ਖੁਸ਼ੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ (ਬੰਗਲੂਰੂ), ਭਾਰਤੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ (ਦਿੱਲੀ), ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ (ਅਲਾਹਬਾਦ) ਨੇ ੲਿਸ ਸੰਧਰਬ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿੱਕ ਸਾਂਝਾ ਬਿਅਾਨ ਜਾਰੀ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ: “ਤਿੰਨੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀਅਾਂ ੲਿਹ ਕਹਿਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ਕਿ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਦੇ ਬਿਅਾਨ ਦਾ ਕੋੲੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਅਾਧਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ, ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਕਸਿਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦਾ ਅਹਿਮ ਯੋਗਦਾਨ ਹੈ, ੲਿੱਕ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਹੈ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਮੁਢਲੇ ਤੱਥਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਕੋੲੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਵਿਵਾਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ੲਿਹ ੲਿੱਕ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਹੈ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਦੇ ਅਾਧਾਰ ਤੇ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਸਹੀ ਅਨੁਮਾਨ ਲਗਾੲੇ ਗੲੇ ਹਨ ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਨਰੀਖਣ ਤੇ ਤਜਰਬਿਅਾਂ ਰਾਹੀ ਪੁਸ਼ਟੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਚੁਕੀ ਹੈ। ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨਾਲ ੲਿਕ ਅਹਿਮ ਸਮਝ ੲਿਹ ਬਣਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਧਰਤੀ ੳੁਪਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਜੀਵ ਜੰਤੂ ਜਿਹਨਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਤੇ ਬਾਂਦਰ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਮਿਲ ਹਨ ੲਿਕੋ ਜਾਂ ਕੁਝ ਚੰਦ ਪੂਰਵਜਾਂ ਤੋ ਵਿਕਸਤ ਹੋੲੇ ਹਨ। ” ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨੀਅਾਂ, ਅਧਿਅਾਪਕਾਂ ਤੇ ਵਿਦਿਅਾਰਥੀਅਾਂ ਨੇ ੲਿੱਕ ਪਟੀਸ਼ਨ ਤੇ ਵੀ ਹਸਤਾਖਰ ਕੀਤੇ ਨੇ ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਾਨਯੋਗ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਅਾਪਣੀਅਾਂ ਟਿਪਣੀਅਾਂ ਵਾਪਿਸ ਲੈਣ ਲੲੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਗਿਅਾ ਹੈ।

 

ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨਰੀ ਜੀਵ-ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਪੜਾੳੁਣ ਦੇ ਵਿਹਾਰਕ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਵੀ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਅਸੀਂ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੂੰ ਸੁਟ ਪਾੳੁਂਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਤਾਂ ੲਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਸਾਡੀ ੲਿਕ ਤੋਂ ਵਧ ਦਵਾੲੀਅਾਂ ਤੋਂਂ ਨਾਬਰ ਬੈਕਟੀਰੀਅਾ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਣ ਤੇ ੳੁਸ ਤੇ ਕਾਬੂ ਪਾੳੁਣ ਦੀ ਸਮਰਥਾ ਘੱਟ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਅੱਜ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਦੀ ਕਿ ੲਿਕ ਸਮਾਜਕ ਚਣੋਤੀ ਹੈ। ੳੁਦਾਹਰਣ ਦੇ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ ਵੇਖੋ।

 

ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ ਦੁੱਖ ਦੀ ਗੱਲ ਡਾ. ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ੲਿਹਨਾਂ ਬਿਅਾਨਾ ਬਾਰੇ ੲਿਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ੳੁਹ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਪੜੇ ਹੋੲੇ ਨੇ ਤੇ ਰਸਾੲਿਣ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਅੈਮ. ਅੇਸ. ਸੀ. ਤੇ ਅੈਮ. ਫਿਲ ਨੇ, ਤੇ ੳੁਹ ੳੁਸ ਮਨਿਸਟਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਰਾਜ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਨੇ ਜੋ ੳੁਚ ਸਿਖਿਅਾ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਖਦੀ ਹੈ। ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਰੁਤਬੇ ਕਰਕੇ ੳੁਹ ਸਿਖਿਅਾ ਤੇ ਖੋਜ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਤਰਜੀਹਾਂ ਤੇ ਅਜੰਡਿਅਾਂ ਤੇ ਅਸਰ ਪਾ ਸਕਦੇ ਨੇ। ਮਾਨਯੋਗ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਵਲੋਂ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੀ ੲਿੱਕ ਪਰਪੱਕ ਧਾਰਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਕਾਰਨਾ ਤੇ ੳੁਸ ਨੂੰ “ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ ਗਲਤ ਦਸਣਾ” ਤੇ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਪੜਾੳੁਣਾ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਤੋ ਡਰ ਲਗਦਾ ਹੈ, ਖਾਸ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ ੲਿਸ ਲੲੀ ਵੀ ਕਿ ੳੁਹ ਅਾਪਣੀ ਗਲਤੀ ਮਨਣ ਲੲੀ ਵੀ ਤਿਅਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ। ਅੱਜ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ, ਕੱਲ ਕੀ?: ਕੁਅਾਂਟਮ ਫਿਜ਼ਿਕਸ, ਮਾਲੀਕੁਲਰ ਜਨੈਟਿਕਸ, ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾੲਿਦ ਸਾਡੇ ਪੂਰਵਜਾਂ ਨੇ ਕੁਝ ਅਾਖਿਅਾ ਜਾਂ ਲਿਖਿਅਾ ਨਹੀਂ!

 

ਡਾ. ਅਮਿਤਾਬ ਜੋਸ਼ੀ ਜਵਾਹਰਲਾਲ ਨੇਹਰੂ ਸੈਂਟਰ ਅਾਫ ਅਡਵਾਂਸ ਸੈਂਟਿਫਿਕ ਰੀਸਰਚ ਬੰਗਲੂਰੂ ਵਿੱਚ ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਹਨ, ਤੇ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ, ਭਾਰਤੀ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ, ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀ ਦੇ ਫੈਲੋ ਹਨ। ੳੇਹ ਜੇ. ਸੀ. ਬੋਸ ਫੈਲੋ ਹਨ, ਸ਼ਾਂਤੀ ਸਰੂਪ ਭਟਨਾਗਰ (ਜੀਵਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ 2009) ਅਵਾਰਡ ਤੇ ਲਕਸ਼ਮੀਪਤੀ ਸਿਂੰਘਾਣੀਅਾਂ ਰਾਸ਼ਟਰੀ ਲੀਡਰਸ਼ਿਪ ਅਾਵਾਰਡ (ਯੁਵਾ ਨੇਤਾ, ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਤੇ ਤਕਨੀਕ: 2010) ਵੀ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਲ ਚੁਕਾ ਹੈ। ੳੁਹ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਤੀਹ ਸਾਲ ਤੋਂ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਜੀਵ-ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਦੇ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਖੋਜ ਤੇ ਪੜਾੳੁਣ ਦਾ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਅਾ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ਼।

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ : ਪ੍ਰੋਫੈਸਰ ਅਰਵਿੰਦ (ਅਾੲੀ. ਅਾੲੀ. ਅੈਸ. ੲੀ. ਅਾਰ. ਮੋਹਾਲੀ)

ਜੇ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਤੇ ਮੂਲ ਲੇਖ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿਸੇ ਕਿਸਮ ਦਾ ਫਰਕ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਮੂਲ ਲੇਖ ਨੂੰ ਅਸਲ  ਮਨਿੰਅਾ ਜਾਵੇ।

ਮੂਲ ਅੰਗ੍ਰੇਜ਼ੀ ਲੇਖ

Comical and (un)comical irrationalism

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Caking one’s smart phone with bovine excrement to impede low dose radiation is unaesthetic, besides being dangerous to one’s health. Hearing some of our citizens advocate it evokes sniggers and disdain. So do proclamations such as the recent one doubting the process of biological evolution based on the notion that nobody has witnessed the transformation of apes into humans.

However, what of having a spoon of curd before writing an exam? What of touching one’s forehead if accidentally some written matter comes under our feet? Or not crossing the road when a black cat crosses it before us? Or not handing money with our left hand?

The second set also sounds irrational but is not treated with the same contemptuous sneers as the first. How are they linked? Whereas the first is the result of the complete misunderstanding of existing scientific knowledge, the second constitutes attempts at living our lives based on irrational nonscientific ideas. These two frequently go hand in hand. For, only when humans do not feel the need to persevere and understand the world and its mysteries, do they fill such gaps with irrational pseudoconceptions. And while the tragicomical exposure of their lack of understanding of what should be common sense make for unsightly optics, the practice of irrational behavior: superstition happens more frequently, and everywhere around us, and some of it being actively partaken by those known and close to us is far more common and dangerous. However, they are not outrageous enough for opeds and primetime debates. Are the two subsets not avatars of the same problem, namely the contemptuous abandonment of logic, one when applied to specialized knowledge and other applied to day to day events.? Can every of those who share the news reports of those comical pronouncements with disparaging remarks and appropriate emoticons on social media vouch for the fact that they regularly and relentlessly question irrational and illogical acts around them?

It is especially frightening when representatives of governance reveal their way of thinking and their depth of knowledge on matters they hold forth on. But they come from among us, having been elected to represent us. If anything, they are extremely ‘evolved’ in the ability to gauge the worldview and thinking of those they represent and are accountable to.

To drive home the point that the holders of irrational beliefs are not uncommon, let me give an example. It may come as a surprise to some, but this is not the first time I have heard the opinion regarding the (lack of) human evolution. The first time it was mentioned within earshot was on an elite US east coast academic campus. The individual who did so, had an accomplished track record both as a surgeon and a cardiovascular scientist. And he was Indian. He had no issues with evolution in the context of non-human animals: humans on the other hand were ‘special’ and could not have shared ancestry with any other living form.

There have been two other instances when such opinions have been expressed between then and late last month. In both instances, these opinions came not from semiliterate, but rather well -educated people with significant contributions to society. I hope I am wrong when I fear that whereas, the current utterance on the non-evolution of man will be derided on Facebook and Twitter as well as in the corridors of academia, it might well resonate among a lot of Indians across classes, religions, ideologies and geographies. It certainly does, for a considerable proportion of Americans, who are not comfortable with the idea that they share common ancestry with other animals.

And the only reason I can conclude for this frightening scenario is our inability to advocate rationalism as an imperative social value. Such an inability fits comfily with the tendency to be flippant about scientific knowledge that has been tirelessly accumulated through decades of review and argumentation by generations of scientists spread across the globe. Adhering to superstitions and nonscientific practices, and trashing established scientific phenomena are just two sides of the same coin: the inability to be skeptical about whatever one is told, the lack of curiosity to probe deeper and the lack of courage to disagree with one social superiors. Therefore, it is important to push back and register one’s protest against such flippant utterances. It is equally necessary to also question (politely of course), the need to hang lemons and chilies outside houses. The scientific community also needs to reach out to the public with the ‘real’ deal. Could the scientific community use this incident as a jumping board to hold several public lectures on the theory of biological evolution?

Ramray Bhat is an Assistant Professor of Biology in IISc.