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.

Scientific publishing and piracy: Which problems does piracy solve, and which remain?

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Publishing is an essential part of the practice of science, and scientists work hard to get published in the best scholarly journals. This is instrumental in establishing their intellectual and professional merit, and has important implications for tenure prospects. In this context, it is important to consider why frustration with commercial publishing companies has been on the rise over the past few years, and this story is centrally driven by the online platform, Sci-Hub. By way of introduction, Sci-Hub is the equivalent of Pirate Bay for scholarly publishing, in that it provides for free, access to paywalled journal articles that otherwise could cost up to US$40 per article. While the immediate ease of free access is apparent, it could equally be argued that there is a more poetic case to be made for piracy of journal articles; the copyright of scholarly  articles belongs to the publisher, so piracy of articles does not affect the authors in the same way that piracy of music or other creative content affects the artist. How does one view Sci-Hub then? Is it plain theft, as alleged by the publishers, or is it an act of collective rebellion by those who add to, or use the site?

 

Commercial publishing companies like Reed-Elsevier and Springer are the surprise constants in this debate; librarians, and a large majority of scientists feel that their pricing practices are unfair, if not downright exploitative. Since the time of the first commercial publishing houses, each scientific journal has effectively been a monopoly, as there can be no competition for the articles published in it. Robert Maxwell, the forerunner of all scientific publishing barons, realised early on that this was the only industry in which each new journal only increases the profit margin [1]. These monopolies then allowed commercial publishing in science to survive, and indeed thrive, as the world entered the Internet age over the late 1990s. Elsevier is proof that this was one publishing enterprise that the internet could not kill. This success story however, belies a contradiction. In their pre-internet era infancy, such commercial entities provided tangible services; they were more efficient at publishing than academic societies of the time which had massive back-logs, and they promised much wider reach for the research they published. Importantly, these functions required subscription, for a price that was then determined, and justified, by the costs of the physical enterprise of publishing. With the advent of the internet however, these costs have declined steadily, but subscription prices have continued to rise, to the extent that institutes as well-endowed as the Harvard Library are beginning to feel a definite pinch in their pockets [2]. In the absence of the costs of physical publishing then, the value brought by the publishers appears incommensurate with the increase in subscription prices. It is compelling to observe that we find ourselves in an Orwellian fantasy, in which scientists produce all the research, voluntarily (without pay) review the research they produce, voluntarily sign off their copyright to a publisher, and finally buy their own finished product back from the publisher at a disproportionate margin. Publishing companies, on the other hand, have no motive to share the researchers’ commitment to fair science dissemination, and this is reflected in their pricing practices; an ignominy that is not lost on us.

 

The context of deep structural problems in scientific publishing is important to understand the motivation for Sci-Hub. There is a lot of frustration and disillusionment within the research community regarding access to published scientific literature. On the one hand, scientists need the reputation that some of these journals bring to their work, but paywalls make it prohibitively expensive for them to access the research that they need. It is in this context that an option like Sci-Hub is very tempting; given the notion that publication prices are unfairly high and deter wide dissemination of research (which in turn, is detrimental to the practice of science), piracy appears to be a valid response for several practising scientists. Civil disobedience resonates strongly with most audiences, as our own nationalist history informs us, and the pull of revolutionary rhetoric (guerilla open access, to quote the late Aaron Schwartz) is difficult to resist, especially when the “oppressor” is a large commercial publishing house. For many, it is often tempting to reject the rule of a law when it appears to serve the wrong interest, and while the US Supreme Court is legally correct in ruling in favour of publishers, this ruling has had very little effect on Sci-Hub’s popularity or its ethical merit. This gap between common law and what is perceived as “natural” or common sense seems to underlie the ethical questions surrounding Sci-Hub, but I won’t belabor this point; I am no political philosopher, and even though I am inclined towards a conformist view that aims to achieve structured reform, a clear verdict for either side does not seem very useful in this matter.

 

There are other aspects in which the utility of Sci-Hub has been unquestionable, and the rise of Sci-Hub and the dialogue that has emerged around the flaws in the current model of scientific publishing are the focus of this article. Sci-Hub is the alarm call the scientific community needed, to recognise the contradictions within the current publishing system, and to start considering serious solutions. For that alone, the moment that Alexandra Elbakyan decided she’d had enough will be remembered as a watershed moment in scholarly publishing.

 

Piracy also serves the immediate, short-term requirements of scientists and/or students who lack the means to pay exorbitant subscription fees (yours truly), and others who, because they aren’t affiliated with an institute, don’t have institutional access to journals. For these people, the slow proliferation of the Open Access mandate is inadequate for their everyday work, and Sci-Hub ensures that they can readily access the information they need. Attempts at bringing about reform in the publication system have thus far been unsuccessful, and Sci-Hub has been a response to this failure; when institutions within fail us, we look for means without.

 

I find it counter-intuitive though, that Sci-Hub itself could be held up as a serious solution to the problems of scholarly publishing, when one hears of how online piracy of scientific papers could somehow be legalised, or at least decriminalised. How does piracy, legal or otherwise, address the systematic problems in publishing? If numbers online are to be believed [3, 4], Elsevier’s finances don’t seem to have been hit significantly by Sci-Hub’s operations, and experience tells us that the social currency of big journals, in terms of reputation, will remain entirely unaffected. Individual scientists cannot afford to not publish with the top journals because their reputation hinges on getting good papers in reputed journals, which means that the publishers still have the upper hand in determining prices. In effect, we call for an end to the tyranny of the publishers on the one hand through Sci-Hub, while we ourselves further their business interests by publishing with them. I would argue then, that it is duty of the powers that be in the bureaucracy and/or the government to resolve this conflict of short-term interests with long-term reform. It requires far-sighted and concerted efforts to bring the OA mandate to all levels of the research community, from the lowly grad student to the established PI. Amongst many others, promising signs of such efforts have emerged, from the US, where bipartisan legislation for sooner open access is now in Congress, and from several European countries that have made significant progress in negotiating fair subscription deals through consortia of universities [5, 6]. We await similar signs in India, but in the meantime, piracy remains an alternative (albeit illegal) for most researchers, here and abroad.

 

I intentionally neglected to mention the common public as one of the benefactors of piracy-mediated open access to research papers, and this concerns the dissemination of science and the role the OA mandate plays in this context. In principle, the argument can be made, and rightly so, that the taxpayer has a legal right to access and read any research that was paid for with her tax money. But research papers are fundamentally technical documents, and as such, assume a fair amount of background knowledge on the part of the reader. Scientists from within a field or a discipline often find papers dealing with specialisations other than their own unintelligible, and this leads me to wonder what a non-scientific member of the public would gain by reading a research paper. Not that such a person cannot gain anything out of her reading, but does that suffice as effective dissemination of science? Is it effective communication if the material is agnostic to the background of its audience? I think not, and it is therefore important to guard against the convenience of assuming that the mandate of science dissemination is fulfilled by making all research open to access. I would argue instead that we return to the spirit of the principle that dictates research to be open access. The taxpayer holds the right to the information that she paid to be generated, and it is a collective responsibility of the research community that she gets this information through legible channels. They  are often the best people to talk about our research, and must therefore learn not just how to write articles for scholarly journals, but also contribute to other channels that seek to inform a wide audience. The scientific community must collectively re-imagine their roles to be, not merely practitioners of science, but also effective communicators and participants in community-wide dialogues about the relevance of scientific findings, and the importance of the scientific methodology. I stress on participants instead of the common sobriquet of “educators”; there is a grain of high-handedness in the latter that I think we must seek to eschew. Once again, I must credit Sci-Hub for making this realisation possible, but piracy cannot be the answer to the dissemination of science; that is a job for all scientists.

 

My piece is hardly complete without an ivory tower reference, so here it is-making popular science communication an integral part of the practice of science requires a paradigm shift that would have scientists descend from their ivory towers of privilege and (relative) comfort, and act as equal participants in the scientific discourse of the day. This is a mandate that must become important, independent of the  questions surrounding open access and piracy.

 

References

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices
  3. https://www.relx.com/investors/key-financial-data
  4. https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/scholarly-publisher-profit-update/
  5. http://michaelnielsen.org/polymath1/index.php?title=Journal_publishing_reform
  6. https://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf

 

Vibishan B. is a PhD scholar at IISER-Pune.

Evolutionary thoughts in Indian scriptures

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

We have witnessed an interesting comment by one of our ministers, a learned minister, that the theory of evolution is wrong, and that Charles Darwin was wrong. I think the origin of this comment is in blindly imitating the West, because both Hinduism and Buddhism have never taken a stand against the theory of evolution. In fact, there are several different versions of origins—origin of Earth, origin of life on Earth—in our ancient scriptures. Some of them are creationist, no doubt; but not all of them are creationist. Some versions have described the process of evolution not in detail, not mentioning that humans have descended from monkeys, but the basic thought of evolution that things are not created—they happen, they roll out. The concept that life evolved from non-living things, and one species can evolve from some ancestral species is very much there, and I will quote the Taittirīya Upanishad for evidence in this context. Taittirīya Upanishad has a very clear sequence of origin. It says

आत्मन आकाशः संभूतः। आकाशाद्वायुः।वायोरग्निः। अग्नेरापः। अद्‌भ्यः पृथिवी।पृथिव्या ओषधयः। ओषधीभ्योऽन्नम्‌। अन्नात्पुरुषः।स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्न्नरसमयः।

ātmana ākāśaḥ saṃbhūtaḥ।            ākāśādvāyuḥ।          vāayoragniḥ। agnerāpaḥ। adabhyaḥ pṛthivī ।     pṛthivyā oṣhadhayaḥ।  oṣhadhībhyonnam।  annātpuruṣhaḥ। sa vā esh puruṣhonnarsamayah।

[Taittirīya Upanishad. – 2.1.1]

It means that from the spirit came space, and here they stop talking about spirit. Then they say that from space came gases. Gases produced fire. Water was a result of fire. The Earth emerged out of water. On Earth, plants emerged. Plants made food. And from food, man was born.

 

Now, this is a sequence. And this sequence is very well and linearly described. What the sequence means is that things happened on their own—they were not created, they emerged, they arose, it is a process. And this is definitely not a creationist description; it is a description of evolution. So, two principles which have very clearly come out of this are: First, things were not created, they arose. Second, living things arose from non-living things. Plants emerged from the Earth. And plants gave rise to animals, which means that one species can arise from some other species. So, these principles are very clearly described there. Moreover, some interpreters of the Taittirīya Upanishad have called this sequence as utkrānti (उत्क्रांति), which is the word we use today, in Marathi (and Hindi), for evolution. So, this sequence has been interpreted as evolution by some interpreters of the Upanishads. The meaning is clear, but most Hindus, 99% or perhaps 99.9%, have never read the Upanishads. They don’t know that the evolution story is very much here (in the Upanishads), not in detail—I don’t want to claim that our ancestors knew modern astrophysics or evolution—but this way of thinking was there. The way of thinking in which the world changes with time, life changes, and species changes, has been very much there.

 

Ignorance is one of the reasons why some people think that evolution is a modern thought that was not a part of old Indian thinking. The other is clearly an influence of what has been happening in the United States for the last few decades— certain religious groups have taken a very overt and aggressive stand against teaching evolution in schools, and in many states either the curricula are modified or evolution has been completely removed. Now, some people are more eager to know what is happening in the US even if they do not know what is happening in India. There are people—there are sectors of people— who blindly copy the West. That seems to be the origin of this recent comment by the minister, and of any follow up to it, or any aggressive stand being taken like that. Now, if one believes in both Indian tradition as well as modern Indian Science, then there is no reason to support this comment.

 

Milind Watve is a Professor of Biology at IISER-Pune.

तर्क एवं जीव विज्ञान, दोनों की उपेक्षा

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

कई संचार माध्यमों के अनुसार, हाल ही में मानव संसाधन विकास राज्य मंत्री, डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंह ने अखिल भारतीय वैदिक सम्मलेन, औरंगाबाद (महाराष्ट्र), में संवाद-दाताओं से बातचीत करते हुए क्रम-विकास (evolution) के सिद्धांत को ख़ारिज कर दिया (यहाँ, यहाँ, यहाँ, यहाँ)। मंत्री जी के कार्यालय ने ट्विटर पर (@OfficeOfSPS) इन टिप्पणियों का एक वीडियो भी जारी किया है। डॉ. सिंह ने कहा कि पिछले हज़ारों- लाखों सालों में हमारे पूर्वजों ने यह कहीं नहीं लिखा या कहा है कि उन्होंने जंगल या शहर में किसी बंदर को मानव में बदलते हुए देखा। क्योंकि किसी ने कभी बंदर को मानव में बदलते हुए नहीं देखा, इसलिए, डॉ. सिंह के अनुसार, क्रम-विकास के बारे में डार्विन का सिद्धांत वैज्ञानिक रूप से गलत है। उनका मानना है कि मनुष्य अपने मौजूदा रूप में ही पृथ्वी पर आया है और हमेशा वैसा ही रहेगा। उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि हमारे स्कूल और कॉलेज शिक्षण को बदलना चाहिए ताकि इस तथ्य को दर्शाया जा सके। उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि हालांकि कई लोग यह नहीं जानते, विदेशी वैज्ञानिकों ने करीब ३५ साल पहले ही यह प्रमाणित कर दिया था कि क्रम-विकास के सिद्धांत में कोई सच्चाई नहीं है।

 

डॉ. सिंह के ये तर्क कई प्रकार से गलत हैं, और तर्कशास्त्र एवं जीव विज्ञान, दोनों के सिद्धांतों की उपेक्षा करते हैं। पहली बात यह है कि क्रम-विकास के बुनियादी तथ्यों को, और मानव क्रम-विकास के इतिहास को, दुनिया भर के वैज्ञानिक स्वीकार करते हैं। विज्ञान के अन्य क्षेत्रों की तरह, क्रम-विकास के भी सूक्ष्म बिंदुओं पर जैव वैज्ञानिकों में मतभेद है। पर इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि क्रम-विकास के डार्विनियन दृष्टिकोण के बुनियादी सिद्धांतों पर किसी भी प्रकार का कोई वैज्ञानिक विवाद है। ऐसा कोई भी वैज्ञानिक प्रमाण नहीं है कि क्रम-विकास पर डार्विन का विवरण गलत है। कई भारतीय और विदेशी वैज्ञानिकों ने क्रम-विकास की वजह से हुए परिवर्तन और नए उपप्रजातियों (incipient species) के बनने की प्रक्रिया को प्रयोगशाला में दर्शाया हैं। मैं यह भी नहीं समझ पा रहा हूँ कि ३५ साल पहले ऐसा कौन सा प्रमाण पेश किया गया था जिसने, मंत्रीजी के अनुसार, क्रम-विकास को खारिज कर दिया। मैं केवल अनुमान लगा सकता हूं कि डॉ. सिंह १९७० के दशक की ‘विरामित संतुलन‘ वाली बहस की बात कर रहे थे जो कि महज़ एक तकनीकी मसला था। इसके अंतर्गत वैज्ञानिक यह समझने की कोशिश कर रहे थे कि विकासवादी परिवर्तन आमतौर पर धीमा और अपेक्षाकृत निरंतर है, या तेज़ और अपेक्षाकृत लंबी अवधि में विभक्त। अगर मंत्रीजी वाकई इस विवाद के बारे में बात कर रहे थे, तो जाहिर है कि वे इस मसले को समझ नहीं पाए हैं। इसके अलावा, अगर किसी ने एक चीज़ को देखने का कोई दावा नहीं किया है, तो इससे यह नहीं मान सकते की उस चीज़ का कोई अस्तित्व ही नहीं है। इससे भी आश्चर्य की बात यह है कि डॉ. सिंह के अनुसार हमारे पूर्वज बंदरों को मनुष्यों में बदलते हुए देख सकते थे और उन अनुभवों को लिखने की क्षमता रखते थे। परन्तु जब तक हमारे पूर्वजों में लिखने की क्षमता आई, तब तक तो वे मनुष्य में बदल चुके थे, तो फिर बंदर से मनुष्य में बदलाव को वे कैसे देख पाते? डार्विन के विकासवादी दृष्टिकोण को बंदरों के मानव बनने से भ्रमित करना अपने आप में ही एक बड़ी गलती है। विकासवादी जीव विज्ञान हमें बताता है कि मनुष्य और बंदरों समेत सभी वानर प्रजातियां (species) अपेक्षाकृत हाल के विकासवादी (evolutionary) इतिहास में एक समान पूर्वज से उत्पन्न हुई हैं। इसके लिए बहुत सारे सबूत मौजूद हैं, जैसे कि हमारी विकासवादी वंशावली (lineage) का डीएनए अनुक्रम (DNA sequence) और आणविक जन-संख्य आनुवंशिकी (molecular population genetics) के सिद्धांत। मज़े की बात यह है कि ये वही सिद्धांत हैं जो बायो-मेडिकल जीनोमिक्स (bio-medical genomics) की नींव हैं, जिसके प्रोत्साहन में हमारी सरकार भारी निवेश करती है।

 

माननीय मंत्रीजी का बयान इसलिए भी चिंताजनक है क्योंकि अनेक भारतीय वैज्ञानिकों ने, डार्विनियन प्रतिमान (paradigm) के भीतर, विकासवादी जीव विज्ञान की प्रगति में महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई है। भारतीय विकासवादी जैव वैज्ञानिकों ने विविध विषयों में अवधारणात्मक (conceptual) और व्यवहारिक (empirical) योगदान दिया है, जिनमें शामिल हैं: पौधों और कीड़ों का सहक्रियाकरण (plant-insect coevolution), जनक-संतति संघर्ष (parent-offspring conflict), संकरण और जाति-गठन (hybridization and race formation), सामाजिकता का विकास (evolution of sociality), प्रतिस्पर्धी क्षमता का विकास (evolution of competitive ability), उप-महाद्वीप में पशु वंशों का विकासवादी इतिहास (evolutionary history of animal lineages in the sub-continent), जीनोम स्तर की लैंगिक संघर्ष (genome-level sexual conflict) और सदैव बदलते हुए वातावरण में क्रम-विकास (evolution in fluctuating environments)। अभी पिछले साल ही, भारत सरकार के विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग (Department of Science and Technology) ने भारतीय विकासवादी जैव वैज्ञानिकों के क्रम-विकास सिद्धांत-संबंधी मूल योगदान का उल्लेख करते हुए उसे सराहनीय बताया था।

 

इस संदर्भ में एक महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि इंडियन एकेडमी ऑफ साइंसेज और इंडियन नैशनल साइंस एकेडमी २००६ के अंतर्राष्ट्रीय इंटर-एकेडमी पैनल द्वारा पारित ‘Statement on the Teaching of Evolution’ (क्रम-विकास की शिक्षा पर वक्तव्य) के हस्ताक्षरकर्ता हैं, जो दुनिया भर की ६७ विज्ञान अकादमियों द्वारा समर्थित है। इस वक्तव्य की शुरुआत में अकादमियाँ कुछ इस प्रकार से अपनी चिंता व्यक्त करती हैं: “हम, विज्ञान की अधोनीकृत अकादमियों, ने यह अनुभव किया है कि विश्व भर की कुछ सार्वजनिक शिक्षा प्रणालियों में, वैज्ञानिक साक्ष्यों, आंकड़ों, और पृथ्वी पर जीवन की उत्पत्ति और क्रम-विकास के परीक्षण-योग्य सिद्धांतों को कुछ ऐसे सिद्धांतों से छिपाया, अस्वीकार या भ्रमित किया जा रहा है जो कि विज्ञान द्वारा परीक्षण योग्य नहीं हैं। हम निर्णयकर्ताओं, शिक्षकों और अभिभावकों से आग्रह करते हैं कि वे सभी बच्चों को विज्ञान के तरीकों और खोजों के बारे में प्रशिक्षित करें, और उनमें प्रकृति के विज्ञान की समझ को बढ़ावा दें। प्राकृतिक दुनिया का ज्ञान लोगों को मानवीय ज़रूरतें पूरा करने और पृथ्वी की सुरक्षा करने की क्षमता देता है।

हम पृथ्वी और जीवन की उत्पत्ति और विकास के बारे में निम्नलिखित सबूत-आधारित तथ्यों को स्वीकार करते हैं, जो कि कई अवलोकनों (observations) और विभिन्न वैज्ञानिक विषयों के स्वतंत्र प्रयोगात्मक परिणामों (empirical results) द्वारा स्थापित किए गए हैं। भले ही विकासवादी परिवर्तन के अति-तकनीकी सूक्ष्म और सटीक विवरण के बारे में कई खुले प्रश्न हैं, पर कोई भी वैज्ञानिक सबूत इन brihad परिणामों का खंडन नहीं करते हैं:

१. इस ब्रह्मांड में, जो कि ११ से १५ अरब सालों में अपने वर्तमान रूप में विकसित हुआ है, हमारी पृथ्वी क़रीब ४.५ अरब साल पहले उत्पन्न हुई।

२. इसके बाद से, कई भौतिक और रासायनिक बलों के प्रभाव से, पृथ्वी के भूतत्त्व और वातावरण निरंतर बदलते रहे हैं।

३. पृथ्वी पर जीवन कम से कम २.५ अरब साल पहले उत्पन्न हुआ। प्रकाश संश्लेषक (photosynthetic) जीवों के तेज़ विकास के बाद, कम से कम २ अरब साल पहले, वातावरण में ऑक्सीजन की पर्याप्त मात्रा संचित हुई। प्रकाश संश्लेषण की यह प्रक्रिया, ऑक्सीजन (प्राणवायु) के साथ-साथ, निश्चित ऊर्जा और भोजन का भी मूल स्रोत है, जिस पर मनुष्य जीवन पूर्णतः निर्भर करता है।

४. पृथ्वी पर जीवन की पहली उत्पत्ति के बाद से कई और प्रकार के जीव विकसित होते रहे हैं, जिनके क्रम-विकास की पुष्टि जीवाश्मिकी विज्ञान (palaeontology) और आधुनिक जैव और जैव-रासायनिक विज्ञान द्वारा स्वतंत्र रूप से होती रही है। मनुष्य सहित सभी वर्तमान जीवों के आनुवंशिक कोड (genetic code) की संरचना में सामान्यताऐं, स्पष्ट रूप से उनके समान-मूल उत्पत्ति को दर्शाती हैं।”

 

सृजनवादियों (creationists) द्वारा बनाई गई कई वेबसाइटें, ख़ासकर अमेरिका में, नियमित रूप से विकासवादी जीव विज्ञान को एक ऐसे सिद्धांत के रूप में पेश करने का प्रयास करती हैं, जिसका वैज्ञानिक समुदाय में व्यापक समर्थन नहीं है। डॉ. सिंह की सोच को साझा करने वाले कई लोग (@rammadhavbjp) ट्वीट्स में ऐसी साइटों का सन्दर्भ देते हुए इस बात का समर्थन करते हैं कि क्रम-विकास एक वैज्ञानिक रूप से अस्वीकृत धारणा है। इन ट्वीट्स में दिए गए सन्दर्भों में से गुमराह करने वाले एक लेख का शीर्षक है “५०० वैज्ञानिकों को डार्विन के विकास के सिद्धांत पर संदेह”। जबकि वास्तविकता में यह लेख एक पुराने सन्दर्भ से उन वैज्ञानिकों की बात कर रहा है जिन्होंने इस बयान पर हस्ताक्षर किए हैं: “हमें जीवन की जटिलता के बारे में यादृच्छिक उत्परिवर्तन (random mutation) और प्राकृतिक चयन (natural selection) की क्षमता के दावों पर संदेह है। डार्विन के सिद्धांत संबंधित प्रमाण की सावधानीपूर्ण जांच को प्रोत्साहित किया जाना चाहिए”। कई दूसरे वैज्ञानिकों ने इस लेख की आलोचना की है। ऐसी साइटें एक संकीर्ण तकनीकी तर्क – छोटी भिन्नताओं पर प्राकृतिक चयन बनाम उत्परिवर्तनीय अभिनति (mutational bias) का क्रम-विकास पर असर – का सहारा लेकर पूरे डार्विनियन प्रतिमान को अस्वीकृत के रूप में चित्रित करने का प्रयास कर रही हैं। ऐसी सृजनात्मक साइटों को देखकर गुमराह होना संभव है, पर उम्मीद यह थी कि ऐसे निष्कर्ष (कि क्रम-विकास ख़ारिज किया जा चुका है और हमारे पाठ्यक्रम को तदनुसार बदलना चाहिए) पर पहुँचने से पहले डॉ. सिंह ने भारत के किसी भी विकासवादी जैव वैज्ञानिक को पूछने का कष्ट किया होता, जो कि अधिकतर एम.एच.आर.डी. (MHRD) या डी.एस.टी. (DST) समर्थित संस्थानों में काम कर रहे हैं। उल्लेखनीय है कि इंडियन एकेडमी ऑफ साइंसेज (बेंगलुरु), नेशनल एकेडमी ऑफ साइंसेज, भारत (इलाहाबाद) और भारतीय राष्ट्रीय विज्ञान अकादमी (नई दिल्ली) ने एक संयुक्त बयान जारी कर कहा है: “भारत की तीनों विज्ञान अकादमियाँ यह स्पष्ट कर देना चाहती हैं कि मंत्रीजी के बयान का कोई वैज्ञानिक आधार नहीं है। विकासवादी सिद्धांत, जिसमें डार्विन ने मौलिक योगदान दिया था, अच्छी तरह से स्थापित है। क्रम-विकास के मूल तथ्यों को लेकर कोई वैज्ञानिक विवाद नहीं है”। कई वैज्ञानिकों, शिक्षकों और छात्रों ने भी एक याचिका पर हस्ताक्षर कर माननीय मंत्रीजी से अपनी टिप्पणी वापस लेने की मांग की है।

 

विकासवादी जीव विज्ञान न सिखाए जाने के व्यावहारिक परिणाम भी हैं। अगर हम विकासवादी जीवविज्ञान के डार्विनियन प्रतिमान को अस्वीकार कर दें, तो एक उदाहरण के तौर पर, जीवाणुओं (bacteria) में बहु-औषधि प्रतिरोध के विकास (evolution of multi-drug resistance) जैसी सामाजिक चुनौतियों का अध्ययन और उपचार करने की हमारी क्षमता भी गंभीर रूप से प्रभावित हो जाएगी।

 

इस पूरे घटनाक्रम में सबसे ज़्यादा दुख की बात यह है कि डॉ. सिंह न केवल खुद विज्ञान (रसायन शास्त्र में एम.एस.सी. और एम.फिल.) में प्रशिक्षित हैं, बल्कि वे देश में उच्च शिक्षा की देखरेख वाले मंत्रालय के राज्यमंत्री भी हैं। उनके मंत्रालय की जिम्मेदारी को ध्यान में रखते हुए, यह ग़ौरतलब है कि ये उस व्यक्ति के विचार हैं जो शैक्षिक और अनुसंधान प्राथमिकताओं और एजेंडा को सीधे प्रभावित करने में समर्थ हैं। माननीय मंत्रीजी का यह बयान, कि जीव विज्ञान की एक बहुमान्य अवधारणा “वैज्ञानिक रूप से गलत” है और इसे इसके वर्तमान रूप में न पढ़ाया जाए, वास्तव में डरावना है, खासकर जब वह अपनी गलती स्वीकार करने को भी राज़ी नहीं हैं। आज क्रम-विकास, कल क्या, क्वांटम भौतिकी (quantum physics) और आणविक अनुवांशिकी (molecular genetics), को लेकर ऐसी बातें की जाएँगी, जिनके बारे में भी, संभवतः हमारे पूर्वजों ने कुछ नहीं लिखा था!

 

अमिताभ जोशी बेंगलुरु के जवाहरलाल नेहरू उन्नत वैज्ञानिकी अनुसंधान केंद्र (JNCASR) में प्रोफेसर हैं, और इंडियन एकेडमी ऑफ साइंसेज (बेंगलुरु), नेशनल एकेडमी ऑफ साइंसेज, भारत (इलाहाबाद) और भारतीय राष्ट्रीय विज्ञान अकादमी (नई दिल्ली) के फेलो हैं। प्रोफ़ेसर जोशी जे. सी. बोस नेशनल फेलो भी हैं, और शांति स्वरूप भटनागर पुरस्कार (जैविक विज्ञान: 2009) एवं लक्ष्मीपत सिंघानिया नेशनल लीडरशिप अवार्ड (यंग लीडर, साइंस एंड टेक्नोलॉजी: 2010) से पुरस्कृत किए जा चुके हैं। वे पिछले 30 वर्षों से इवोल्यूशनरी जीव विज्ञान का अध्ययन, शोध और शिक्षण कर रहे हैं।

अभिषेक मिश्र IISER पुणे में विकासवादी जीव विज्ञान में पीएचडी कर रहे हैं।

 

अस्वीकरण: तीनों अकादेमियों के बयान तथा याचिका के बयान के लिए नए लिंक दिए गए हैं। इसके अतिरिक्त यदि मूल अंग्रेज़ी लेख और उसके हिंदी अनुवाद के बीच कोई विसंगति है, तो मूल अंग्रेज़ी संस्करण को स्वीकार किया जाना चाहिए।

अवैज्ञानिक आणि अतार्कीकही!

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

माननीय डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंग, मनुष्यबळ विकास राज्यमंत्री, भारत सरकार, यांनी नुकत्याच केलेल्या उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या सिद्धांताला फेटाळणाऱ्या वक्तव्याला बऱ्याच वृत्त माध्यमांनी प्रसिद्धी दिली (येथे, येथे, येथे, येथे). यावेळी डॉ. सत्यपाल सिंग औरंगाबाद येथे अखिल भारतीय वैदिक संमेलनाच्या निमित्ताने पत्रकारांना उद्देशून बोलत होते. मंत्री कार्यालयाने (@OfficeOfSPS) या घटनेनंतर केलेल्या ट्विट मध्ये या वक्तव्याचा व्हिडिओ देखील प्रसिद्ध करण्यात आला. हिंदीमधून बोलताना डॉ. सिंग म्हणाले की एखाद्या जंगलात किंवा गावात माकडाचा माणूस होताना पाहिल्याचा उल्लेख गेल्या शेकडो वर्षांत आपल्या पूर्वजांनी केलेला नाही. ज्याअर्थी कोणाच्याही पाहण्यात अशी गोष्ट आलेली नाही, त्याअर्थी डार्विनचा उत्क्रांतीवादाचा सिद्धांत हा शास्त्रीयदृष्ट्या चुकीचा आहे आणि माणूस अर्थातच माणूस म्हणूनच भूतलावर आला आणि कायम तसाच राहील. ते पुढे म्हणाले की आपल्या शालेय आणि महाविद्यालयीन शिक्षणात ही गोष्ट परावर्तित होणे गरजेचे आहे. ते असही म्हणाले की बऱ्याच श्रोत्यांना कल्पना नसेल पण काही परदेशी वैज्ञानिकांनी, सुमारे ३५ वर्षांपूर्वीच हे दाखविले आहे की उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या सिद्धांतात काहीही तथ्य नाही.

डॉ. सिंग यांचे हे विधान विविध पातळ्यांवर अवैध आहे आणि केवळ जीवशास्त्रच नाही तर तर्कशास्त्राच्याही पकडीबाहेरच आहे असंम्हणायला हरकत नाही! प्रथमतः हे लक्षात घेणे गरजेचे आहे की उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या मूलभूत संकल्पना, त्याची प्रक्रिया आणि त्याचबरोबर माणूस आणि आता नामशेष झालेल्या इतर मानवीय प्रजाती ह्यांच्यामधील बदल, ह्या संकल्पना जगभरातील वैज्ञानिक मान्य करतात. ह्या प्रक्रियांमधील बारीक तपशीलावर शास्त्रज्ञांच्यात मतभेद आहेत, जसे ते कुठल्याही शास्त्रात असतात. पण ह्याचा अर्थ असा मुळीच नाही की डार्विनच्या उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या मूलभूत सिद्धांतावरच एकमत नाहीये. आत्तापर्यंत गोळा केलेला एकही शास्त्रीय पुरावा ह्या प्रक्रियेच्या विरोधात नाहीये. उत्क्रांतीवादात सांगितलेले बदल भारतातील वैज्ञानिकांसकट जगभरातील लोकांनी, प्रयोगशाळांमधील प्रयोगांतून वारंवार घडताना पहिले आहेत. ह्या बदलांच्यात नवीन प्रजाती निर्माण होताना घडणाऱ्या काही प्रारंभिक बदलांचाही समावेश आहे. ३५ वर्षांपूर्वी असा कुठला पुरावा समोर आला जेणेकरून उत्क्रांतीवादाचा सिद्धांत मोडीत निघाला, ह्याबद्दल मी पूर्ण अंधारात आहे. पण माझ्या अंदाजानुसार डॉ. सिंग ज्या पुराव्याचा उल्लेख करतायत तो बहुदा १९७० च्या दशकातील ‘Punctuated Equilibrium‘ ह्या नावाने प्रसिद्ध झालेला विवाद असावा. ह्या वादाचा प्रमुख मुद्दा हा उत्क्रांतीत होणारे बदल हे लहान पण नियमितपणे होणारे असतात का मोठे आणि बऱ्याच काळानंतर अचानक होणारे असतात, हा होता. जर माझा कयास बरोबर असेल तर डॉ. सिंग ह्या विवादाचा अर्थ अजिबात समजू शकलेले नाहीत. पण त्याहूनही महत्वाचे हे की एखादी गोष्ट घडताना कोणीच पहिली नाही हे कारण ती गोष्ट घडलीच नाही असा निष्कर्ष काढण्यास पुरेशी नाही. ह्याउप्पर डॉ. सिंग ह्यांच्या अपेक्षेनुसार आपले पूर्वज हे माकडाचा माणूस होतानाच्या घटनेचे साक्षीदार कसे ठरणार होते हे आकलनाबाहेरचे आहे कारण हे पूर्वज स्वतः उत्क्रांतीने आधीच लिहू-वाचू शकणारे मानव बनलेले होते! मुळातच डार्विनच्या उत्क्रांतीवादाचे चित्रण हे माकडाचा माणूस होताना करणे हे साफ चुकीचे आहे. उत्क्रांतीवाद असं सांगतो की माणूस, माकड आणि इतर वानर प्रजाती ह्या एकाच पूर्वजापासून विकसित झाल्या आहेत. ह्या विधानासाठी आपल्याकडे सबळ पुरावे आहेत. ह्या पुराव्यान्मधे DNA sequence (जनुकांची क्रमवार रचना ) वापरून बनवलेली Phylogenetic trees (विविध प्रजातींमधल्या वंशवेली) आणि population genetics (संख्या अनुवंशिकताशास्त्र) ह्या दोन्ही शाखांतील माहितीचा समावेश आहे. किंबहुना ह्या नवीनतम शाखांमधून मिळणाऱ्या माहितीचे महत्व ओळखून आपले सरकार ह्या शाखांच्या विकासाला चालना मिळण्यावर भर देत आहे.

डार्विनच्या उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या सिद्धांताच्या चौकटीत भारतीय शास्त्रज्ञांनी केलेले योगदान जर आपण ध्यानात घेतले तर डॉ. सिंग ह्यांचे हे वक्तव्य अधिकच दुर्दैवी वाटते. भारतीय वैज्ञानिकांनी उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या अनेक महत्वाच्या शाखांमध्ये महत्वाचे शोध लावले आहेत, यामध्ये कीटक व वनस्पतींमधील परस्परउत्क्रांती, संकरीकरण आणि वर्णनिर्मिती, उपखंडातील विविध प्राण्यांच्या उत्क्रांतीचा इतिहास अश्या अनेक विषयांचा समावेश आहे. मागच्याच वर्षी भारत सरकारच्या विज्ञान आणि प्रौद्योगिकी विभागाने भारतीय शास्त्रज्ञांनी उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या अभ्यासात केलेल्या मूलभूत योगदानाबद्दल त्यांचा गौरवपूर्ण उल्लेख सुद्धा केलाय.

योगायोग असा कि इंडियन अकॅडेमी ऑफ सायन्सेस आणि इंडियन नॅशनल सायन्स अकॅडेमी ह्या दोन्ही संस्था २००६ साली प्रसिद्ध झालेल्या ‘ Statement on the teaching of Evolution’ (उत्क्रांतीवाद शिकवण्याविषयकचे विधान) च्या स्वाक्षरीकर्ता आहेत. जगभरातल्या ६७ वैज्ञानिक अकादमींच्या मंडळांनी एकत्र येऊन तयार केलेल्या ह्या विधानाच्या सुरवातीला चिंता व्यक्त केली गेली आहे : “स्वाक्षरीकर्ता अकादमींच्या असे लक्षात आले आहे की जगभरात वेगवेगळ्या भागात विज्ञान प्रशिक्षणात सजीवसृष्टीचा उगम आणि उत्क्रांती ह्याविषयीचे शास्त्रीय पुरावे, माहिती आणि सिद्धांत लपवून ठेवले जात आहेत, नाकारले जात आहेत किंवा इतर अशास्त्रीय सिद्धांतांशी त्यांची गल्लत केली जात आहे. शैक्षणिक धोरण ठरवणाऱ्या जबाबदार व्यक्ती, शिक्षक आणि पालक ह्यांना आमची कळकळीची विनंती आहे की त्यांनी मुलांना वैज्ञानिक पद्धती आणि शोध ह्यांचे शिक्षण द्यावे जेणेकरून निसर्गातील वैज्ञानिक गोष्टींचा त्यांचा समज वाढेल. आपल्या निसर्गाविषयीचे ज्ञान आपल्याला आपल्या गरज भागवायला आणि आपल्या पृथ्वीचे संरक्षण करायला अधिक सक्षम बनवते. आम्ही सर्व सहमत आहोत की खाली नमूद केलेले मुद्दे हे सजीवांचा उगम व उत्क्रांतीविषयीचे पुराव्यावर आधारित सत्य असून, विविध विज्ञान शाखांतर्भूत केल्या गेलेल्या असंख्य निरीक्षण आणि प्रयोगांद्वारे सिद्ध केलेले आहेत. उत्क्रांतीत अंतर्भूत असलेल्या प्रक्रियांच्या तपशिलाबाबत जरी काही प्रश्न अनुत्तरित असले, तरी कोणताही शास्त्रीय पुरावा खालील बाबींना विरोध करत नाही:
१. ११ ते १५ अब्ज वर्ष जुन्या ह्या विश्वात, आपल्या पृथ्वीची निर्मिती सुमारे ४.५ अब्ज वर्षांपूर्वी झाली
२. पृथ्वीच्या उत्पत्तीपासून ते ह्या क्षणापर्यंत तिचा भूभाग आणि वातावरण हे सतत बदलत राहिले आहे आणि ह्याला असंख्य रासायनिक आणि भौतिक प्रक्रिया जबाबदार आहेत
३. पृथ्वीवर सजीवांची निर्मिती सुमारे २.५ अब्ज वर्षांपूर्वी झाली. ह्या सजीवांपासून लवकरच, सुमारे ०.५ अब्ज वर्षात, उत्क्रांतीद्वारे प्रकाश संश्लेषण करू शकणारे सजीव अस्तित्वात आले. प्रकाश संश्लेषणाच्या ह्या प्रक्रियेने हळूहळू वातावरणातील प्राणवायूचे प्रमाण वाढू लागले. ही प्रकाश संश्लेषणाची प्रक्रिया आपल्याला जगण्यास आवश्यक असणारा प्राणवायू तर सोडतेच पण त्याचबरोबर अन्नाच्या रूपाने स्थिर ऊर्जेचा अंतिम स्रोत म्हणूनही काम करते. ह्या दोन्ही गोष्टी मानवाच्या अस्तित्वासाठी अपरिहार्य आहेत.
४. पहिल्यांदा पृथ्वीवर अस्तित्वात आल्यापासून सजीवसृष्टीची रचना आणि स्वरूप बदलत आले आहे, ह्या घडीला सुद्धा बदलते आहे. आधुनिक जीवशास्त्र, जीव रसायनशास्त्र, पुराजीवशास्त्र अशा विज्ञानाच्या विविध शाखा ह्या बदलांची अचूकतेने नोंद घेत आहेत व पुष्टीकरण करत आहेत. माणसासकट सध्या अस्तित्वात असलेल्या सर्व सजीवांच्या जनुकांतील (DNA) विलक्षण साधर्म्य स्पष्टपणे दाखवून देते की सर्व सजीव हे एकाच पूर्वजाचे वंशज आहेत.”

जगात, मुख्यतः अमेरिकेमध्ये, अशी अनेक निर्मितीवादी (creationist) संकेतस्थळे (वेबसाइट्स) आहेत जी उत्क्रांतीवादाच्या सिद्धांताला अनेक शक्य सिद्धांतांपैकी एक दाखवतात. उत्क्रांतीवादाखेरीज ह्यातल्या इतर कुठल्याच सिद्धांताला वैज्ञानिक जगतात मान्यता नाही. डॉ. सिंग ह्यांच्या विचारांशी सहमत असणारे काही लोक (@rammadhavbjp) अशाच संकेतस्थळांचा वापर स्वतःचा मुद्दा पटवून देण्यासाठी करत आहेत. आपल्या ट्विट द्वारे उत्क्रांतीवादाचा सिद्धांत वैज्ञानिक जगातला मान्य नसल्याचे भासवण्याचा प्रयत्न करत आहेत. ह्याच ट्विट्स च्या मालिकेत एका लेखाचा संदर्भ आला आहे ज्याचे शीर्षक दिशाभूल करणारे आहे. ‘५०० वैज्ञानिकांचे डार्विनच्या सिद्धांतावर प्रश्नचिन्ह’ असे शीर्षक असणारा हा लेख खरंतर एका जुन्या घटनेविषयीचा आहे. ह्या वैज्ञानिकांनी स्वाक्षरी केलेल्या विधानात असे म्हणले होते की random mutation (अनियत जनुकीय बदल) आणि natural selection (नैसर्गिक निवड) हे जीवसृष्टीतील गुंतागुंतीच्या प्रक्रियांना जबाबदार असल्याच्या दाव्याबाबत आम्ही साशंक आहोत आणि डार्विनच्या सिद्धांताला पाठिंबा देणारे पुरावे पडताळून पाहण्यात यावे. ह्या विधानावर अनेक वैज्ञानिकांनी टीकादेखील केली. हा वाद मुळात उत्क्रांतीमध्ये random mutation आणि natural selection ह्यांची तौलनिक भूमिका काय, असा आहे. पण अनेक संकेतस्थळे विषयातील तांत्रिक वादविवादांना डार्विनच्या सिद्धांताच्याच विरोधी रंगात रंगवत आहेत. ह्या अश्या संकेतस्थळांमुळे एखाद्याची दिशाभूल होणे अगदीच शक्य आहे. पण डॉ. सिंग ह्यांनी उत्क्रांतीवाद फेटाळण्यापूर्वी आणि अभ्यासक्रमात त्यानुसार बदलांची सूचना करण्यापूर्वी MHRD किंवा DST अंतर्गत असलेल्या संस्थेतील एखाद्या वैज्ञानिकाशी चर्चा करायला नको होती का? समाधानाची गोष्ट ही की इंडियन अकॅडेमि ऑफ सायन्सेस (बेंगळुरू), द इंडियन नॅशनल सायन्स अकॅडेमि (नवी दिल्ली), आणि द नॅशनल अकॅडेमि ऑफ सायन्सेस, इंडिया (अलाहाबाद) ह्यांनी प्रसिद्ध केलेल्या संयुक्त विधानात असे म्हटले आहे की “भारतातील तीनही विज्ञान अकादमी हे सांगू इच्छितात की मंत्र्यांनी केलेल्या विधानाला कुठलाही शास्त्रीय आधार नाही. उत्क्रांतीवादाचा सिद्धांत, जो मांडण्यात डार्विनचा सिंहाचा वाटा आहे, हा पूर्णपणे प्रस्थापित आहे. उत्क्रांतीच्या मूलभूत संकल्पनांविषयी कोणतेही मतभेद नाहीत.” (येथे, येथे). अनेक वैज्ञानिक, शिक्षक आणि विद्यार्थ्यांनी एकत्र येऊन माननीय मंत्र्यांनी त्यांचे विधान मागे घ्यावे अशी विनंती करणार्‍या याचिकेवर स्वाक्षर्या केल्या आहेत.

उत्क्रांतीवाद अभ्यासक्रमातून वगळण्याचे व्यावहारिक परिणामदेखील आहेत. उदाहरणार्थ, आपण जर डार्विनच्या सिद्धांताकडे कानाडोळा केला तर आपल्याला multidrug resistant (अनेक प्रतिजैविकांना प्रतिकार करणारे) जीवाणू या सारख्या गंभीर समस्येबाबत अभ्यास व संशोधन करणे मुशकील होईल.

 

डॉ. सिंग ह्यांच्या विधानासंबंधित सर्वात दुदैवी गोष्ट ही की ते स्वतः शास्त्र प्रशिक्षित आहेत (रसायनशास्त्रामध्ये एम.एस्सी. आणि एम. फिल.) आणि देशातील उचचशिक्षणाला जबाबदार असणाऱ्या खात्याचे राज्यमंत्री आहेत. ह्या अधिकारात असलेल्या व्यक्तीची मते ही शिक्षण आणि संशोधनाशी संबंधित निर्णयांवर मोठा परिणाम करू शकतात. माननीय मंत्र्यांनी जीवशास्त्रातील एक प्रस्थापित सिद्धांत शास्त्रीयदृष्ट्या चुकीचा ठरवणे आणि अभ्रासक्रमातील त्याचे वर्तमान स्वरूप बदलण्याची सूचना करणे हे दुर्दैवी आहे. आणि त्यांची चूक मान्य करण्याला असलेला त्यांचा विरोध हे त्याहूनही अधिक विदारक. आज ही वेळ उत्क्रांतीवादावर आलेय, उद्या quantum physics (भाग भौतिकशास्त्र) आणि molecular genetics (आण्विक अनुवंशिकताशास्त्र) वर येऊ शकते, कारण आपल्या पूर्वजांनी ह्याविषयीही काही लिहिलं किंवा सांगितलं असण्याची काही शक्यता नाही!

 

अमिताभ जोशी हे जवाहरलाल नेहरू सेन्टर फॉर ऍडवान्सड सायंटिफिक रिसर्च, बेंगळुरू येथे प्राध्यापक आहेत. त्याचबरोबर इंडियन अकॅडेमि ऑफ सायन्सेस (बेंगळुरू), द इंडियन नॅशनल ससान्स अकॅडेमि (नवी दिल्ली), आणि द नॅशनल अकॅडेमि ऑफ सायन्सेस, इंडिया (अलाहाबाद) चे सदस्य आहेत. ते जे. सी. बोस नॅशनल फेलो असून प्रतिष्ठित शांती स्वरूप भटनागर (जीवशास्त्र: २००९) आणि लक्ष्मीपत सिंघानिया नॅशनल लीडरशिप (यंग लीडर, सायन्स अँड टेकनॉलॉजि:२०१०) पुरस्कारांचे विजेते आहेत. गेली ३० वर्षे त्यांचा उत्क्रांतिवादविषयक संशोधनात आणि शिक्षणात सहभाग आहे.

 

श्रद्धा कर्वे हिने IISER, पुणे येथून जीवशास्त्रात डॉक्टरेट पदवी संपादन केली असून ती आता झुरिच विद्यापीठात  पदव्युत्तर संशोधन करते.

 

अस्वीकृती : मूळ इंग्रजी लेख आणि त्याचे मराठी भाषांतर ह्यात तफावत आढळल्यास इंग्रजी लेखातील मसुदा ग्राह्य मानावा.

मूळ इंग्रजी लेख

Do we need Controlled Human Infection Models in India?

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Advancement in science has reached up to the level where infectious diseases such as malaria and typhoid can be effectively treated with the standard drug regimen. However, death due to malaria is still happening in India as the vulnerable population has no access to the best available healthcare systems. An ineffective treatment regimen could give rise to a generation of antimicrobial resistant varieties, which further contribute to the complex healthcare challenges that India is facing as of today.

The current healthcare systems including disease surveillance in India are still in their dark ages. India has hugely advanced economically and in certain sectors of research such as space exploration. However, according to WHO malaria report 2017, the Indian malaria disease surveillance system can detect only 8% of cases as compared to Nigeria, which detects 16% of the cases (1). Hence, the Indian government is not capable of estimating the real burden of disease and subsequent resource allocation. However, like any other nation, India also needs a healthy population for sustainable development.

India is the biggest manufacturer of vaccines. The national immunisation programme of the Indian government, including the recently launched Indradhanush Programme has been a robust system that successfully achieved polio elimination despite the lower sanitation and health care, higher temperature, larger heterogeneous population and diverse geography. Furthermore, the Indian government is also launching various research programs to strengthen the immunisation coverage such as Immunization Data: Innovating for Action, IDIA.

Basic research in India has advanced to the stage where it could perform under the challenge of development for a solution as per societal needs. Academic research has resulted in the development of at least three malaria vaccine candidates, whereas a newly WHO prequalified typhoid vaccine has been developed by an Indian company Bharat Biotech (2–4). However, surprisingly the protective efficacy data for this WHO prequalified typhoid vaccine has been generated at the University of Oxford using Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIM), which might be due to the fragile and complicated clinical trials ecosystem in India (5).

The conventional clinical trial ecosystem of India is very complicated. Since 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires prospective registration of clinical trial (i.e., registration before the first enrollment) to preclude reporting biases however the Clinical Trial Registry of India still accepts retrospective registration.  The HPV vaccine clinical trial created a huge uproar leading to the seventy-second report from the parliament standing committee, an investigation by the expert committee, media buzz and most importantly, loss of public trust. The failure of clinical research systems to detect severe adverse events has been noticed by the expert committee examining the HPV trials in India (6).

The use of vaccines could lower the disease burden which in turn reduces the drug use, and thus vaccination could reduce the rise of antibiotic resistance. Given a better immunization programme, vaccine manufacturing facilities and basic vaccine research existing in India, how could the vaccine development in India be accelerated to fulfil the societal needs? Should we expose the larger population to a candidate vaccine when we do not have sufficient data on its protective efficacy? Or will it be prudent to evaluate the vaccine protective efficacy in highly controlled settings and then proceed for larger population trials?

CHIM (for malaria, Controlled Human Malaria Infection, CHMI) provides a platform to reasonably evaluate the protective efficacy of a vaccine candidate without going out for larger trials. The term “Controlled” in CHMI reflects the requirement of highly controlled settings such as well-characterised parasite strains, effective drug(s) for infection elimination and highly efficient diagnostic system for stringent monitoring. The term “infection” reflects that the experimental protocol intends to induce controlled infection and not cause disease. The term “Human” reflects that the subject will be human, as with any clinical vaccine research evaluating protective efficacy.

The capacity to perform CHIM studies has been developed in many countries such as USA, UK, Germany, Tanzania and Kenya. In the USA, more than 1000 volunteers have participated in CHMI trial since the last 25 years without any CHMI-related adverse events (7). Although for infectious disease, we mostly imported solutions in the form of drugs/vaccines from outside world, the situation is rapidly changing, e.g., development of rotavirus vaccine in India.

It is always easier to import rather than develop an indigenous solution. However, if polio vaccine would have been developed in India, we could be free of polio by a generation. Developing a CHIM study in India will require an arduous effort. In the current situation, it could be for diseases such as malaria and typhoid and not for Zika, dengue and even tuberculosis. It is also better not to perform the CHIM studies if the highest standards could not be maintained.

The most important obstacle in CHIM is of public perception. The perception could only be addressed if we could develop the scientific, ethical and regulatory framework for conducting CHIM studies involving the best of expertise in basic research, clinical research, ethics, regulation, law and social science, which should define the highest standards while conducting CHIM studies. The media should be allowed for their valuable criticism and wider transparent dissemination of proceedings.

The primary effort should be by a government organisation to prevent public suspicion of the involvement of commercial benefits by pharmaceutical companies as a motive force. One or two academic institutions of excellence should be chosen and the capacity to conduct CHIM studies could be developed. As infectious diseases are a moving target, the rigorous effort to discuss CHIM studies in India is urgently needed.

 

References:

  1. WHO. World Malaria Report. World Malar Rep. 2017;
  2. WHO | WHO prequalifies breakthrough vaccine for typhoid. WHO [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jan 17]; Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/news/2017/WHOprequalifies-breakthrough-typhoid-vaccine/en/
  3. Malaria Vaccines Development efforts in India through DBT Support | Department of Biotechnology [Internet]. [cited 2018 Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.dbtindia.nic.in/malaria-vaccines-dev-efforts-dbt/
  4. Bhardwaj R, Shakri AR, Hans D, Gupta P, Fernandez-Becerra C, del Portillo HA, et al. Production of recombinant PvDBPII, receptor binding domain of Plasmodium vivax Duffy binding protein, and evaluation of immunogenicity to identify an adjuvant formulation for vaccine development. Protein Expr Purif [Internet]. 2017 Aug [cited 2018 Jan 17];136:52–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578115
  5. Feasey NA, Levine MM. Typhoid vaccine development with a human challenge model. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2017 Dec 2 [cited 2018 Jan 17];390(10111):2419–21. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28965714
  6. Final report HPV vaccine [Internet]. 2501 [cited 2018 Jan 17]. Available from: http://www.icmr.nic.in/final/HPV PATH final report.pdf
  7. Spring M, Polhemus M, Ockenhouse C. Controlled Human Malaria Infection. J Infect Dis [Internet]. 2014 Jun 15 [cited 2018 Jan 16];209(suppl 2):S40–5. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiu063

 

Manish Manish is a SERB young scientist working at ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, New Delhi. Smriti Mishra is an ICMR-Research associate working at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Manish Manish is supported by SERB young scientist scheme YSS/2015/0031 and work at ICMR-NIMR. The opinions in the article are of the authors and do not reflect the opinion of either SERB or ICMR.

Joint Statement by the Three Science Academies of India

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

The full text of the statement by Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy and National Academy of Sciences, India:

 

The Hon. Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Shri Satyapal Singh has been quoted as saying that “Nobody, including our ancestors, in writing or orally, have said they saw an ape turning into a man. Darwin’s theory (of evolution of humans) is scientifically wrong. It needs to change in school and college curricula.”

The three Science Academies of India wish to state that there is no scientific basis for the Minister’s statements. Evolutionary theory, to which Darwin made seminal contributions, is well established. There is no scientific dispute about the basic facts of evolution. This is a scientific theory, and one that has made many predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by experiments and observation. An important insight from evolutionary theory is that all life forms on this planet, including humans and the other apes have evolved from one or a few common ancestral progenitors.

It would be a retrograde step to remove the teaching of the theory of evolution from school and college curricula or to dilute this by offering non-scientific explanations or myths.

The theory of evolution by natural selection as propounded by Charles Darwin and developed and extended subsequently has had a major influence on modern biology and medicine, and indeed all of modern science. It is widely supported across the world.
See for example http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

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

DISCLAIMER: The English version  presented above is the originally issued statement and is to be considered as the version for records.

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

भारतीय विज्ञान अकादमी, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय विज्ञान अकादमी तथा राष्ट्रीय विज्ञान अकादमी, इंडिया के संयुक्त वक्तव्य का पूरा आलेख:

बताया गया है कि माननीय मानव संसाधन विकास राज्यमंत्री श्री सत्यपाल सिंह ने कहा है कि हमारे पूर्वजों सहित किसी ने भी कभी यह कहा या लिखा नहीं है कि उन्होंने बंदर को मनुष्य में परिवर्तित होते हुए देखा है। डार्विन का (मनुष्य के क्रम-विकास का) सिद्धान्त वैज्ञानिक रूप से गलत है। अतः इसे विद्यालयों तथा महाविद्यालयों के पाठ्यक्रम में बदलना होगा।

तीनों विज्ञान अकादमियाँ यह कहना चाहती हैं कि मंत्री महोदय के कथन का कोई वैज्ञानिक आधार नहीं है। विकासवाद का सिद्धान्त (Theory of Evolution), जिसमें डार्विन ने महान योगदान दिया है, पूरी तरह प्रस्थापित है। विकासवाद के मूल तथ्यों के बारे में कोई वैज्ञानिक मतभेद नहीं है। यह एक ऐसा वैज्ञानिक सिद्धान्त है जिसने ऐसी कई भविष्यवाणियाँ की हैं जिनका अनेकों बार प्रयोगों तथा निरीक्षणों के द्वारा पुष्टिकरण किया जा चुका है। विकासवाद के सिद्धान्त की एक महत्वपूर्ण अन्तदृष्टि यह है कि मनुष्य तथा अन्य बंदरों सहित इस ग्रह के सभी प्राणियों का विकास एक या कुछ समान पैतृक प्रजनकों (common ancestral progenitors) से हुआ है।

विद्यालयों तथा महाविद्यालयों के पाठ्यक्रमों से विकासवाद के सिद्धान्त की पढ़ाई को निकाल देना या उसे किसी अन्य अवैज्ञानिक व्याख्यान या कल्पित गाथा से अपमिश्रित करना, एक बहुत ही पश्चगामी (retrograde) कदम होगा।

चार्ल्स डारविन द्वारा प्रतिपादित और उनके बाद विकसित एवं विस्तारित किया गया प्राकृतिक चयन द्वारा विकासवाद के सिद्धान्त का आधुनिक जीवविज्ञान, चिकित्साविज्ञान तथा संपूर्ण विज्ञानशास्त्र पर महान प्रभाव रहा है। पूरे विश्व में इसका समर्थन किया जाता है। उदाहरण के लिए देखें: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

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

 

பரிணாம வளர்ச்சி: இந்தியாவின் மூன்று அறிவியல் சங்கங்களின் அறிக்கை (இ அ ச, தே அ ச, மற்றும் இ தே அ ச)* .

 

நமது மத்திய (மாநில) மனிதவள மேலாண்மை அமைச்சர் மாண்புமிகு திரு. சத்யபால் சிங் அவர்கள் “எவரும், நம் முன்னோர்கள் உட்பட, ஒரு குரங்கு மனிதராக மாறுவதை எங்கும் சொல்லவோ அல்லது எழுதவோ இல்லை.டார்வினின் பரிணாம வளர்ச்சி கோட்பாடு அறிவியலின் படி தவறு. இதைப் பள்ளி மற்றும் கல்லூரிப்பாடங்களிலிருந்து நீக்க வேண்டும் ” என்று கூறியதாக தெரிகிறது.

இந்தியாவின் மூன்று அறிவியல் சங்கங்களும் அமைச்சரின் இக்கருத்துக்கு அறிவியல் அடிப்படை ஏதும் இல்லை என்று அறிவிக்க விழைகின்றன. பரிணாம வளர்ச்சிக் கோட்பாடு டார்வினின் மிக முக்கியமான பங்களிப்பால் அனைவராலும் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப் பட்டுள்ளது. அறிவியலாளர்கள் இடையே இக்கோட்பாடைப்பற்றிக் கருத்து வேறுபாடு இல்லை. இது ஒரு அறிவியல் கோட்பாடு. இதன் அடிப்படையில் அனுமானிக்கப் பட்ட பலவும் பரிசோதனைகளில் நிரூபிக்கப் பட்டுள்ளன. இப்பரிமான வளர்ச்சிக் கோட்பாட்டின் முக்கிய அம்சம் என்னவென்றால் இவ்வுலகில் காணப்படும் அணைத்து உயிரினங்களும், மனிதர்கள் மற்றும் குரங்குகள் உட்பட, ஒன்று அல்லது சில பொதுவான மூதாதையர்கள் வழியாக உருவானவை.

இக்கோட்பாட்டைப் பள்ளி மற்றும் கல்லூரிப் பாடத்திட்டங்களில் இருந்து நீக்குவது மற்றும் இதற்கு மாற்றாக அறிவியல் சாரத கட்டுக்கதை விளக்கங்கள் இணைப்பது மிகவும் பிற்போக்கான செயல்.

சார்லஸ் டார்வினால் எடுத்துரைக்கப்பட்ட பரிமாண வளர்ச்சிக் கோட்பாடு மற்றும் இயற்கைத் தேர்வு முறை மேலும் பல அறிவியலாளர்களின் பங்களிப்பால் மிகவும் வளர்ந்துள்ளது. இது நவீன உயிரியல் மற்றும் மருத்துவத் துறைகளில், ஏன் நவீன அறிவியலில், பெரும் பங்காற்றுகிறது. இதற்கு உலகளாவிய ஆதரவு உள்ளது. மேலும் விபரங்களுக்குக் காண்க: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

*இந்திய அறிவியல் சங்கம், தேசிய அறிவியல் சங்கம் மற்றும் இந்திய தேசிய அறிவியல் சங்கம்

 

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

ಐಎಎಸ್ಸಿ (ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು), ಐಎನ್‍ಎಸ್ಎ(ನವದೆಹಲಿ) ಮತ್ತು ಎನ್‍ಎಎಸ್‍ಐ(ಅಲಹಾಬಾದ್) ಈ ಮೂರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಅಕಾಡಮಿಗಳ ಜಂಟೀ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಪಾಠ:

ಮಾನವ ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯದ ಮಾನ್ಯ ರಾಜ್ಯಸಚಿವರಾದ ಗೌರವಾನ್ವಿತ ಶ್ರೀ ಸತ್ಯಪಾಲ ಸಿಂಗ್ ಅವರು “ ನಮ್ಮ ಪೂರ್ವಜರೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಯಾರೂ ಬರಹದ ಮೂಲಕವಾಗಲೀ ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿಯಾಗಲೀ ಕಪಿಯು ಮಾನವನಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು ನೋಡಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ. ಡಾರ್ವಿನ್ನನ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ (ಮಾನವ ವಿಕಾಸವನ್ನು ಕುರಿತು) ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕವಾಗಿ ತಪ್ಪು. ಇದನ್ನು ಶಾಲಾಕಾಲೇಜುಗಳ ಪಠ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಬೇಕು” ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ಉದ್ಧರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಮೂರೂ ಭಾರತೀಯ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ ಅಕಾಡಮಿಗಳು ಸಚಿವರ ಈ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕವಾದ ಆಧಾರವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಲು ಇಚ್ಛಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ವಿಕಾಸ ಸಿದ್ದಾಂತಕ್ಕೆ ಡಾರ್ವಿನ್ ಮೂಲಭೂತವಾದ ಕೊಡುಗೆಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುವುದು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಸ್ಥಾಪಿತವಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಕಾಸವಾದದ ಮೂಲಭೂತವಾದ ಸತ್ಯಗಳಿಗೆ  ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕವಾದ ವಿವಾದಗಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದೊಂದು ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತವಾಗಿದ್ದು ಈ ಕುರಿತ ಅನೇಕ ಊಹೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪುನರಾವರ್ತಿತ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಧೃಡೀಕರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಕಾಸ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತದ ಒಂದು ಒಳನೋಟವೇನೆಂದರೆ, ಈ ಗ್ರಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾನವ ಮತ್ತಿತರ ಮಂಗಗಳೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಜೀವರಾಶಿಗಳು ರೂಪಪಡೆದಿವೆ ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಒಂದು ಅಥವಾ ಹಲವುಹೆಚ್ಚು ಸಮಾನ ಪೂರ್ವಿಕ ಸಂತತಿಯ ಗುಣಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ವಿಕಾಸವಾಗಿದೆ.

ಶಾಲೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಲೇಜುಗಳ ಪಠ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಿಂದ ವಿಕಾಸ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಬೋಧನೆಯನ್ನು ತೆಗೆಯುವುದು ಅಥವಾ ಅವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ವಿವರಣೆಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ಭ್ರಮೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಅದನ್ನು ದುರ್ಬಲಗೊಳಿಸುವುದು ಪಠ್ಯಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಕೆಳಮಟ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಇಳಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆಯಷ್ಟೇ.

ಚಾರ್ಲ್ಸ್ ಡಾರ್ವಿನ್ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟು ತರುವಾಯ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಪಡಿಸಿ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಲಾಗಿರುವ ಪ್ರಾಕೃತಿಕ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ವಿಕಾಸದ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತವು ಆಧುನಿಕ ಜೀವಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಔಷಧಗಳ ಮೇಲೆಯೇ ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಎಲ್ಲ ಆಧುನಿಕ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪ್ರಮುಖವಾದ ಪರಿಣಾಮವನ್ನು ಬೀರಿದೆ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ವಿಶ್ವಾದ್ಯಂತ ವ್ಯಾಪಕವಾದ ಬೆಂಬಲವನ್ನೂ ಪಡೆದಿದೆ. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗಾಗಿ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿ: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

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

 

Joint statement in Urdu

 

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

ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ੳੁਪਰ: ਤਿੰਨ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਅਕਾਦਮੀਅਾਂਂ ਦਾ ਬਿਅਾਨ

ਮਾਣਯੋਗ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਵਸੀਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਕਾਸ ਰਾਜ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਸਤਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਕਿਹਾ ਹੈ, “ਸਾਡੇ ਪੂਰਵਜਾਂ ਜਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਨੇ, ਲਿਖਿਤ ਜਾਂ ਜ਼ਬਾਨੀ ਕਦੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ  ਬਾਂਦਰ ਤੋਂ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਬਣਦਾ ਵੇਖਿਅਾ ਹੈ। ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਦਾ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ। ਸਕੂਲ ਤੇ ਕਾਲਜ ਦੇ ਪਾਠਕ੍ਰਮ ਵਿੱਚ ੲਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਬਦਲਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ 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 ਜੋਗਦਾਨ 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।

ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਨੂੰ ਸਕੂਲਾਂ ਕਾਲਜਾਂ ਦੇ ਪਾਠਕ੍ਰਮ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਕਢਣਾ ਤੇ  ਜਾਂ ੲਿਸ ਦੀ ਥਾਂ ਅਣ-ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨਕ ਤੇ ਮਿਥਿਹਾਸਕ ਸਿਧਾਂਤਾ ਨੂੰਪੜਾੳੁਣਾਂ ੲਿੱਕ ਪਿਛਾਂਹ ਖਿਚੂ ਕਦਮ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ।

ਚਾਰਲਜ਼ ਡਾਰਵਿਨ ਨੇ ਕੁਦਰਤੀ ਚੋਣ ਦੇ ਅਾਧਾਰ ਤੇ  ਜੋ ੲੇਵੋਲੂਸ਼ਨ ਦਾ ਸਿਧਾਂਤ ਦਿੱਤਾ, ਤੇ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਬਾਅਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਅੱਗੇ ਵਧਾੲਿਅਾ ਗਿਅਾ, ਦਾ ਵੱਡਾ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਅਜੋਕੇ ਜੀਵ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ਤੇ ਚਕਿਤਸਾ ੳੁਪਰ, ਤੇ
ਅਸਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਾਰੇ ਅਜੋਕੇ ਵਿਗਿਅਾਨ ੳੁਪਰ ਹੈ। ੲਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਨੀਅਾਂ ਭਰ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੈ। ੳੁਦਾਹਰਣ ਦੇ ਤੋਰ ਤੇ   http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

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

माननीय केंद्रीय मनुष्यबळ विकास मंत्री श्री. सत्यपाल सिंह यांच्या भाषणाच्या प्रसिद्ध झालेल्या वृत्तांतानुसार त्यांनी एक विधान केले आहे आणि ते असे आहे –“ आजतागायत आपले पूर्वज तसेच इतर कुठल्याही व्यक्तींनी , वानरांचे मनुष्यात रूपांतर होतांना प्रत्यक्ष पहिल्याचे लेखी किंवा तोंडी स्वरूपात कुठेही नमूद केलेले नाही. डार्विनचा ( मानवउत्क्रांतीचा ) सिद्धांत हा शास्त्रीय दृष्ट्या चुकीचा आहे. त्यामुळे तो शालेय आणि महाविद्यालयीन अभ्यासक्रमांमध्ये बदलला पाहिजे.”

भारतातल्या तीनही विज्ञान अकादमींचं याला प्रत्युत्तर आहे की मंत्रीमहोदयांच्या विधानाला कुठलाही वैज्ञानिक आधार नाही. मानवउत्क्रांतीचा सिद्धांत हा वैज्ञानिक दृष्ट्या अनेकप्रकारे सिद्ध झालेला आहे आणि या प्रक्रियेत डार्विनचे संशोधन मूलभूत आणि दूरगामी स्वरूपाचे आहे. उत्क्रांतीच्या मूळ स्वरूपाबाबत कुठलेही वैज्ञानिक वाद अस्तित्वात नाहीत. हा एक वैज्ञानिक सिद्धांत आहे आणि त्या सिद्धांताला अनुसरून व्यक्त केलेल्या अनेक शक्यता दीर्घकालीन प्रयोगांमधून आणि निरीक्षणातून सातत्याने सिद्ध झाल्या आहेत. वानर आणि मानव यांच्यासह पृथ्वीवरील सर्व सजीवसृष्टीचे वैविध्य हे एका किंवा काही विशिष्ट समान प्रजनकांपासून (common ancestral progenitors) विस्तारित झाले आहे ही एक महत्त्वाची अंतर्यामी दृष्टी उत्क्रांती-सिद्धांताने दिलेली आहे.

शालेय आणि महाविद्यालयीन अभ्यासक्रमांमधून उत्क्रांती-सिद्धांत वगळणे किंवा अवैज्ञानिक स्पष्टीकरणे आणि पुराणकथांद्वारे त्याचे महत्व कमी करणे हे एक कालविसंगत आणि प्रतिगामी पाऊल ठरेल.

चार्ल्स डार्विनचा निसर्गनिवडीच्या तत्त्वावर आधारलेला आणि इतरांनी भर घालून वृद्धिंगत केलेला उत्क्रांती-सिद्धांत हा आधुनिक वैद्यकशास्त्रातला आणि जीवशास्त्रातला, किंबहुना आधुनिक विज्ञानातील महत्त्वाचा आणि प्रभावी सिद्धांत आहे. तो संपूर्ण विश्वात सर्वमान्य आहे.

उदाहरणार्थ पहा: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

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

ভারতীয় বিজ্ঞান একাডেমী, ভারতীয় জাতীয় বিজ্ঞান একাডেমী এবং জাতীয় বিজ্ঞান একাডেমী, ভারত -এর দেওয়া যৌথ বিবৃতি (সম্পূর্ণ):

উদ্ধৃতি অনুযায়ী, মাননীয় মানব সম্পদ উন্নয়ন প্রতিমন্ত্রী শ্রী সত্যপাল সিংহ বলেছেন যে আমাদের পূর্বপুরুষ সহ কেউ কখনো মৌখিক বা লিখিত ভাবে বলেননি যে তাঁরা বানর কে মানুষে রূপান্তরিত হতে দেখেছেন। ডারউইনের (মানব বিবর্তনের) তত্ত্ব বৈজ্ঞানিক ভাবে ভুল। স্কুলের এবং কলেজের পাঠ্যক্রমে এটিকে বদলানো প্রয়োজন।

ভারতবর্ষের তিন বিজ্ঞান একাডেমী জানাতে চায় যে মন্ত্রী মহোদয়ের এই উক্তির কোনো বৈজ্ঞানিক ভিত্তি নেই। বিবর্তনবাদ একটি সুপ্রতিষ্ঠিত তত্ত্ব, যাতে ডারউইনের অবদান অনস্বীকার্য। বিবর্তনের মূল তত্ত্ব সম্বন্ধে কোনো বৈজ্ঞানিক মতভেদ নেই। এটি একটি বৈজ্ঞানিক তত্ত্ব, এবং এর থেকে পাওয়া বহু পূর্বাভাস বার-বার পরীক্ষা-নিরীক্ষার মাধ্যমে নিশ্চিতরূপে প্রমাণ করা হয়েছে। বিবর্তনবাদের একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ উপলব্ধি হলো যে মানুষ এবং বানর সহ এই গ্রহের সমস্ত প্রাণী এক অথবা অল্পসংখ্যক কিছু সাধারণ পূর্বপুরুষ (common ancestral progenitor) থেকে উদ্ভূত হয়েছে ।

স্কুল এবং কলেজের পাঠ্যক্রম থেকে বিবর্তনবাদকে বাদ দেওয়া, অথবা অবৈজ্ঞানিক তত্ত্ব কিংবা পুরাকথার মাধ্যমে তার লঘুকরণ এক পশ্চাৎগামী পদক্ষেপ হবে।

চার্লস ডারউইনের প্রাকৃতিক নির্বাচনের মাধ্যমে বিবর্তনের যে তত্ত্ব, তাকে পরবর্তীকালে অনেক উন্নীত এবং পরিবর্ধিত করা হয়েছে এবং এই তত্ত্ব আধুনিক জীববিজ্ঞান, চিকিৎসাশাস্ত্র এবং সামগ্রিক ভাবে আধুনিক বিজ্ঞানকে নানারূপে প্রভাবিত করেছে। সারা বিশ্বে একে প্রভূতভাবে সমর্থন করা হয়। উদাহরণস্বরূপ দেখুন: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

====================
ଭାରତୀୟ ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଏକାଡେମୀ, ଭାରତୀୟ ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରୀୟ ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଏକାଡେମୀ ତଥା ରାଷ୍ଟ୍ରୀୟ ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଏକାଡେମୀର ବକ୍ତବ୍ୟର ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ୍ୟ:

ମାନନୀୟ ରାଜ୍ୟ ମାନବ ସମ୍ବଳ ବିକାଶ ମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ଶ୍ରୀଯୁକ୍ତ ସତ୍ୟପାଳ ସିଂ ଙ୍କ ଅନୁସାରେ ଆମ୍ଭର ପୂର୍ବଜଙ୍କ ସହିତ ଅନ୍ୟ କେହିମଧ୍ୟ ଏହା ଲେଖି କିମ୍ବା କହି ନାହାନ୍ତି କି, ସେମାନେ ବାନର ଙ୍କୁ ମନୁଷ୍ୟ ରେ ରୂପାନ୍ତରିତ ହେବାର ଦେଖିଅଛନ୍ତି। ଡାରୱିନ୍ ଙ୍କର (ମନୁଷ୍ୟର କ୍ରମବିକାଶ ର) ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ ବୈଜ୍ଞାନିକ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣରୁ ଭୁଲ୍ ଅଟେ। ଏଣୁ ଏହାକୁ ବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ତଥା ମହାବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ର ପାଠ୍ୟକ୍ରମରୁ ବଦଳାଇବା ଉଚିତ।
ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ତିନୋଟି ଭାରତୀୟ ଶିକ୍ଷା ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାନ ଏହା କହିବାକୁ ଚାହୁଁ ଅଛନ୍ତି କି, ଉକ୍ତ ମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମହୋଦୟଙ୍କ ବାର୍ତ୍ତାର କୌଣସି ବୈଜ୍ଞାନିକ ଆଧାର ନାହିଁ, ବିକାଶବାଦର ସିଦ୍ଧନ୍ତ (Theory of evolution) ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ଡାରୱିନ୍ ଙ୍କର ମହାନ ଯୋଗଦାନ ଅଛି, ସେଥିରେ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ରୂପେ ସ୍ଥାପନ କରିଅଛନ୍ତି। କ୍ରମବିକାଶ ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତର ମୌଳିକ ସମ୍ମତି ଉପରେ କୌଣସି ପ୍ରକାରର ବୈଜ୍ଞାନିକ ବିବାଦ ନାହିଁ। ଏହା ଏପରି ଏକ ବୈଜ୍ଞାନିକ ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ ଯାହାକି ଏପରି ଅନେକ ଭବିଷ୍ୟବାଣୀ କରିଅଛି, ଯାହାର ଅନେକ ଥର ପ୍ରୟୋଗ ତଥା ନିରୀକ୍ଷଣ ଦ୍ୱାରା ପୃଷ୍ଟିକରଣ କରାଯାଇଅଛି। କ୍ରମବିକାଶର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତର ଏକ ମହତ୍ୱପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଦୃଷ୍ଟି ଏହିକି, ମନୁଷ୍ୟ ତଥା ଅନ୍ୟ ବାନର ସହ ଏହି ଗ୍ରହର ସମସ୍ତ ପ୍ରାଣୀଙ୍କର ବିକାଶ ଏକ ବା କିଛି ସମାନ ପୂର୍ବଜଙ୍କ ଠୁ ହି ହୋଇଅଛି।
ବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ତଥା ମହାବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟର ପାଠ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ରେ କ୍ରମବିକାଶବାଦ ର ସିଦ୍ଧନ୍ତର ବିଷୟ କୁ ବହିର୍ଭୁତ କରିବା କିମ୍ବା ତାହାକୁ ଅନ୍ୟ କୌଣସି ଅଣବୈଜ୍ଞାନିକ ବ୍ୟାଖ୍ୟା କିମ୍ବା କଳ୍ପକଳ୍ପିତ ବିଷୟରେ ଅପମିଶ୍ରଣ କରିବା ଏକ ପଛଘୁଞ୍ଚା ପଦକ୍ଷେପ ହେବ।
ଚାର୍ଲସ୍ ଡାରୱିନ୍ ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ଵାରା ପ୍ରତିପାଦିତ ଏବଂ ତତ୍-ପରେ ବିକଶିତ ଏବଂ ବିସ୍ତାରିତ ପ୍ରାକୃତିକ ଚୟନ ଦ୍ୱାରା କ୍ରମବିକାଶବାଦ ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତର ଆଧୁନିକ ଜୀବବିଜ୍ଞାନ, ଚିକିତ୍ସାବିଜ୍ଞାନ ତଥା ସମ୍ପୁର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବିଜ୍ଞାନଶାସ୍ତ୍ର ଉପରେ ମହାନ ପ୍ରଭାବ ରହିଅଛି। ସମ୍ପୁର୍ଣ୍ଣ ବିଶ୍ୱରେ ଏହାର ସମର୍ଥନ କରାଯାଇଅଛି।
ଉଦାହରଣ ପାଇଁ ନିମ୍ନୋକ୍ତ Link କୁ ଦେଖନ୍ତୁ; http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

====================
కోతి మనిషిగా మారే పరిణామక్రమం గురించి మన పూర్వీకులుగాని ఇంకా ఎవరైనాగాని చూసినట్లుగా,
వ్రాత పూర్వకంగానూ మౌఖికంగానూ చెప్పలేదు. డార్విన్ సిద్ధాంతం (మానవ పరిణామక్రమం) వైజ్ఞానికంగా తప్పు. కాబట్టి మన పాఠశాలల్లోనూ, కళాశాలల్లోనూ పాఠ్య ప్రణాళికలలో మార్పు అవసరం” అని గౌరవనీయులైన  మానవ వనరుల అభివృద్ధి
శాఖ, సహాయ మంత్రి వర్యులు శ్రీ సత్యపాల్ సింగ్ గారు చెప్పినట్లు పేర్కొనబడింది.

మంత్రి గారు పేర్కోన్న వ్యాఖ్యలకు ఎటువంటి వైజ్ఞానిక ఆధారాలు లేవు అని సైన్స్ అకాడమీలు మూడు చెప్పదలుచుకున్నయి. డార్విన్ విశిష్ట సేవ చేసినటువంటి జీవ పరిణామక్రమ సిద్ధాంతం భాగా స్థాపించబడింది. జీవ పరిణామ సిద్ధాంతం గురించిన ప్రాథమిక వాస్తవాలకి సంబంధించి ఎటువంటి శాస్త్రీయమైన వివాదాలు లేవు. ఇది ఒక వైజ్ఞానిక సిద్ధాంతం. ప్రయోగాలూ, పరిశీలనల ద్వారా దీని అంచనాలు పదే పదే ధ్రువీకరించబడ్డాయి. పరిణామ సిద్ధాంతం వల్ల వచ్చిన
ముఖ్యమైన అవగాహాన ఏమిటి అంటే మనుషులు, మరియు మిగతా కోతి జాతులతోపాటు ప్రపంచంలో ఉన్న అన్ని జీవ రాసులకి మూలాలు ఒక్కటి గాని, కొన్నిగాని ఉన్నాయి.

ఈ సిద్ధాంతాన్ని పాఠశాల మరియు కళాశాలల పాఠ్య ప్రాణాళికలనుండి తొలగించడంగానీ అశాస్త్రీయమైన లేదా ఊహాజనితమైన వివరణలను జోడించడంగానీ వంటివి  చేయడం వెనకడుగే అవుతుంది.

నేచురల్ సెలక్షన్  సూత్రం ద్వారా జరిగే జీవ పరిణామక్రమ సిద్ధాంతాన్ని డార్విన్ ప్రతిపాదించాడు. ఇది క్రమేణా విస్తరింపబడుతూ ఆధునిక జీవశాస్త్రాన్ని మరియు వైద్య శాస్త్రాన్నే కాకుండా సమస్త  వైజ్ఞానిక శాస్త్రాలని ప్రభావితం చేసింది. ఈ విషయం ప్రపంచంలో విస్తృతంగా. గుర్తించబడింది. ఉదాహరణకి: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

====================
Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, National Academy of Sciences, India എന്നിവർ  ചേർന്ന്  നടത്തിയ പ്രസ്താവനയുടെ പൂർണ്ണ രൂപം.

ബഹു. മാനവശേഷി വികസന സഹമന്ത്രി, ശ്രീ സത്യപാൽ സിംഗ് , “നമ്മുടെ പൂർവ്വികർ ഉൾപ്പെടെ ആരും, എഴുത്തിലൂടേയോ   വാമൊഴിയായോ , ഒരു കുരങ്ങൻ  മാറി മനുഷ്യനാവുന്നതു കണ്ടു എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. ഡാർവിന്റെ പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം ശാസ്ത്രീയമായി തെറ്റാണ്. സ്കൂൾ, കോളേജ് പാഠ്യപദ്ധതിയിലും ഇതു മാറ്റേണ്ടത് ആവശ്യമാണ്.” എന്നു പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു.

ഇന്ത്യയിലെ മൂന്നു സയൻസ് അക്കാദമികൾ, മന്ത്രിയുടെ  പ്രസ്താവന ശാസ്ത്രീയപരമായി അടിസ്ഥാനരഹിതമാണ്എന്ന് പ്രസ്താവിക്കാൻ  ആഗ്രഹിക്കുന്നു. ഡാർവിൻ അടിസ്ഥാനപരമായ സംഭാവനകൾ ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ള പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം വ്യക്തമായി സ്ഥാപിതമാണ്. പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തത്തിന്റെ  അടിസ്ഥാന വസ്തുതകൾ  തർക്കവിമുക്തമാണ് . അതിന്റെ ‘predictions’ നിരവധി നിരീക്ഷണങ്ങളിലൂടെയും പരീക്ഷണങ്ങളിലൂടെയും പല തവണ സ്ഥിരീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്. പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തത്തിൽ  നിന്നുള്ള ഒരു പ്രധാന ഉൾക്കാഴ്ച, മനുഷ്യരും മറ്റ് കുരങ്ങുകളും ഉൾപ്പെടെ ഈ ഗ്രഹത്തിലെ എല്ലാ ജീവരൂപങ്ങളും, ഒന്നോ അല്ലെങ്കിൽ വളരെ കുറച്ചു, പൊതുപൂർവികജീവികളിൽ നിന്നും ഉരുത്തിരിഞ്ഞതാണ്  എന്നതാണ്.

സ്കൂൾ, കോളേജ് പാഠ്യപദ്ധതിയിൽ  നിന്നും പരിണാമ സിദ്ധാന്തം നീക്കം ചെയ്യുന്നതോ,  അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ശാസ്ത്രീയമല്ലാത്ത  വിശദീകരണങ്ങളോ,  മിഥ്യാധാരണകളോ ഉപയോഗിച്ചു അതിനെ നേർപ്പിക്കുന്നതോ, ഒരു പിന്തിരിപ്പൻ നടപടി ആകും.

ചാൾസ് ഡാർവിൻ മുന്നോട്ടു വച്ചതും, പിന്നീട് കൂടുതൽ വികസിക്കപ്പെടുകയും ചെയ്തതായ, പ്രകൃതി നിർദ്ധാരണം മുഖേനയുള്ള പരിണാമസിദ്ധാന്തം, ആധുനിക ബയോളജി, മെഡിസിൻ എന്നിവയിലും മറ്റു ആധുനിക ശാസ്ത്രങ്ങളിലും പ്രധാന സ്വാധീനം ചെലുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ലോകമെമ്പാടും അത് പിന്തുണയ്ക്കപ്പെടുന്നുമുണ്ട്. ഉദ്ധാഹാരണത്തിനു http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

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

 

આપણા દેશની ત્રણ પ્રસિદ્ધ સંસ્થાઓ ઇન્ડિયન એકેડમી ઓફ સાયંસિઝ, ઇન્ડિયન નેશનલ સાયંસ એકેડમી અને નેશનલ એકેડમી ઓફ સાયંસિઝ દ્વારા પ્રસિદ્ધ કરવામાં આવેલ નિવેદન નીચે મુજબ છે.

માનવ સંસાધન વિકાસ મંત્રાલયના માનદ રાજ્યકક્ષાના મંત્રિશ્રી સત્યપાલસિંઘને એમ કહેતા ટાંકવામાં આવેલ છે કે, “આપણા પુર્વજો સહિત કોઇએ પણ લેખિત કે મૌખિક રીતે એમ જણાવેલ નથી કે તેઓએ કોઇ વાનરને માનવમાં રુપાંતરિત થતો જોયો હતો. ડાર્વિનનો માનવ ઉત્ક્રાંતિવાદનો સિદ્ધાંત ખોટો છે. તેથી એ મુદ્દો શાળા અને કોલેજના અભ્યાસક્રમમાં ફેરફાર માંગે છે.”

ભારતની ત્રણ વિજ્ઞાન અકાદમીઓ આથી જણાવવા ઇચ્છે છે કે માનનીય  મંત્રિશ્રીનાં  આ નિવેદનનો કોઇ વૈજ્ઞાનિક આધાર નથી. ઉત્ક્રાંતિવાદ કે જેમાં ડાર્વિને પાયાનું યોગદાન આપેલ છે તે પુરેપુરો પ્રસ્થાપિત થઇ ચુકેલ છે. ઉત્ક્રાંતિને લગતાં મૂળભુત તથ્યો વિષે કોઇ વૈજ્ઞાનિક મતભેદ નથી. આ એક વૈજ્ઞાનિક સિદ્ધાંત છે કે જેમાં ઘણી આગાહીઓ પણ કરવામાં આવેલ, અને તેની  અનેક વાર ફરી ફરીને પ્રયોગો તેમજ અવલોકનો દ્વારા પુષ્ટિ થઇ ચુકેલ છે. ઉત્ક્રાંતિવાદમાંથી મળતી એક આંતર્દૃષ્ટિ કે સુઝસમજ એ છે કે આ પૃથ્વી-ગ્રહ પરના માનવ કે અન્ય વાનરો સહિતના તમામ સજીવ -પ્રકારો, એક કે વધુ સમાન પૈતૃક પ્રજનકો (common ancestral progenitors) માંથી ઉત્ક્રાંતિ પામેલ છે.

આમ, શાળા-કોલેજોના પાઠ્યક્રમમાંથી ઉત્ક્રાંતિવાદનો અભ્યાસ રદ કરવો અથવા કોઇ અવૈજ્ઞાનિક સમજુતિ કે કલ્પના-કથા દ્વારા તેને મંદ પાડવો એ એક પિછેહઠનું પગલું ગણાશે.

ચાર્લ્સ ડાર્વિને જે પ્રતિપાદિત કર્યો એ પ્રાકૃતિક પસંદગી દ્વારા ઉત્ક્રાંતિનો સિદ્ધાંત કે જે ત્યારબાદ વિકસાવીને વધુ  વિસ્તૃત કરવામાં આવ્યો છે, તેનો આધુનિક જીવવિજ્ઞાન અને ચિકિત્સાશાસ્ત્રમાં  તેમજ સમગ્ર વિજ્ઞાન પર બહુ મોટો પ્રભાવ પડેલ છે. વળી તે સિદ્ધાંતને જગતભરમાંથી વ્યાપક સમર્થન મળેલ છે. આ અંગેની વધુ વિગતો માટે જુઓ,

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Translation: Prof. K.N. Joshipura.

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

 

Join statement in Manipuri (Bengali script, Meitei script)

 

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

 

ভাৰতবৰ্ষৰ মানৱ সম্পদ উন্নয়নৰ ৰাজ্যিক মন্ত্ৰী, শ্ৰী সত্যপাল সিঙৰ উদ্ধৃতি অনুসৰি, “আমাৰ লগতে পূৰ্ব প্ৰজন্মৰ কোনো লোকেই মানৱ বিৱৰ্তনৰ প্ৰক্ৰিয়া দেখা পোৱা নাই অথবা তেওঁলোকে লিখিত বা মৌখিকভাৱে মানুহৰ বিৱৰ্তন সম্পৰ্কে কোনো কথা প্ৰকাশ কৰা নাই। গতিকে এইক্ষেত্ৰত ডাৰউইনৰ (মানুহৰ বিৱৰ্তনৰ) মতবাদটো শুদ্ধ নহয়। সেয়েহে বিদ্যালয়-মহাবিদ্যালয়ৰ পাঠ্যক্ৰমত এই মতবাদটো পৰিবৰ্তন কৰাটো প্ৰয়োজনীয়।”

ভাৰতবৰ্ষৰ তিনিখন উচ্চ বিজ্ঞান শৈক্ষিক প্ৰতিষ্ঠানে অলপতে এই বিষয়ত প্ৰতিক্ৰিয়া প্ৰকাশ কৰি কৈছে যে মন্ত্ৰীৰ এই মন্তব্য বিজ্ঞানসন্মতভাৱে গ্ৰহণযোগ্য নহয়। ডাৰউইনৰ এই বিৱৰ্তনৰ মতবাদটো হৈছে এক বিজ্ঞানসন্মতভাৱে প্ৰতিষ্ঠিত মতবাদ। এই মতবাদক অস্বীকাৰ কৰিব পৰাকৈ কোনোধৰণৰ বিজ্ঞানসন্মত প্ৰমাণ দিব পৰা নাযায়। ই হৈছে এক বিজ্ঞানৰ মতবাদ, যিয়ে বিভিন্ন পৰীক্ষা-নিৰীক্ষাৰ জৰিয়তে বহু তথ্যৰ ভবিষ্যবাণী প্ৰদান কৰি ইতিমধ্যে ইয়াৰ সত্যতা প্ৰমাণ কৰিছে। মতবাদটোৰ এটা গুৰুত্বপূৰ্ণ তত্ত্ব হ’ল যে মানুহৰ লগতে পৃথিৱীৰ সকলোবোৰ জীৱৰ বিকাশ সম্ভৱ হৈছে কিছুমান পূৰ্ব একেজাতীয় জীৱৰ ক্ৰমবিকাশৰ দ্বাৰা।

গতিকে যিকোনো অবিজ্ঞানসন্মত ব্যৱৰণৰ ওপৰত ভিত্তি কৰিয়ে পাঠ্যক্ৰমৰপৰা এই মতবাদটো আঁ‌তৰাই দিয়াটো এটা পশ্চাৎমুখী পদক্ষেপ হিচাপে বিবেচিত হ’ব।

চাৰ্লছ ডাৰউইনৰ দ্বাৰা উদ্ভাৱন আৰু বিকশিত হোৱা এই মতবাদটোৱে জীৱবিজ্ঞান, চিকিৎসা বিজ্ঞানৰ লগতে আধুনিক বিজ্ঞানৰ সকলো ক্ষেত্ৰতে এক গুৰুত্বপূৰ্ণ ভুমিকা পালন কৰি আহিছে। বিৱৰ্তনৰ এই মতবাদটো বৃস্তিতভাৱে পৃথিৱীৰ সকলো ঠাইতে প্ৰযোজ্য আৰু গ্ৰহণযোগ্য।

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

Joint statement in Kashmiri

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

Defying both Logic and Biology

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Several media outlets in India (here, here, here, here) have recently reported on comments dismissing the theory of evolution made by the Hon. Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Government of India, Dr. Satyapal Singh, apparently while speaking with reporters in Aurangabad (Maharashtra), where he was attending the Akhil Bhartiya Vaidik Sammelan (All India Vedic Conference). The office of the minister (@OfficeOfSPS) has also put out a video of these remarks in a tweet. Speaking in Hindi, Dr. Singh said that our ancestors in the past thousands and hundreds of thousands of years have never written or said that they saw, in any jungle or town, a monkey turning into a human. Therefore, he said, Darwin’s theory regarding evolution was scientifically wrong, as no one had ever seen a monkey turn into a human, and that ever since man had come on the earth, he was man, and would remain so forever. He also said that our school and college teaching should be altered to reflect this. He then went on to say that, although many in the audience may not know it, scientists in foreign countries had established that the notion of evolution had no truth to it, about 35 years ago.

 

What has been said by Dr. Singh is wrong at multiple levels. Indeed, it defies both logic and biology. First, the broad facts of evolution, and how it occurs, as well as the rough timeline of major changes in human, and hominid, evolution are widely accepted by scientists worldwide. There are, no doubt, debates within evolutionary biology about details, as there are in any area of science. That does not mean that there is dispute over the broad tenets of the Darwinian view of evolution. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that Darwin’s explanation of evolution is wrong. People, including scientists in India, routinely observe evolutionary change, including the first steps towards species formation via reproductive isolation, in the laboratory. I am also at a loss to understand what evidence was presented 35 years ago to debunk evolution as a biological concept. I can only hazard a guess that Dr. Singh was referring to the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ debate of the 1970s, which was a technical argument about whether evolutionary change is usually slow and relatively continuous, or rapid, interspersed with long periods of relatively little change. If that be the case, he clearly has not understood the nature of that debate at all. Moreover, logically speaking, if there is no record of someone seeing something, that is no particular reason to believe that it cannot have happened. Even more surprising is Dr. Singh’s expectation that our ancestors, who were presumably already human since he expected them to speak or write about their experiences and observations, would have been able to observe monkeys turning into humans when they had already evolved to become human themselves. The conflation of a Darwinian view of evolution with monkeys turning into humans is itself spectacularly wrong. Evolutionary biology tells us that humans, and all other apes and primates, including monkeys, are descended from a common ancestor in the relatively recent evolutionary past. The empirical evidence for this is striking and includes phylogenetic reconstruction of our evolutionary lineage(s) using DNA sequence data and the theory of molecular population genetics, both of which also underlie many advances in bio-medical genomics that our government is heavily invested in encouraging.

 

The remarks of the Hon. Minister are also distressing in light of the many contributions of Indian scientists, within the Darwinian paradigm, in the generation of new knowledge in evolutionary biology. Indian evolutionary biologists have made major internationally recognized conceptual and empirical contributions to our understanding of various phenomena in evolutionary biology, including coevolution of insects and plants, parent-offspring conflict, hybridization and race-formation, evolution of sociality, evolution of competitive ability, evolutionary history of various animal lineages in the sub-continent, genome-level sexual conflict and evolution in fluctuating environments. Just last year, the contributions of Indian evolutionary biologists to contemporary debates about the conceptual structure of ‘core’ evolutionary theory were highlighted by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.

 

Incidentally, the Indian Academy of Sciences and the Indian National Science Academy are signatories to a 2006 Inter-Academy Panel ‘Statement on the Teaching of Evolution’, supported by 67 science academies from around the world. In the beginning of this statement, the academies express their concern thus: “We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.”

 

There are, of course, many websites maintained by creationists, especially in the USA, that routinely try to project evolutionary biology as a mere theory that has no widespread support in the scientific community. Some individuals who broadly share Dr. Singh’s world view (@rammadhavbjp) have been referring to such sites in tweets supporting his assertion that evolution is a scientifically discredited notion. One of the references in these tweets is to an article misleadingly titled ‘Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution’. However, this article is referencing an older piece listing scientists who have signed on to the statement “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This list has been criticized by many scientists, too.  Such sites are trying to portray a narrow technical argument about the relative importance of natural selection acting on small variants versus mutational biases in affecting the course of evolution as a broad-scale rejection of the Darwinian paradigm. It is possible that one could get misled by such creationist sites but, then, one would have hoped that Dr. Singh would have taken the trouble to ask any of the evolutionary biologists in India, mostly working for MHRD or DST supported institutions, for their professional views on the matter, before concluding that evolution was discredited and that our curricula should be changed accordingly. It is heartening to note that the Indian Academy of Sciences (Bengaluru), The Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi), and the National Academy of Sciences, India (Allahabad), have issued a joint statement saying “The three Science Academies of India wish to state that there is no scientific basis for the Minister’s statements. Evolutionary theory, to which Darwin made seminal contributions, is well established. There is no scientific dispute about the basic facts of evolution” (see here and here). Numerous scientists, teachers and students have also signed a petition urging the Hon. Minister to retract his remarks.

 

Calling for evolutionary biology not to be taught also has practical consequences. If we were to throw away the Darwinian paradigm of evolutionary biology, it would severely compromise our ability to study and find remedies for such pressing societal challenges as the evolution of multi-drug resistance in bacteria, to take just one example (see here).

 

What is particularly sad about these statements by Dr. Singh is that he is both trained in science (MSc and MPhil in chemistry) and the minister of state of the ministry overseeing higher education in the country. Given the latter, these are views of someone in a position to directly affect educational and research priorities and agendas. For the Hon. Minister to dismiss a well accepted concept in biology as being “scientifically wrong” and to call for it not be taught the way it has been, is scary, especially as he is apparently refusing to accept his error. Evolution today, what tomorrow: quantum physics and molecular genetics, about which also, presumably, our ancestors said or wrote nothing!

 

Amitabh Joshi is a Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bengaluru, and a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Bengaluru), the National Academy of Sciences, India (Allahabad) and the Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi). He is also a J. C. Bose National Fellow, and recipient of the Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award (Biological Sciences: 2009) and the Lakshmipat Singhania National Leadership Award (Young Leader, Science & Technology: 2010). He has been studying, researching and teaching evolutionary biology for the last 30 years.

 

Read this article in Hindi

Read this article in Marathi

Read this article in Punjabi

Opposition To GMOs Is Neither Unscientific Nor Immoral

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Source: Maxpixel. License: CC0.

 

Is the engineering of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a dangerous technology posing grave risks to human and ecological health? Or are GMOs a potent new tool in the onward march of modern agricultural technology in its race to feed the world?

 

In a recent opinion piece – Avoiding GMOs Isn’t Just Anti-science, It’s Immoral – Purdue University president Mitch Daniels offers an impassioned plea that we embrace GMOs in agriculture. Daniels’ argument runs as follows: The health and ecological safety of GMOs is unquestionable “settled science.” Therefore, it is immoral to deny developing countries the agricultural technology they need to boost food production and feed their growing populations. It seems an open-and-shut case: the self-indulgent anti-GMO fad among rich consumers threatens the less fortunate with starvation. As Daniels says, it is immoral for them to “inflict their superstitions on the poor and hungry”.

 

But let’s look at some of the assumptions that this argument takes for granted: (1) That GMOs are indeed safe, and (2) that GMOs and industrial agriculture in general allow higher yields than more traditional forms of agriculture.

 

The ecological and health safety of GMOs is more controversial scientifically than Daniels’ piece asserts. The problem is that it is hard to know which science – and which scientists – to trust. In the United States, most university agronomy departments receive massive funding from agritech companies who, according to Scientific American, “have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Since GMOs are proprietary, those companies can and do restrict who can perform research on their products. When a study does document harm, it and its authors are subjected to intense scrutiny, career-ending attacks, and even lawsuits. Imagine yourself as a graduate student at, say, Purdue University. How welcome do you think a research proposal on the health hazards of GMOs would be?

 

Nonetheless, there is a large and growing body of research that casts serious doubt on GMO safety, mostly published in Europe and Russia where support for GMOs is weaker. For a methodical and comprehensive overview of the topic see GMO Myths and Truths, which with hundreds of citations of peer-reviewed articles cannot be easily dismissed as “superstition.”

 

Nonetheless, it is easy to see how from Daniels’ seat, opposition to GMOs is unscientific. By and large, the scientific establishment does support GMOs. To oppose them, one must also question the impartiality and soundness of scientific institutions: universities, journals, and government agencies. Opposition to GMOs only makes sense as part of a larger social critique and critique of institutional science. If you believe that society’s main institutions are basically sound, then it is indeed irrational to oppose GMOs.

 

Similar observations apply to the second assumption, that only high-tech agriculture can feed the world. Again, opposition makes sense only by questioning larger systems.

 

Certainly, if you compare one monocropped field of GMO corn or soybeans to another field of non-GMO corn or soybeans, keeping all other variables constant, the first will outyield the second. But what happens if you compare not just one field to another, but a whole system of agriculture to another?

 

Such comparisons show that the assumption that more technology equals higher yield may not be justified. One indication is that around the world, small farms far outperform large farms in terms of yield. First observed by Nobel economist Amartya Sen in 1962, it has been confirmed by numerous studies in many countries. The best-known recent study looked at small farms in Turkey, which still has a strong base of traditional peasant agriculture. Small farms there outproduced large farms by a factor of 20, despite (or because of?) their slower adoption or non-adoption of modern methods.

 

Yet it is also true that scientific studies typically show organic crop yields to be lower than conventional yields. Here again though, we must look at what these studies take for granted. The high yields of small mixed farms are hard to measure because they typically produce multiple crops that may not find their way to commodity markets, but instead are consumed locally, sometimes outside the money economy. Moreover, traditional forms of agriculture often employ multicropping and intercropping. So while an organic corn field will underperform a GMO corn field, what about the total yield of a corn field that also grows beans and squash, and is patrolled by free ranging chickens who eat the bugs? What about when insect-damaged fruit or vegetable seconds feed pigs or other livestock?

 

Optimal results come from long, even multi-generational, experience applied in intimate relationship to each farm. Comparisons of organic and conventional agriculture often use organic farms recently converted from conventional practices; rarely do they consider the most highly evolved farms where soil, knowledge, and practices have been rebuilt over decades.

 

Another overlooked factor is that organic agricultural methods are also constantly improving. Newer forms of organic no-till horticulture can actually match and even outperform conventional methods. One of the best known innovators, Brown’s Ranch of North Dakota, uses a complex mix of cover crops and multilayered intercropping to maximize sunlight utilization and establish synergies among various plants. Such practices are highly specific to local soil conditions and microclimate, making them difficult to standardize and therefore difficult to scientifically study. Science depends on the control of variables. If you want to study the efficacy of a certain practice, it must be applied uniformly to several test plots and compared to several control plots. But organic agriculture at its best would never treat two plots of land exactly the same.

 

For organic agriculture to work, the factory model of standardized parts and procedures must give way to a relational model that recognizes the uniqueness of every piece of earth. So-called “organic” practices that use the factory model are simply an inferior version of conventional agriculture.

 

Taking that model for granted, Daniels is right. We do need an endless succession of new chemicals and GMOs to compensate for the consequences of mechanized chemical agriculture, which include depletion of the soil, herbicide-resistant weeds, and pesticide-resistant insects. To keep the current system working, we need to intensify its practices.

 

The alternative is to transition to a truly organic system of agriculture. That is no small undertaking. For one thing, it would require far more people devoted to growing food, because high-yield organic practices are often highly labor-intensive. (On the bright side, labor on small, diversified farms need not involve heavy, routine drudgery, as is the case on large industrial-style farms.) Today, thanks to extreme mechanization, about one or two percent of the population in developed countries works in the agricultural sector. That number might need to increase to ten percent – about the proportion of farmers in the US in the 1950s. It would also require a lot more food to be grown in gardens. In World War Two, “Victory Gardens” in the United States provided some 40% of all produce consumed; in Russia to this day, small dachas produce 80% of its fruit, two-thirds of its vegetables, and nearly half its milk.

 

Gardening on this scale does not fit easily into existing consumerist lifestyles and mindsets. If we take for granted the framing of food security as “stocking the supermarket shelves” then again, there is little alternative to the current system.

 

If we take for granted disengagement from land, soil, and place, then there is little alternative to the current system.

 

If we take for granted continued rural depopulation in the less-developed world, then there is little alternative to the current system.

 

In other words, if we take for granted large-scale, industrialized agriculture growing commodity crops, then absolutely it helps to use the full complement of agricultural technology, such as GMOs, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, and so on.

 

Establishment science by and large takes these things for granted. Sentiments like Daniels’ are the sincere, exasperated protests of highly intelligent people doing their best to make the system work, according to their understanding of the world.

 

A different vision of the future is emerging however, one that takes none of the above for granted. It is a future where food production is re-localized, where many more people have their hands in the soil; where farming is no longer seen as a lowly profession, and where agriculture seeks to regenerate the land and become an extension of ecology, not an exception to ecology. The pro-and anti-GMO positions will remain irreconcilably polarized as long as these larger questions remain unexamined. What is at stake here is much more than a choice about GMOs. It is a choice between two very different systems of food production, two visions of society, and two fundamentally different ways to relate to plants, animals, and soil.

 

Charles Eisenstein is the author of The More Beautiful World our Hearts Know is Possible.

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post. Published here with the author’s and the portal’s permission.

The Development Agenda and the Progress of Science and Technology in India

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Institutions such as IISc, IITs or IISERs are some of the most eminent institutions in India and are currently headed by very eminent and distinguished academicians, scientists and able administrators. The conduct of Science and Technology (S&T) in the country is directly and indirectly influenced by the conduct, the methods, the topics of research and the notions of rigour and soundness that these institutions practice[1,2].

 

The shadow under the lamp

Yet all is not well in Indian S&T.  The JEE, GATE and other competitive exams now define the teaching of Science at the school level and the meaning of engineering in this country. However, the students selected by such a process have undergone extensive and expensive coaching and have little interest in working in core sectors with Indian companies or agencies. This has seriously hampered our research and the fulfillment of our mandate. Sadly, we have conducted very little research on these exams, their curricula and their formats, the demographics and their overall impact on society.

 

We also see a dropping quality of PhD applicants, a narrow focus on academic research with little relevance, an over-supply of post-graduates and few openings other than in academics. We also see the newly started IITs and IISERs groping for definition and fighting for the same pool of central funding. The so-called placement problem is acute for these new institutions, esp. the IISERs where there are few pathways for gainful employment for students who do not want to pursue a Ph.D. In fact, the defining feature of Indian elite S&T is the absorption of a small fraction of our graduates into global science or the global economy. The harm done by this is evident across all sectors of the Indian economy [3].

 

Then, there is a great disconnect between the state universities and the centrally funded institutions. This has a serious bearing on our post-graduate programs and on the general employability of the college graduate. Moreover, our inability or unwillingness to find regional institutions as partners has severely limited our ability to undertake research in many key areas, e.g., groundwater or sustainable technologies for small enterprises.

 

The development deficit and its connect with S&T

On the other hand, we also have the development agenda of sadak, bijli, paani, and other material needs of a young and impatient population. We see age-old practices of delivery based on outdated knowledge and a governance which is failing. We also have small, household and rural enterprises, who are our largest employers, struggling in the market place.

 

An important cause is the absence of the above agenda in our curricula, our research agenda and our modes of engagement. We have not recognized these sectors as essentially engineering and scientific services, but which require an inter-disciplinary and field-oriented methodology within a regional context.  We have also failed to formalize these sectors so as to bring out the key processes and problems, ways of measurements, agents and their protocols, in other words, opening them up for analysis and ultimately improving outcomes. If we had done this, perhaps today we would have the necessary empirics to have innovated on new gadgets and processes, and created new job definitions and professions, which bring efficiency and deliver value and actually pay for themselves. Examples of such positions are District Drinking Water Analyst, or District Public Transport Manager, or Cooking Energy Auditor, the City Economist, or even the Scientific Advisor to the District Collector!

 

I must add that engagement with the development agenda has always been part of the research and training within universities in the West. It was only in 1958 that MIT dismantled the Department of Sanitation Engineering. Or see, for example, the Transportation Center at the University of Toronto or the inter-disciplinary Twente Water Center. Today, various top universities are redefining engineering education, e.g., “Engineering+X” at University of Southern California, Development Engineering at UC Berkeley or the Tata Center at MIT. There is a new focus on engagement, i.e., identifying key stakeholders and establishing direct dialogue with them. Even in colonial times, the Thomson Institute (now IIT Rourkee) was to supply knowledge and engagement to what the colonial administration perceived as its development agenda. It is after independence that we have (i) failed to incorporate the study of basic engineering needs of the common people, and (ii) failed to remain engaged with the state’s programs and processes.

 

A Proposal

My proposal is to initiate the formalization of the development agenda and reclaim it as an area of interest for our broader science and technology establishment. It is to assert that these areas are indeed amenable to scientific rigour, soundness and rational argument in broader society.

 

This is to be achieved by our network of centrally funded institutions adopting certain key measures. Perhaps, we can begin with the IITs, IISc and the IISERs. The key steps are:

 

(i) Each department is to identify 2-3 development sectors for deeper engagement and study. For example, Civil Engg. at IIT Bombay may choose Low-Cost Housing, Mechanical Engg. at IIT Mandi may choose pedestrian bridges for the hills and Chemistry at IISER-Pune may choose regional water quality assessment and analysis.

 

(ii) In these areas, the departments will develop expertise through field-work, inter-disciplinary training, student-based projects and case-studies and engagement with local and regional agencies. This will be supported by laboratories and testing facilities, technical and coordination staff and faculty leadership. This should eventually lead to key reports and publications which contribute to better practices in the sector.

 

(iii) Upon maturing, these development sectors should lead to elective courses and course material. These should be extended to regional colleges. This will enable them to participate and contribute into this broader and more effective Science and Technology. [4]

 

(iv) The collection of institutions will together evolve common frameworks for coordination, liaison and accounting, leadership, academic and institutional mechanisms of working in inter-disciplinary areas. They will also evolve a common reporting framework such as a new journal or a dedicated stream in Current Science providing an outlet for both national institutions and regional colleges to report progress.

 

We may also design a common funding scheme, say from DST, faculty incentives and possibly chair positions to give prestige to the program. A more detailed proposal is available herewith [5].

 

And its possible impact

In my opinion, such a program will be widely appreciated both outside and inside higher education, in political, social and intellectual circles and also by our alumni.  It will be seen as a positive step to broaden and deepen science and technology and strengthen our role in it, and also to provide jobs in the form of new professions. It will also be welcomed by regional institutions for they will see a role for themselves and an outlet for their creative energies. The vehicle of case-studies will allow them to engage with their immediate community and train their students in both social comprehension and scientific temper [6]. Finally, if the IIT Council or IISER Council were to make such a proposal to DST, they would most likely welcome it with open arms.

 

Perhaps, this may even go upstream and redefine school-level science as broad enough to incorporate the immediate environment such as bus routes and time-tables, as worthy of study, documentation and analysis. This will cause a deepening of scientific temper which will help our common people negotiate for themselves a better deal in the market and in society. Finally, it will show that Science has a method and outcomes not only limited to passing entrance exams or publishing papers.

 

I think the IISc, IITs and IISERs are well poised for a leadership role in this exciting and challenging mission. Firstly, their own leadership in Indian Science and Engineering will enable the mission to create the institutional space required for others to follow. Moreover, in the form of entities such as CTARA and ASTRA, they have the experience and the intellectual capacity to design this mission and to take it to conclusion.

 

Finally, I must add that the massive dissatisfaction over development outcomes will eventually force us to adopt at least some part of the development agenda. It is better that we do this on our own terms and preserve our autonomy and our notion of rigour.

 

I will end with a quote from the concluding paragraph of the mission statement of The March For Science movement:  https://www.marchforscience.com/mission/  (accessed on 16th July, 2017).

 

“The best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways. There has too long been a divide between the scientific community and the public. We encourage scientists to reach out to their communities, sharing their research and its impact on people’s everyday lives. We encourage them, in turn, to listen to communities and consider their research and future plans from the perspective of the people they serve. We must take science out of the labs and journals and share it with the world.”

 

The world of Science too is groping for ideas and mechanisms to re-engage with the community and re-establish its credentials as a pillar of freedom, prosperity and sustainability. In fact, this is the new frontier that Science must cross. And it would only be befitting that an innovative response should come from the largest democracy of this world.

 

Notes

[1] An older version of this letter was sent on 15th April, 2017 to Prof. Khakhar and Prof. Anurag Kumar as a personal communication. The reply of Prof. Anurag Kumar informing the author on the activities of IISc on the development agenda is gratefully acknowledged.

[2] Some of these arguments have appeared in an Op-ed article in the Indian Express on 5th August, 2017.

[3] The AICTE Review: An opportunity for engineering education reform. Milind Sohoni. In  CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 2, 25 JANUARY 2016, pp159-156.

[4] This approach has been implemented at CTARA. See for example our course on water and development and the case-studies there. (http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/TD603)

[5] The Regional Knowledge and Practice.  Milind Sohoni. Manuscript, https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/RE.pdf

[6] See Scientific temper and education: a framework for discussion Natarajan Panchapakesan, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 113, NO. 9, 10 NOVEMBER 2017 pp 1655-56, and also an Op-ed by this author in Indian Express on 22nd December, 2017.

 

Milind Sohoni is a Professor of Computer Science at IIT-Bombay and is also deeply interested in development theories, especially in the areas of education and drinking water.

Update: This piece was slightly edited on 12-Jan-2018 to incorporate the section headings.