| Directions
of Science in 21st Century:
Indian and French Perspectives
In
his opening address, Prof. M.G.K Menon pointed to the impossibility of predicting
the progress of science over a period of a century. When we talk of direction
of science in the 21st century, he said, essentially it is a very long
time period. “I don’t think anybody could have predicted at any time in the past
where science is going to go. If we asked ourselves where we are today, could
we have envisaged this 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago?” He said
few could have predicted all that has happened in the life sciences and in the
area of Information Technology, for example. It is very clear that most of it
has been unexpected. “So the first point is,” Prof. Menon emphasised, “we can’t
really make any prediction concerning science and how it will go.”
Prof.
Menon also spoke about the need for a congenial environment for science to flourish.
He quoted from the French Nobel laureate Jacques Monod, who had said about his
experience at Caltech, “This was a revelation to me, a revelation of what a group
of scientists could be like when engaged in creative activity and sharing in constant
exchange of ideas, bold speculations, and strong criticisms. All of them are
important.”
The other aspect, which is not very clear to most people,
Prof. Menon said, is the fact that when you look at society and you ask what is
it that motivates and drives society, you find there are occasions when there
is a great ferment in society, a tremendous surge of enthusiasm. There has to
be societal backing for science to flower, and this is what created the renaissance
in Europe, which created modern science.
But we must also recognise
that once science gets going, it has a momentum of its own. It leads to technology
and technology in turn leads to science. There is a symbiotic and synergistic
relationship between the two. Science enables technology and technology enables
science. And hand in hand, they move ahead almost like an avalanche, faster and
faster, with greater momentum. That’s what we are witnessing today. So, it is
very difficult to talk of the directions of science in the 21st century.
We can only talk of the underpinning elements.
Speaking about the progress
of science in India after independence, Prof. Menon referred to the Scientific
Policy Resolution, adopted by Parliament in 1958, which stated “It is inherent
obligation of a great country like India, with its tradition of scholarship and
traditional thinking and its great cultural heritage, to participate fully in
the march of science, which is probably mankind’s greatest enterprise today.”
Such a bold statement about science coming from a newly independent developing
country was indeed incredible.
The Scientific Policy Resolution was
followed in 1983 by the Technology Policy Statement, which primarily dealt with
self-reliance, and with a whole series of important, fundamental issues, such
as employment, energy, and efficiency and these are some of the dominating features
of that guide us today. This year, a new document called the Science and Technology
Policy 2003 was released to provide crucial direction to science in India in the
changed global scenario.
Prof. Menon lamented the fact that only a miniscule
fraction of our genetic potential is involved in the scientific enterprise in
the country. He believed education must be the key element for scientific development
in India and it was also essential to bring in the large number of women, who
are at present totally outside the scientific enterprise, within the fold.
Referring to the French educational system, which has an underpinning of
mathematics, Prof. Menon said the Indian education system is not underpinned by
the mathematical strength of the country. He said, “I wish we would learn from
France. We must revitalise our educational institutions because they are in fact
the wellsprings of all future scientific developments in our country.”
Speaking about India’s strength in IT in the area of software, Prof. Menon lamented
the fact that most of it is for performing software tasks for which we are paid.
But we are yet to show our skill in creating wholly new aspects, underpinned by
mathematics of new algorithms, of products and applications. That is what we
have to do. In contrast, a large part of our effort in biotechnology has been
related to the Indian condition, in sense of immunodiagnostics, immunoprophylaxis,
applications in agriculture, new drug development, and the like. We have to ensure
that a lot of research in other areas is underpinned by relevance to the country
and applications within the country.
Prof. Menon spoke about the role
of scientists in drawing attention of the world community towards global problems
like global warming and ozone depletion. It is only scientists working in the
field for years, patiently monitoring the levels of atmospheric gases, who bring
such threats to the notice of the human society, which enable preventive action.
The biodiversity convention also came from scientists; it was not something that
the governments dealt with. A large part of Agenda 21 adopted in Rio in 1992
dealt with science for sustainable development. But unfortunately, scientists
have not done enough in regard to what is required as science for sustainable
development. The use of renewable energies, the use of new transportation systems
– a whole range of issues can be brought up.
Prof. Menon said, for
India there is another important issue – science for the poor. Employment is
going to be one of the key issues that are going to come up. How do we provide
energy necessary for development? How do we bootstrap efficiency into the functioning
of this huge population? He said, the way forward is to foster a sense of personal
environmental responsibility and commitment towards sustainable development.
One was to pursue this transformation is to begin to explore the spiritual dimension
of human existence in a civilised and harmonious manner. Spirituality as not
espoused by the religious bigots who dominate the political landscape in many
parts of the world, but spirituality that deals with human consciousness of oneness,
which is what modern life sciences teaches us. India has a great deal to offer
in this regard, because for us in India, the concept of living in harmony with
nature has been an intrinsic part of the psyche, the culture, the ethics and religions
of our people. This brings us to what is called an ethical dimension in science,
and that is coming to the fore. There are many bodies that are concerned with
it; they include ICSU and UNESCO. But it’s important for us to realise that
it is a question of equity and social justice that underpins the ethical aspects,
not the short-term gains of vested interests. And therefore what is happening
today – knowledge as a commodity to be bartered, to be bought and sold. That
is not what Einstein did; that’s not what Louis Pasteur did. Prof. Menon said
these are aspects that need to be kept in mind when talking about the directions
of science in the 21st century.
In her presentation, Prof.
Marie-Lise Chanin referred to the problem of climate change and said if the population
is convinced that there is an issue they could pressurise the government to act.
But it is a difficult issue. The Kyoto protocol, for example, has been ratified
by several nations but not by the nation that puts the most CO2 into
the atmosphere. This is a very good example of a very difficult situation where
education should have played a better role and should now start to play a better
role because most people don’t understand what is the content of the whole issue.
But climate change is only one of the many issues that include sustainable development
– which is a wider one. In the case of ozone depletion, however, global action
was initiated and the results have been encouraging. This success had a lot to
do with the scientists and society who really worked together to solve the problem.
There are three reasons why the climate change problem did not
work out as well as the ozone problem. First, the scientific understanding of
the consequence of increase of greenhouse gases is still incomplete because the
consequences are very complex and there are uncertainties as well. There is a
limit to the scientific understanding and the modelling techniques used. Secondly,
the uncertainties in the forecasts of climate change are not only due to lack
of overall scientific understanding, but are so due to the socio-economic scenarios,
such as evolution of demography, evolution of economic growth. One of the very
difficult variables in this would be on the kind of energies that majority of
the people are going to use. The third reason why it could not be solved as easily
is that it is affecting the whole world, the whole economy. It is affecting our
industries, the choice of our way of life, and the world economy. So this is
obviously a much more complex problem.
Therefore the main difficulty
that policy makers are going to face is the cost, which is going to be enormous.
And to convince the governments is going to be a difficult thing. Prof. Chanin
believed the society is badly informed and that there is a lot of scope for the
scientists to act. The dialogue between scientists and society and between scientists
and the policy makers on this issue is going on and may lead to some important
decisions in the near future. We have to hope for the best, she said.
| |
| | | |
