Seminars
| Seminar
on Directions of Science in 21st Century: Indian and French Perspectives: |
A
one-day seminar on Directions of Science in the 21st Century: Indian and French
Perspectives was organized on February 17, 2003 by the Indian National Science
Academy in collaboration with the French Academy of Sciences and the French Embassy.
G
Mehta |
The
tone of the seminar was set by Professor Goverdhan Mehta, Past President, INSA.
In his introductory remarks, he recollected the long tradition of cooperation
in science and technology between India and France, besides interaction in areas
of culture and other societal interests. He said INSA and the French Academy of
Sciences had a very laudable record of cooperation spanning nearly three decades.
There are concerns about issues related to resources, consumptions, equity,
gender, environment, energy and many others, which can be broadly covered under
the umbrella of sustainability, or sustainable development. This concern for bridging
the gap between science, society, culture, and between science and other knowledge
streams of social sciences and humanities is something that has come to be recognized
mainly in the past two decades.;
|
The
Ambassador of France in India, HE Dominique Girard described the apparent contradiction
between the benefits and risks of the accelerating development of science during
the last decades that has led to an unprecedented technology, which he said, can
be admired as well as it can be feared. On the one hand, he said, the discovery
of powerful medications such as antibiotics and anticancer drugs, or the arrival
of new techniques to increase crop production and quality, have undoubtedly improved
human condition. On the other hand, the technology that has been developed to
this effect has also led to the possibility of taking complete control of life,
and the dangers associated with human cloning, for example.
MGK
Menon |
Professor
MGK Menon pointed to the impossibility of predicting the progress of science over
a period of a century. Nobody could have predicted some of the developments we
see today 10, 20, 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.
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 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 revitalize our educational institutions because they are in fact the wellsprings
of all future scientific developments in our country.”
In
her presentation, Prof Marie-Lise Chanin referred to the problems of climate change
and said if the population is convinced that there is an issue they could pressurize
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 maximum
CO2 into the atmosphere.
|
Marie-Lise
Chanin |
Sunita
Narain |
Dr
Sunita Narain, Director of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment,
in her presentation said that the main challenge before Indian science today was
the tendency to look for big challenges, forgetting the little details that make
up life. It is actually becoming a challenge in the face of development today,
which is leading to a growing toxification of the environment – pollution
of water and rivers, air pollution, very high health costs – something that
is not understood, not anticipated, certainly not built into policy systems. At
the same time there is growing poverty, cycles of drought, decreasing productivity
of our lands, which means we are really facing a double crisis. She said there
is need for new approaches to look at these issues of
|
daily
life. She said, there is need for an ethical component in science, not just in
terms of ethics of science, but really ethics in terms of why and for whom this
science and what kind of impact it is going to make. Technologies need to be based
on two yardsticks: of equity and of sustainability. The modern world system fails
on both counts, she added.
Prof Alain Aspect underscored the importance
of the social perception of science. He defined science as knowledge and technology
as science in action. He said, while society has the right to decide on technical
options, it did not necessarily have the right to intrude into arena of pure and
basic sciences. Thus while society can mould technological options, it has no
say in the direction basic science will take.
Prof Sharad Lele brought
in a new dimension to the subject by proposing a new classification of science
by abandoning the old categorization. He said rather than categorizing science
as “pure” and “applied” we should categorize science as “enjoyment
science” and “socially relevant science.” He said there should
be no public funding and no accountability for enjoyment science, but socially
relevant science should be publicly funded and must be accountable.
Professor
J F Sabouret in his presentation emphasized the need for better interaction between
scientists and common citizens. Prof Sabouret said citizens want to see the impact
of science in their daily life. But they cannot appreciate the impact if they
cannot understand the issues involved. That is why it is essential to ensure an
effective communication channel between scientists and the common citizen specially
young generation.
Jean
Marc Deshouillers |
Professor
Jean Marc Deshouillers in his presentation highlighted the increasing need for
mathematics, coming from the recent spurt in computation models. Making mathematical
models is today an essential part of scientific research, especially where statistical
data is involved, as in climate change modeling, he said. |
Professor
PN Tandon said, the consciousness on the part of the scientists of the need to
interact with social scientists has never been greater than it is today. Some
issues that have come out unequivocally is that there has to be science, not working
in isolation but science in all its dimensions – whether it is people’s
science or quantum science is not important. Those who practice science must practice
to exce-llence; must think of its relevance in an ethical background. Therefore
the second thing that comes is ethics, and in this context human rights and human
dignity should be the most important concern of any activity of human being, whether
it is science or social science. And that often is overlooked, which brings in
the question of survival and equity.
|
PN
Tondon |
Among
others who took part in the discussions were Aloka Parashar Sen, Dr Deli Abuja,
Professor Alain Aspect, Professor Marie-Lies Chain, and Dr S Varadarajan. Summing
up the proceedings, Professor R Gadagkar said we learnt today that it is not just
money; it is not just resource, but it is respect, and we must learn to respect
different kinds of creative activity. |
|
