Not so Nobel record

Kailash Satyarthi has done the country proud by bagging a Nobel Prize for his untiring crusade against child labour. But that still leaves a nagging question: Why does India, with its army of engineers and doctors, bag so few science Nobels? Unlike the Nobel awards for literature and peace, excellence in science (and economics, for that matter) is linked to a country’s quality of education. Venkataraman Ramakrishnan, who bagged the Chemistry Nobel in 2009, was only the fourth scientist of Indian origin after CV Raman, Hargobind Khurana and S Chandrashekhar to be awarded the Prize in about 80 years. That tells a story. We have killed the basic sciences in our pursuit of applied science courses, only to be left with many mediocre engineers who would prefer being marketing managers. The only hope for science education lies in reversing this bias against basic science. The opening of five Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISER) since 2006 is welcome, but more are needed. Besides, the entrance exam for the IISERs is the same as that for the IITs (the IIT-JEE), reinforcing the prevailing bias in favour of ‘technology’ courses. After the top few make it to the IITs, the rest qualify for the IISERs. These institutes, however, confront a major problem: the wall between science teaching and research, even as each needs the other to survive.

Unwilling to take on cussed university bureaucracies, the government created separate research institutes such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, National Physical Laboratory and National Chemical Laboratory while leaving teaching to the universities. Today, both university science departments and research establishments are in bad shape. It is worth considering whether some of these research bodies have outlived their utility. They have created a science bureaucracy that frustrates talent. Foreign and domestic private players should be permitted to set up IISER-like institutes. The same holds true for opening pure science colleges as part of universities. Science teaching should be thrown open to foreign faculty. This will challenge the lethargy and power of vested interests in academia, creating an enabling atmosphere for researchers and teachers, who may otherwise explore options in the US and Europe.

Institutions such as IISER should be located in a university ambience, which offers courses in social sciences and the humanities. That our universities are unable to offer a flexible combination of subjects, as in the US, suggests that they need to be exposed to competition. Creativity and insight flows from a holistic and dynamic approach to learning. But for these changes to occur, a change in social attitudes is called for. The government should popularise careers in science teaching and research, blunting the craze for engineering courses. We need better teachers to produce top scientists – like Ramakrishnan’s professors at Baroda University. Also, universities that offer both physical infrastructure and a creative ambience that can make for that ‘Eureka’ moment.

COMMENT NOW