The Hindu Business Line : For whom is the research anyway?

On one side there is an imposing network of laboratories and research establishments with panoply of academic achievement and recognition. On the other, mass suicides of farmers are happening that signals gross system failure of which the grand empire of agricultural institutions cannot be entirely innocent. This is the bane of research in the socialist world where there was no incentive to be inventive.

THE British Empire, it is said, was won on the football grounds of Cambridge and Oxford. The Soviet Empire, it can be said, was lost in its research institutes. The US research, both in physical and social sciences, has been, for over a century, more innovative, paradigm shifting, relevant to the felt needs, and capable of direct field application.

Nothing succeeds like excess. Whether one measures in terms of number of persons engaged in or the quantum of investment, the OECD countries are far ahead of others in the field of research. In absolute terms, these inputs are not so relevant as their quantum relative to the population the research activity serves, the gross product of the sector the research caters to, the gross domestic product of the nation or the capital investment in research per scientific personnel engaged.

The OECD countries, particularly the former Imperial Powers, have enjoyed some inherent advantages. They were perpetually engaged in hostilities in regions of diverse climates and topographies against adversaries who deployed a wide range of armaments and means of navigation on land and water.

The plunder of the conquered territories and the colonies provided the resources required for research and the warfare provided both the justification and possibilities of immediate application. Wars are, as a general rule, bad for the humanity at large; but the periods of warfare have been historically the most fecund for advancement of science and technology. The Second World War brought forth technologies relating to radar, antibiotics and aviation. In peace times, the spin-off of such projects as the `Man on the Moon' have opened up whole new areas including medical engineering that has revolutionised diagnostics.

Wars and peacetime giant projects that involve national pride have always been conducive to scientific innovation.

Economic development, poverty eradication and similar peacetime humanitarian endeavours, on the other hand, have produced very little paradigm-shifting innovative research.

Imperial powers had another advantage. Empires not only provided physical resources but also mobilised the cream of brainpower from the diverse regions of colonies to the metropolitan countries rich in research infrastructure.

Far more important than the advantages of the empire were the innate benefits of private enterprise and the systems of patents and rewards and the spirit of inquiry they engendered and nursed. Industry produced ever-higher incomes and lifestyles, and scientific innovation progressed more than commensurately.

Innovation not only helped meet the increasing needs but often created new ones that in their own turn created newer ones and so on. The virtuous cycle of innovation and needs rolled on to produce an era where technology became the prime mover of improving the lot of the masses and improving their standards of living.

This did not repeat itself in the socialist half of the world. The research activity there was handed over to giant state institutions that employed a whole army of duly qualified scientists and technicians that produced lots of papers but little substantive and worthwhile innovation.

Salaried scientist who is not protected by adequate systems of rewards and patents and promotions has no incentive to be inventive. Occasionally, diktats would come from above commanding a time bound land-mass-shifting for formation of barrages in rivers or sputniks that spurted socialist pride and awe the world.

Advancement in the nuclear, aviation and armament sciences would come more through espionage and plagiarism than through genuine innovation. Equally likely, a Stalin's crazy whim would catapult a dubious geneticist like Lysenko to world notoriety or send a geniuseconomist to death.

In India, the advent of independence and the ushering in of the socialist era witnessed the creation a large number of national, regional and specialised laboratories and research institutions to form an impressive network.

If the planners neglected agriculture as a sector, the research network that has been developed has been very impressive.

Each of these institutions has been bestowed with vast land for fieldwork and palatial buildings fully equipped to meet all needs of creature and intellectual comfort. They all employ munificently salaried technical personnel and armies of babus.

Their review and appraisal systems are well designed. Each of these institutions has produced an impressive array of reports. Their scientists have produced papers and articles that appear in learned journals of the field. Innumerable doctorates have been won as also a plethora of plaudits, fellowships, awards, visiting professorships and honours.

Their work alas shows great aptitude for areas of interest for European and American agriculture. There is precious little work on subjects of vital interest to drought prone regions such as monsoon prediction, development of drought-resistant traits in Indian varieties, replenishment of groundwater and, most important, the viability of farming as an economic activity.

The neglect of this last aspect of the agricultural problem has led to wrong state policies, heavy indebtedness of the peasantry and mass suicides.

We have, on one side, an imposing panoply of doctoral works, honours, prizes and other forms of academic recognition. On the other, there are mass suicides of farmers that signals gross system failure of which the grand empire of agricultural institutions cannot be entirely innocent.

Some years back I visited a grand and reputed institute celebrated for its work in food technology. It had been active by then for more than a quarter century in half a dozen palatial buildings donated by a princely family surrounded by acres of sprawling lush green lawns.

The scientists there were keen on an interaction with me. At the end of the discussion, I asked the gathering a rather naive question: What do you consider has been the most outstanding invention of the institution? The unanimous view was: A process for making baby-food from buffalo milk instead of from the cow milk, as is done the world over. I was taken aback. But this is something every mother has known and has been practising for centuries. Why did it take all this paraphernalia a quarter century to discover it, I wondered.

(The author, a Rajya Sabha member, is Founder, Shetkari Sanghatana. He can be contacted at sharad@mah.nic.in.)

More Stories on : Research & Development | Down to Earth | Economy

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
For whom is the research anyway?

Ig-Nobel record

Gimmicks for foreign funds

Why dharmanomics must reign

Soul-searching needed on Bank impact

PSBs must cash in on product innovation

Thought @ the speed of government

Poverty trap

`Phishers'